.
I never said "quoting the mean suggests that most workers earn close to the mean" - and I don't think it!
I don't know where you saw that written - it's a dumb statement and I certainly didn't write it!
The only "quest" was to find a credible figure for ft workers' wage and I think we finally found one.
I quoted what you said, and I'll quote it again:
"What I meant was that by using the average instead of the median, politicians give the impression most people are doing better than they are because people believe that average means most and politicians know that . . . .
The politicians proudly trot out statements suggesting that most workers earn nearly 50k pa - in truth, the vast majority of workers earn nothing like that figure"
So, you said that the politicians statements quoting the mean suggest that most workers earn nearly the mean. What you wrote seems fairly clear to me; if there's another way to understand it I'm not seeing what it is.
"quoting the mean suggest that most workers earn nearly the mean"
Avoid long passages, please show me exactly where you think I made this statement.
You're obviously badly misinterpreting something!
What is this - "nearly the mean"?
I quoted two sentences of yours. Two sentences is a "long passage" now? It's no wonder you're having difficulty keeping up with your own arguments.
"Nearly the mean" is my paraphrase of your language, "nearly 50k pa". It seemed fairly obvious in the context that you chose the figure of nearly 50k because that's the mean. Maybe you chose it for some other, more obscure, reason. If so, you have so far stoutly resisted the temptation to say what the figure signifies or, despite explicit invitation, to explain what it was you were trying to say in that post.
All you've said so far is that I have misunderstood your position in that post, but the claim would be a bit more plausible if you were to offer what you consider to be the correct understanding of your position in that post.
My only "difficulty" is trying to figure out exactly what you're on about.
Being facetious is no substitute for intelligent argument and doesn't impress anyone.
You need to engage in a lot of re-reading and a little humility would not go amiss.
You are still talking in riddles.
My arguments have been very clear and concise at all times.
My advice would be to re-read .... carefully.
I've given up. Maybe you'd be as well doing the same.
As someone who has not taken any sides here, an impartial observer so to speak, can I point out that the post by Pereginus is clearly understandable and not at all a riddle.
It also accurately summarises MY understanding of your main point, as i understand it from reading your posts.
When I finally got an answer from Podge, I was happy to leave it at that. I wasn't the one to carry it on!
I was surprised to find that pot-shots were being taken after I'd stated I was happy that I'd finally got an answer.
I wanted to find a credible answer to the question "What is the median ft wage?"
I don't know what all the sighs of despair have been about! I'm the one who has to keep correcting other contributors misinterpretations.
I came in here to see what the Average and the Mean wage in Ireland are.
Was it mentioned in the 19 pages ?
I dont have the heart to go through them after reading this last page.
Here are mean earnings:
https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/earnings/earningsandlabourcosts/
2019 = 40,283
2019 mean for FT workers = 48,946
Your arguments have been very clear and concise. I'm just puzzled as to why you are now trying to pretend you never made them.
What arguments?
Your arguments that I have already quoted word-for-word, Benedict, that you say I am "obviously badly misinterpreting", but for which, despite repeated invitations, you decline to say what you think is the correct interpretation.
With respect, unravelling your various arguments and interpretations would be too big an undertaking. I would simply repeat my suggestion that you re-read the posts carefully and hopefully this will pay dividends.
I have never asked you to unravel my "various arguments and interpretations"; I have repeatedly asked you to explain your own. But obviously that's beyond you.
My contributions are already clear and concise. If you have difficulty understanding them, then that is an issue for you yourself to address.
Even if I were prepared to re-state them using different words (which I am not), you may still have difficulties.
The aim of this thread has already been achieved so perhaps we should just leave it at that.
New data published by CSO today
Earnings Analysis using Administrative Data Sources 2020
Here are the annual earnings figures
2019 mean = 45,375
2019 median = 37,001
2020 mean = 50,076
2020 median = 40,579
Great data.
Can we get from it deciles and things like 70% of the labour force earns less than X etc.?
Yes, see the third chapter: Distribution.
Note that incomes are not the same as earnings.
Also note that the CSO have at least two earnings series, and I'm not 100% clear on the difference:
(1) https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/earnings/earningsandlabourcosts/
(2) https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/earnings/earningsanalysisusingadministrativedatasources/
and maybe more......
