Average V Median wage Ireland?

hots · 08-03-2021 1:04pm

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 · 08-03-2021 2:11pm

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 · 08-03-2021 4:27pm

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 · 08-03-2021 6:31pm

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.

08-03-2021 7:35pm

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 · 09-03-2021 2:51am

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 · 09-03-2021 3:15pm

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 · 09-03-2021 5:05pm

[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 · 10-03-2021 9:51am

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.

10-03-2021 10:54am

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 · 10-03-2021 11:02am

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 · 10-03-2021 11:11am

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 · 10-03-2021 11:30am

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".

10-03-2021 11:32am

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 · 10-03-2021 11:49am

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 · 10-03-2021 11:53am

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 · 10-03-2021 11:56am

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 · 11-03-2021 2:11am

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 · 24-03-2021 11:28am

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.

24-03-2021 11:32am

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 · 24-03-2021 6:09pm

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 · 15-04-2021 2:50pm

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

Sam Russell · 15-04-2021 3:35pm

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'.

timeToLive · 15-04-2021 3:39pm

Benedict wrote: »

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?

it's a fair point

purifol0 · 15-04-2021 3:41pm

The public sector has long enjoyed 30-40% average higher earnings than the private sector. That's why the average industrial wage looks so high.

Try find average earnings for public and private sector on any dept.s website though...hint: they stopped publishing them ages ago.

"The 2020 Q1 differential between public and private sector pay was 33%"
https://isme.ie/isme-gives-a-qualified-welcome-to-the-government-decision-to-increase-public-sector-pay/

Sam Russell · 15-04-2021 3:51pm

timeToLive wrote: »

Benedict wrote: »

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?

it's a fair point

No it is not. The average wealth of those in the bar would be over a million, but the average customer is not a millionaire. The 'average customer' is not measured by wealth.

timeToLive · 15-04-2021 4:36pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

No it is not. The average wealth of those in the bar would be over a million, but the average customer is not a millionaire. The 'average customer' is not measured by wealth.

The average wealth of the customer is in the millions. Where is the lie here?

Buddy Bubs · 15-04-2021 4:42pm

Where does 65,000 sit on the scales? Top 25 to 30%?

Geuze · 15-04-2021 4:57pm

purifol0 wrote: »

The public sector has long enjoyed 30-40% average higher earnings than the private sector. That's why the average industrial wage looks so high.

Try find average earnings for public and private sector on any dept.s website though...hint: they stopped publishing them ages ago.

Mean PS earnings are still published.

The PS wage premium has fallen, due to wage cuts.

purifol0 · 15-04-2021 5:12pm

Geuze wrote: »

Mean PS earnings are still published.

The PS wage premium has fallen, due to wage cuts.

The public sector have not only enjoyed full pay over the pandemic, but also enjoyed all usual "increments", overtime and indeed several pay rises, as well as guaranteed rises for the next two years (cost to taxpayer will be an extra €0.91 Billion)

The public sector /private sector pay divide is massive.

Oh and if you could link to the average pay of the public sector and private sector that would be great!

Geuze · 15-04-2021 5:55pm

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elca/earningsandlabourcostsannualdata2019/

CSO statistical release, 26 June 2020, 11am
Earnings and Labour Costs Annual
2019

Geuze · 15-04-2021 5:59pm

purifol0 wrote: »

The public sector /private sector pay divide is massive.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/rp/rp-eappp/eappp20152018/

Results from the OLS Regression model show a public/private sector pay differential ranging from 6.8% in 2015 to -0.3% in 2018, for the model which includes size of enterprise as a determining factor. Results for the OLS model which deducts the pension levy and excludes size shows a pay differential ranging from 1.4% to -3.4%. See Table 4.1.

Summary results from the Quantile Regression model show a public/private sector pay differential in 2018 ranging from 12.7% at the 10th percentile to -17.3% at the 90th percentile for the model which deducts the pension levy and includes size of enterprise as a determining factor. See Figure 4.1 and Table 8.8. The corresponding model which makes no adjustment for the pension levy and excludes size shows a pay differential in 2018 ranging from 17.6% at the 10th percentile to -13.7% at the 90th percentile. See Table 8.4.

Would you call this a massive gap?

-0.3% to 6.8%? Is that massive?

We know that lower earning PS are paid more than their private sector counterparts, yes. The figure is a premium of 12.7% at the tenth percentile.

