Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Average V Median wage Ireland?

Options
11516171921

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 26,167 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I'm basically quoting you, from the fifth post in this thread:

    "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"

    Are you saying now that what you said then was actually gobbledygook?



  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    What I've said in the 5th post is perfectly fine taken within the context in which it occurs. I'm saying the following statement is gobbledygook - so read it carefully

    - "The whole reason you've been looking for a median figure is because you think quoting the mean suggests that most workers earn close to the mean"?

    Also - do you still think that "educate people" is a good answer to "what is the median ft wage".



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,167 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I don't see that the statement is gobbledygook - it seems to me a fairly accurate summation of your position (but feel free to correct me, of course). Your quest for the median figure was prompted by your annoyance at the widespread quotation by politicians of the mean figure, which - you thought - either intentionally or unintentionally created a false impression of what most people earn. Am I wrong?



  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    .

    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,167 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    "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"?



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,167 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,499 ✭✭✭crossman47


    I've given up. Maybe you'd be as well doing the same.



  • Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭CrookedJack



    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,138 ✭✭✭✭Geuze




  • Registered Users Posts: 26,167 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    What arguments?

    Post edited by Benedict on


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,167 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,167 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,138 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    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



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,434 ✭✭✭McGiver


    Great data.

    Can we get from it deciles and things like 70% of the labour force earns less than X etc.?



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,138 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    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......



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,499 ✭✭✭crossman47


    The difference is the first one is compiled from returns by enterprises, the second from Revenue data.



  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,138 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Benedict,

    the 2020 earnings data published this month contains median data, so that is helpful for you.




  • Registered Users Posts: 13,138 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,138 ✭✭✭✭Geuze




  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    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!



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,424 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    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?



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement