nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Average V Median wage Ireland?

Benedict

I keep seeing from Govt. figures that the "average" wage in 2020 was approx Euro 49,500 pa. and the average hourly rate is E24.50.

To my mind this is nonsense - just look up "Jobs.ie" and you will see that even 40k pa means you have to have lots of experience & qualification.

The MEDIAN wage is the one to look at - but I can't find it. Does anyone have stats on what is the median wage in Ireland (2020)?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Benedict

Lumen wrote: »

DYOR. This is a discussion forum, not Quora.

With respect, I just asked the question do you know what the median ftw wage is? (I don't know what DYOR means!)

PintOfView

Benedict wrote: »

Thank you - but with respect, do you know what the median wage for a ftw is? And would you agree that if it is possible to calculate the average ftw wage, then there is sufficient data to calculate the median wage?

Someone suggested way back that the CSO gets the total wage bill from businesses, plus their number of employees, but don't get a breakdown per employee.

If that is the case then the CSO would have sufficient data to calculate the mean, or average, wage (total paid to all ftw's in the country / total number of ftw's in the country).

However there wouldn't be enough data to calculate the median wage, for which you would have to sort every ftw in the country from lowest wage to highest, and then take the middle one!

So the question is, do the CSO have the annual wages paid to every ftw in the country, or just the total wage bill + number of employees?

If this question is not answerable from information online, could you not just ask the CSO directly?

Damien360

Benedict wrote: »

With respect, I just asked the question do you know what the median ftw wage is? (I don't know what DYOR means!)

It means Do Your Own Research.

[Deleted User]

From what I've seen the average wage right now is about €47,000 for a full time worker, median is roughly 20-25% less, so median wage for a full time worker is roughly €36,000 to €38,000.

I get this from reports I've read from Ireland and other countries in the EU and America. I haven't exact proof of this

I don't care what the actual number is but it's nice to have a general idea.

People on boards probably earn more than this in general and this skews their perspective. A lot of people in this country are only barely managing month to month.

Benedict

Deleted User wrote: »

From what I've seen the average wage right now is about €47,000 for a full time worker, median is roughly 20-25% less, so median wage for a full time worker is roughly €36,000 to €38,000.

I get this from reports I've read from Ireland and other countries in the EU and America. I haven't exact proof of this I don't care what the actual number is but it's nice to have a general idea.

People on boards probably earn more than this in general and this skews their perspective. A lot of people in this country are only barely managing month to month.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree. I've quoted 2 economists on this thread and they would tend to concur - one reckoned about 64% of ftw were earning less than the touted 49k - the other said circa 25% under 49k might be accurate.

It's so unfair for those in government to be pretending that 49k is the norm. I saw an ad recently for jobs to staff a new restaurant. There was everything from the kitchen porter right up through the different grades of chef and the only job above what Leo said "average people" were earning was the executive chef. (He was offered e20 pw above "average person")

It's so insulting to those who are earning typical wages for full time hours.

[Deleted User]

Benedict wrote: »

..............

It's so unfair for those in government to be pretending that 49k is the norm. .............

Iirc they said it was the average?

If..

Benedict wrote: »

the other said circa 25% under 49k might be accurate.

...... that's true for the median........... you reckon 40k gross is doing well?

Augeo wrote: »

Statistically 40k gross is doing well?
What stat is that with respect to full time workers?

Benedict

Augeo wrote: »

Iirc they said it was the average?

If........ that's true for the median........... you reckon 40k gross is doing well?

2 questions for you - do you honestly think that when Leo looks at the camera and announces that the average full time wage is now 49k and that is what the "average person" can expect to earn - do you think he is trying to give the impression that 49k is the typical wage for a full time worker?

And can you imagine him adding "by the way, most ftw don't earn anything like 49k" (which would be the truth)?

hots

Benedict wrote: »

2 questions for you - do you honestly think that when Leo looks at the camera and announces that the average full time wage is now 49k and that is what the "average person" can expect to earn - do you think he is trying to give the impression that 49k is the typical wage for a full time worker?

And can you imagine him adding "by the way, most ftw don't earn anything like 49k" (which would be the truth)?

Would you like him to add a little junior cert maths tutorial at the start so people get the mean/median/mode lesson first?

PintOfView

Benedict wrote: »

Yes, I'm inclined to agree. I've quoted 2 economists on this thread and they would tend to concur - one reckoned about 64% of ftw were earning less than the touted 49k - the other said circa 25% under 49k might be accurate.

Benedict wrote: »

2 questions for you - do you honestly think that when Leo looks at the camera and announces that the average full time wage is now 49k and that is what the "average person" can expect to earn - do you think he is trying to give the impression that 49k is the typical wage for a full time worker?

And can you imagine him adding "by the way, most ftw don't earn anything like 49k" (which would be the truth)?

It looks like you have a valid point in thinking the median ftw is a reasonable bit less than the mean.