We also know that higher earning PS earn less than their counterparts.

The gap is -13.% below the private sector.

Geuze · 15-04-2021 6:01pm

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/rp/rp-eappp/eappp20152018/mainresults/

Key Findings (2015-2018)

The trend shows that the pay differential between the public and private sector is steadily declining in the period 2015 to 2018.

The scale of the pay differential in the public sector was higher for females than for males with the difference in pay differential between females and males in the public sector ranging from 12.9% to 17.3%.

When comparing the public and private sector over the period 2015-2018, the pay differential for male employees in the public sector ranged from a premium of 1.0% to a discount of -10.8% depending on the specification used.

The corresponding differential for females showed that female workers in the public sector had a differential ranging from 3.3% to 15.8% depending on the model applied when compared to their counterparts in the private sector.

16-04-2021 5:59pm

Geuze wrote: »

We know that lower earning PS are paid more than their private sector counterparts, yes. The figure is a premium of 12.7% at the tenth percentile.

We also know that higher earning PS earn less than their counterparts.

That's the worse of both worlds. Paying pen-pushers who won't work a minute past 7.24 hours exactly - due to be even less in the next agreement - far more than necessary. Then limiting those with leadership and managerial talent leaves the PS struggling to recruit people with the right skills at the upper end.

Charles Babbage · 17-04-2021 1:50am

salonfire wrote: »

That's the worse of both worlds. Paying pen-pushers who won't work a minute past 7.24 hours exactly - due to be even less in the next agreement - far more than necessary. Then limiting those with leadership and managerial talent leaves the PS struggling to recruit people with the right skills at the upper end.

And not only managers, the PS needs good IT people and the like and specialists do not always get the premium they would in the private sector.

Benedict · 19-04-2021 2:12pm

There are definite advantages to having a permanent p/s job. One huge perq is the guaranteed pension. Another is job tenure. But by no means all p/s workers are earning good money! Talk to a junior clerk for example.

And the highest paid job in the p/s is way lower than, for example, many presenters in the media which would be on private sector contracts or execs in financial institutions.

Benedict · 01-07-2021 8:41am

George Orwell described political language as "designed to make lies sound truthful" (Politics & the Eng. Lang. 1946). A good example is the constant blurring of the distinction between "average/mean" earnings in Ireland and "median" earnings.
During the '20 election, Leo proudly proclaimed that the "average person" earned 47k per annum.
Interesting that -not just an ordinary professional nurse but a Senior Nurse in terms of salary would not even have reached the lofty status of "average".

The terms "average" and "mean" should come with an Orwellian truth warning!

hots · 01-07-2021 9:28am

Benedict wrote: »

George Orwell described political language as "designed to make lies sound truthful" (Politics & the Eng. Lang. 1946). A good example is the constant blurring of the distinction between "average/mean" earnings in Ireland and "median" earnings.
During the '20 election, Leo proudly proclaimed that the "average person" earned 47k per annum.
Interesting that -not just an ordinary professional nurse but a Senior Nurse in terms of salary would not even have reached the lofty status of "average".

The terms "average" and "mean" should come with an Orwellian truth warning!

Or a dictionary definition perhaps :rolleyes:

Benedict · 01-07-2021 5:51pm

hots wrote: »

Or a dictionary definition perhaps :rolleyes:

Yeah okay! But what about the f/t office receptionist or a junior nurse or the countless others earning 30k or less? How do you think they must feel being told they're earning not much more than half what the "average" f/t worker is earning?

By the way, the "average person" is now supposedly earning almost 50k.

listermint · 01-07-2021 5:55pm

Benedict wrote: »

Yeah okay! But what about the f/t office receptionist or a junior nurse or the countless others earning 30k or less? How do you think they must feel being told they're earning not much more than half what the "average" f/t worker is earning?

By the way, the "average person" is now supposedly earning almost 50k.

Senior nurse not on 47k ? I call shenanigans fella.

Larbre34 · 01-07-2021 5:58pm

salonfire wrote: »

That's the worse of both worlds. Paying pen-pushers who won't work a minute past 7.24 hours exactly - due to be even less in the next agreement - far more than necessary. Then limiting those with leadership and managerial talent leaves the PS struggling to recruit people with the right skills at the upper end.