The difference is the first one is compiled from returns by enterprises, the second from Revenue data.
I don't think anyone is arguing against the validity of the figures trotted out by the CSO. But the vast majority of ordinary citizens do not have sufficient expertise (or sufficient time) to plod through pages of statistics and the try to interpret them. What we will be told - by whoever is holding the microphone - is that most ordinary workers earn Euro 801.41. And this is simply not true. I promise you they will not be told that most workers are earning Euro €629.46 - which, if I am not mistaken, is true (And I am assuming this is full-time workers.)
What is fact is not always true. If facts are stated - but a crucial element of context is omitted - the statement may not be true, but the facts are still the facts.
In a recent elections a statement was made that “the average person working full-time in Ireland earns €47,000 per year". Not the average worker - let alone full-time worker but the average "person" as earning Euro 900 per week? (Don't even mention E801.41?)
Most people shouldn't worry too much about "averages". A jump in the average income could simply mean that a cluster of very wealthy people have moved to Ireland.
Benedict,
the 2020 earnings data published this month contains median data, so that is helpful for you.
Median annual earnings, 2020
all employments = 40,579
men = 44,105
women = 37,462
industry = 44,584
construction = 40,601
ICT = 61,632
In the annual data, I can't see any FT/PT decomposition.
Clearly, many of the contributors to this thread are very learned in the field of economics and I must apologise for the fact that I have no expertise in this field and I am speaking from the point of view of your ordinary "Joe Soap".
But to move on, I note that the earnings relate to 50 weeks min work. So we're talking about "full time" (ft).
Under the "Annual Earning" heading, I read that the median earnings for 2020 stands at E40,579 (about E780 p/w)
Under the "Distribution" heading, I read that the median for "all jobs" is E629 and "half of ALL jobs" earned less than E629.
It may be child's play for an economist, but it's quite difficult for Joe Soap to reconcile these two sets of figures!
If, say, 50%+1 of people earn the minimum wage, then the median is the minimum wage - that is the point where as many earn above the median as those that earn less. However the mean wage will be higher, because 50% of the people earn above the minimum wage. It is just a different way of defining 'average'.
Clearly, there are some people are paid an income most could only dream of, and this pushes up the mean.
Yes, I appreciate the point you've made. But the CSO figures seem to suggest two different things for 2020 - as I have shown above.
So what do you make of that?Median 629 p/w orMedian 780 p/w. It can't be both?
I assume they have different definitions - such as wage vs income, or full time or not. Or could be over different time scales.
I am referring to the recent publication:
You mention "50 weeks min", I will look for that.
I see now what you mean.
In the Annual Earnings section of this report, the annual data does refer only to workers who worked more than 50 weeks, yes.
This does not mean that they are FT workers.
I could work 15 hours pw, every week, week in, week out, so I am part-time, but my employment is still included.
Median annual earnings were €40,579 in 2020
Median annual earnings were highest in the Information & communication sector at €61,632 in 2020, with median earnings for males in the sector at €66,436 and females at €52,725. The lowest median annual earnings were in the Accommodation & food services sector at €24,298 where median annual earnings was €26,252 for males and €22,228 for females.
Mean annual earnings were also highest in the Information & communication sector in 2020 at €77,003, an increase of 7.2% from €71,832 in 2019 and an increase of 21.5% from €63,353 in 2015. The lowest 5-year increase in mean annual earnings was in the Education sector, which saw an increase of 8.0% between 2015 and 2020 from €47,817 to €51,644. The lowest mean annual earnings in 2020 was recorded in the Accommodation & food services sector, at €27,235. See Tables 8.1 to 8.15 and Figure 8.1.
Employees who worked for less than 50 weeks in the reference year are excluded from the calculations for annual earnings. This is done to improve comparability of the data over time. Typically the proportion of employments retained for annual earnings analysis is relatively consistent at both the total economy and economic sector level. However due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the labour market, the proportion of employments retained for annual earnings analysis in 2020 is lower than in previous years, specifically for those sectors most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. See Main Results chapter for further information on the impact of COVID-19 on the labour market and on earnings statistics.