Asking for opinions here is all very well, and you have already gotten, earlier in the thread, estimates for the median based on what looked like good reasoning.

However opinions are still just opinions, and, as you see with the economist quotes you mention above, they can vary a good bit.

It's been suggested to you several times to contact the CSO and clarify what info they have on the subject, have you considered doing this?

Geuze

Here is another complication.

As COVID has disproportionately hit lower earners, the composition of the labour market has changed.

So mean earnings are rising a lot at the moment, as the lower earners drop out.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elcq/earningsandlabourcostsq32020finalq42020preliminaryestimates/

Mean hourly earnings are up 5.5%!!!!!, in the middle of a savage recession.

This just shows - always watch out for compositional effects!!

Benedict

Geuze wrote: »

Here is another complication.

As COVID has disproportionately hit lower earners, the composition of the labour market has changed.

So mean earnings are rising a lot at the moment, as the lower earners drop out.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elcq/earningsandlabourcostsq32020finalq42020preliminaryestimates/

Mean hourly earnings are up 5.5%!!!!!, in the middle of a savage recession.

This just shows - always watch out for compositional effects!!

It occurs to me that this could (in theory at least) actually shrink the gap between the average (or mean) and the median by shifting the median meridian upwards.

[Deleted User]

Benedict wrote: »

2 questions for you - do you honestly think that when Leo looks at the camera and announces that the average full time wage is now 49k and that is what the "average person" can expect to earn - do you think he is trying to give the impression that 49k is the typical wage for a full time worker?

And can you imagine him adding "by the way, most ftw don't earn anything like 49k" (which would be the truth)?

I can only imagine imagine he is stating fact. Average full time wage is 49k.

I've no doubt everyone (most, except a few like, cough cough you) realise loads and loads are on less. And many on less than 49k are doing better than folk earning 49k when their rent allowance etc is factored in but you won't hear Leo say that either

I'd imagine lots of folk might aspire to earning 49k when they hear it's the average, they might even do an ole springboard course or something to aid their chances.

Peregrinus

Benedict wrote: »

It occurs to me that this could (in theory at least) actually shrink the gap between the average (or mean) and the median by shifting the median meridian upwards.

Yes, you'd expect that. Disproportionately removing lower-paid workers from the dataset will tend to make the spread of earning more equal, and this tends to me mean that a greater proportion of workers will be at or close to the median (and, for that matter, the mean) than would have been the case before.

The same result would be achieved by disproportionately removing higher-paid workers from the dataset.

But of course its an anomaly resulting from the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic. It wouldn't be expected to persist.

Benedict

When we are told that the "average ftw" is 49k (or the "average person" earns 49k) the clear aim is to create the public perception that 49k is typical. It can be argued that by saying the average is 49k (whatever about the "average person") they aren't telling lies. But the idea is to create a perception that the country is doing better than it is - so "aren't we great".

In the mid-naughties, when young couples couldn't afford a starter home without getting a loan from their parents and vacant hospital beds were like hens' teeth, everybody thought they were doing great - because that's what they were told.

The FACT is that most ftw aren't earning anything like 49k.

End of story.

Cyrus

[QUOTE=Benedict;116524335But the idea is to create a perception that the country is doing better than it is - so "aren't we great".

[/QUOTE]

how so? the average is the average. It hasnt been mis reported, we are doing exactly as reported.

End of story.

Benedict

Cyrus wrote: »

how so? the average is the average. It hasnt been mis reported, we are doing exactly as reported.

End of story.

The clear impression is given that 49k is typical. Omitting the fact that most ftw don't earn anything like 49k (and I've quoted 2 economists in support of this) is a lie of omission.

If you're clever, you can use facts to tell lies.

[Deleted User]

Benedict wrote: »

The clear impression is given that 49k is typical. Omitting the fact that most ftw don't earn anything like 49k (and I've quoted 2 economists in support of this) is a lie of omission.

If you're clever, you can use facts to tell lies.

No the clear impression is that the average full time wage is exactly what it was stated to be.

If you're not clever perhaps you get a different impression

Benedict wrote: »

...............

End of story.

There's 400+ posts here, I reckon you'll keep this going.

Lumen

Regardless, national nominal averages of various types aren't particularly useful for several reasons:

- They are useless for international comparisons of quality of life due to cost of living differences
- They are useless for "how am I doing compared to my peers" comparions because they cover people at different stages of their working life
- They blur differences between different parts of the country with (in some types of job) different wage levels for the same job, unless you happen to be in a job where there is national wage bargaining

It's a bit like the meme that older people have all the financial and housing assets. Well duh, of course they do, because they've generally paid off their mortgages with the expectation of taking a massive cut in income during retirement; an actuarial assessment of their total net worth would account for the crappy net present value of their limited future cashflows compared to someone, say, in their early thirties who has established themselves in a career that will continue to pay out for another thirty years or so.