As a some-time contractor of services to various arms of the public service, I can say with all honesty that some of the most able and strategic people I've collaborated with have been in the public service. They are straight-jacketed by increasingly onerous and more time sapping legislation, in many sectors, that limits innovation and ability to be reactive.

02-07-2021 8:59am

Benedict wrote: »

Yeah okay! But what about the f/t office receptionist or a junior nurse or the countless others earning 30k or less? How do you think they must feel being told they're earning not much more than half what the "average" f/t worker is earning?

By the way, the "average person" is now supposedly earning almost 50k.

In regards to the junior nurse, you can inform them they have guaranteed increments, across-the board raises, shift allowance, possible location allowances. Just in case they did not know.

There you go. You just brightened up some nurse's day.

hots · 02-07-2021 9:12am

Benedict wrote: »

Yeah okay! But what about the f/t office receptionist or a junior nurse or the countless others earning 30k or less? How do you think they must feel being told they're earning not much more than half what the "average" f/t worker is earning?

By the way, the "average person" is now supposedly earning almost 50k.

pretty strange examples, someone starting their career being on half of the average wage doesn't sound insane? You could have used accountant, engineer or IT consultant either btw.

ELM327 · 02-07-2021 9:54am

Benedict wrote: »

Yeah okay! But what about the f/t office receptionist or a junior nurse or the countless others earning 30k or less? How do you think they must feel being told they're earning not much more than half what the "average" f/t worker is earning?

By the way, the "average person" is now supposedly earning almost 50k.

Numbers dont lie.
I'm on a lot more than that but there are others in my field and elsewhere earning a heck of a lot more than me. There's others too earning less. I can't get "upset" about "how I feel" if someone is on double my salary. They obviously negotiated better or had better credentials or some other plethora of reasons.

The mean average is just under 50k so if someone is earning 30k then factually speaking they are 20k under the mean.

I suspect the median FT earnings would be lower but still above 30k. 30k is quite a low salary for anyone with a qualification or experience tbh.

Treppen · 02-07-2021 10:01am

it's seems like some folk have made it their mission to turn every discussion on wages into a public sector bashing exercise to derail it.
Ask them their own job , pay, pension though....

Benedict · 02-07-2021 10:07am

Of course people shouldn't think that the "average" ft wage is what most people are getting - but that is the perception. And Leo compounded that error by referring to the "average person" (whatever that is).

The "median" ft wage is what we need to know - and it's not available.

People guess that it's about 10/12k lower than the "average" ft wage - but we don't know.

Even the CSO has not published the median ft wage.

ELM327 · 02-07-2021 10:30am

Benedict wrote: »

Of course people shouldn't think that the "average" ft wage is what most people are getting - but that is the perception. And Leo compounded that error by referring to the "average person" (whatever that is).

The "median" ft wage is what we need to know - and it's not available.

People guess that it's about 10/12k lower than the "average" ft wage - but we don't know.

Even the CSO has not published the median ft wage.

CSO doesnt have the data to publish it as most companies - especially larger ones - only report average/mean.
The only people that could publish this would be revenue.

02-07-2021 11:05am

Treppen wrote: »

it's seems like some folk have made it their mission to turn every discussion on wages into a public sector bashing exercise

You're 100% right.

Why do people just refer to the salaries of the junior nurse or the junior garda as a stick to bash the public sector as an Employer with? It simply isn't fair. The PS is a much better employer than that and does not deserve the constant bashing leveled towards it.

Maybe these people could start referring to the salaries of the experienced nurse or CNMs to give a much clearer picture instead.

Geuze · 02-07-2021 1:28pm

Benedict wrote: »

Of course people shouldn't think that the "average" ft wage is what most people are getting - but that is the perception. And Leo compounded that error by referring to the "average person" (whatever that is).

The "median" ft wage is what we need to know - and it's not available.

Median earnings are published by the CSO.

See here:

https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/earnings/structuralearnings/

Specifically, see this:

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eaads/earningsanalysisusingadministrativedatasources2018/

ELM327 · 02-07-2021 1:29pm

Geuze wrote: »

Median earnings are published by the CSO.

See here:

https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/earnings/structuralearnings/

Specifically, see this:

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eaads/earningsanalysisusingadministrativedatasources2018/

That's a model though not accurate. Most large companies report mean average earnings so even if CSO publish a "median" there's already some "mean" in there.

Average V Median wage Ireland?

Comments