All aggregate functions are limited, we only use them because our puny minds can't reason about large data sets.

hots

Benedict wrote: »

If you're clever, you can use facts to tell lies.

I mean that's not really what's happening though.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if he was actually conflating the terms by the way, and people definitely do that "innocently" all the time which is crap. But when he's using the correct terms and numbers there's no issue.

Benedict

hots wrote: »

I mean that's not really what's happening though.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if he was actually conflating the terms by the way, and people definitely do that "innocently" all the time which is crap. But when he's using the correct terms and numbers there's no issue.

In a court of law, you're not just told to tell the truth, you're told to tell the "whole truth".

Telling the public that the average ftw is 49k without adding that most ftw are not getting anything like that amount is not telling the "whole truth".

Most people think of "average" as meaning "typical".

[Deleted User]

Benedict wrote: »

In a court of law, you're not just told to tell the truth, you're told to tell the "whole truth".

Telling the public that the average ftw is 49k without adding that most ftw are not getting anything like that amount is not telling the "whole truth".

I repeat, the "whole truth".

You expect someone to explain what average means?
lol

Lumen

Benedict wrote: »

In a court of law, you're not just told to tell the truth, you're told to tell the "whole truth".

Telling the public that the average ftw is 49k without adding that most ftw are not getting anything like that amount is not telling the "whole truth".

Most people think of "average" as meaning "typical".

He's a politician, not a CSO statistician. Politicians cherry-pick stats to suit the arguments they're making. It's the job of the opposition and media to pull them apart.

Do you inhabit some sort of imaginary world where politicians end press conferences with footnotes?

crossman47

Benedict wrote: »

In a court of law, you're not just told to tell the truth, you're told to tell the "whole truth".

Telling the public that the average ftw is 49k without adding that most ftw are not getting anything like that amount is not telling the "whole truth".

Most people think of "average" as meaning "typical".

You really think a politician has to spell out the caveats around using an average figure? If you're right, then our maths education has failed miserably.

Cyrus

Benedict wrote: »

In a court of law, you're not just told to tell the truth, you're told to tell the "whole truth".

Telling the public that the average ftw is 49k without adding that most ftw are not getting anything like that amount is not telling the "whole truth".

Most people think of "average" as meaning "typical".

whatever this crusade is, it isnt worth your while :P

Peregrinus

Benedict wrote: »

In a court of law, you're not just told to tell the truth, you're told to tell the "whole truth".

Telling the public that the average ftw is 49k without adding that most ftw are not getting anything like that amount is not telling the "whole truth".

Most people think of "average" as meaning "typical".

Mate, telling the public that the average ftw is 49k without adding that the earth orbits the sun rather than the other way around is also not telling the "whole truth"

In a court of law you may take an oath to tell the "whole truth", but in fact you don't; you just answer the questions you're asked.

And Leo wasn't in a court of law, anyway.

I get that the concept of "average" is frequently misunderstood. I'm not sure how this translates into a crusade against a single use of the word by a single politician on a single occasion. Seems to me what you should be concerned about is cultivating higher standards of numeracy in the population, so that politicians in general, not just this one, are less likely to mislead people by quoting average figures in general, not just this one.

Benedict

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mate, telling the public that the average ftw is 49k without adding that the earth orbits the sun rather than the other way around is also not telling the "whole truth"

In a court of law you may take an oath to tell the "whole truth", but in fact you don't; you just answer the questions you're asked.
one.

But in a court of law, you are required to add any relevant and important details - even if you're not asked directly. That's what the "whole truth" means. And when you give the impression that the typical ftw wage is 49k it is important to add that most ftw don't earn anything like that.

And btw - what's with the "crusade" thing? I'm just intrigued that the clear impression is being given that most ftw are earning 49k - when there's no way that's true. Those who are arguing that this impression is not given are the ones on the crusade - not me. I'm just intrigued at how easy it is to dupe the public by giving a wrong impression without telling any actual lies.

[Deleted User]

Benedict wrote: »

............ And when you give the impression that the typical ftw wage is 49k it is important to add that most ftw don't earn anything like that...........

I thought it was the average FTW was €49k?

Again we all know that most don't earn the average

That's common knowledge.

Benedict

If I owned a bar and there were 100 drinkers sitting in it who normally couldn't afford their bus-fare home. If Jeff Bezos steps in the odd time, the average customer becomes a millionaire.

If I were to advertise "Come to my bar, the average customer is a millionaire" I'd be accused of misleading the public - while in fact I would be telling no lie!

Get my drift?

Bif

Vradkar continually mentioning the “median” wage in relation to living wage proposals he was explaining on media today.

Sam Russell

Bif wrote: »

Vradkar continually mentioning the “median” wage in relation to living wage proposals he was explaining on media today.

Actually, I thought he used both 'average' and 'median'.