Average V Median wage Ireland?

crossman47 · 17-02-2021 5:52pm

Benedict wrote: »

I understand what you are saying. But the fact that CSO don't "get" things doesn't mean the can't "get" them.

And perhaps they should "get" them because they must exist.

In order to calculate the average wage for FT workers, the following data must be available:
(1) The number of FT workers and (2) what each FT worker earned.

If the CSO doesn't have these details then some other body does and they handed the results of their calculations to CSO.

But (1) and (2) have to exist on a spreadsheet somewhere for and average FT wage to have been arrived at. And therefore the median could be established with the click of a mouse.

(1) and (2) will provide sufficient data to calculate median.

I give up. I said CSO get aggregates from employers. They do not get individual details. Thats it - I'm not coming back on this as its like hitting my head off a wall.

Benedict · 17-02-2021 6:07pm

crossman47 wrote: »

I give up. I said CSO get aggregates from employers. They do not get individual details. Thats it - I'm not coming back on this as its like hitting my head off a wall.

I know exactly what you said - it's you, I'm afraid, who haven't understood what I've said. I know what the CSO "gets" - but the figures have to be available somewhere down the line.

Can you not get your head around the fact that although CSO don't seem to "get" the figures doesn't mean they don't exist?

The employers aggregate the figures but they don't aggregate them from thin air! The raw data exists and should be available to the CSO - even if only for verification purposes.

If you relax and think about it for a while, I reckon you'll see that you just may have misunderstood some points.

Enjoy your evening.

moon2 · 17-02-2021 7:59pm

Benedict wrote: »

Can you not get your head around the fact that although CSO don't seem to "get" the figures doesn't mean they don't exist?.

Just because it's possible to create such a list does not mean such a list exists.

In fact, were there to be such a list I'm sure it would be used to compute the median salary figure you're asking for.

There's been a lot of back and forth around this and it seems like you're ignoring the answers which are saying that employers currently don't provide lists with individualised salaries.

Do you have reason to disbelieve this statement?

Laura2021 · 17-02-2021 9:56pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

There are a lot on under 50k, it doesn't mean 50k is high and should incur the higher bracket tax though. Even by your own figures somebody on 70k vs 50 is only 200 a week better off , somebody on 70k a year should be coming home with 1100 + a week

True the difference doesn't seem much when you break it down it's only 200 a week more.
So would you say someone on 1100 a week to be a high earner ?

Laura2021 · 17-02-2021 9:57pm

https://www.thejournal.ie/irelands-high-earners-insecure-with-28-finding-difficulty-making-end-meets-study-finds-5212187-Sep2020/?section=comment#comments

Ireland high earners from the journal

Eric Cartman · 18-02-2021 1:51am

Laura2021 wrote: »

True the difference doesn't seem much when you break it down it's only 200 a week more.
So would you say someone on 1100 a week to be a high earner ?

Absolutely not, 100k is where ‘high earner’ starts.

Peregrinus · 18-02-2021 2:04am

Benedict wrote: »

Can you not get your head around the fact that although CSO don't seem to "get" the figures doesn't mean they don't exist?

The employers aggregate the figures but they don't aggregate them from thin air! The raw data exists and should be available to the CSO - even if only for verification purposes.

The fact that data exists doesn't mean that it should be available to the CSO. Lots of data exists to which the CSO has no access.

For what it's worth, my impression is that where median earnings figures are calculated, it's not done by getting individualised employee hours and earnings data from employers. Rather, they collect data from a stratified sample of earners via household surveys, by-passing employers completely, and then extrapolate from that to the population at large.

stefanovich · 18-02-2021 9:29am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Absolutely not, 100k is where ‘high earner’ starts.

If you are supporting a family even that's not going to go far.

Benedict · 18-02-2021 9:38am

Fri 26 June 20 Irish Times (using CSO 2019 figures) stated the following: "average annual earnings for full-time employees was €48,946".

In order to calculate this figure, they had to have been supplied with the number of FTW and the total amount paid to them.

So a small employer declares total payment of, say, 100k pa to his FTW. CSO are aware of a litany of features relating to the FT staff - such as age, sex, marital status, nationality etc. But are we to believe that the carve-up of the 100k is kept top secret? So CSO is prevented from, for example, statistically linking education to income level?

Are we to believe that "ready processed" FTW totals are simply dropped into the CSO system without the CSO having the ability to verify the data or to use the data from which the totals were constructed in the first place?

This cannot be true. If it were true, one can imagine how over a range of say 10,000 business an vast gap could open between average and median figures - you could have wealth and poverty existing side by side without any statistical reference to it.

Clearly, there must be sufficient data available to support a median figure for FTW.

18-02-2021 10:29am

Benedict wrote: »

Fri 26 June 20 Irish Times (using CSO 2019 figures) stated the following: "average annual earnings for full-time employees was €48,946".

In order to calculate this figure, they had to have been supplied with the number of FTW and the total amount paid to them.

So a small employer declares total payment of, say, 100k pa to his FTW. CSO are aware of a litany of features relating to the FT staff - such as age, sex, marital status, nationality etc. But are we to believe that the carve-up of the 100k is kept top secret? So CSO is prevented from, for example, statistically linking education to income level?

Are we to believe that "ready processed" FTW totals are simply dropped into the CSO system without the CSO having the ability to verify the data or to use the data from which the totals were constructed in the first place?

This cannot be true. If it were true, one can imagine how over a range of say 10,000 business an vast gap could open between average and median figures - you could have wealth and poverty existing side by side without any statistical reference to it.

Clearly, there must be sufficient data available to support a median figure for FTW.

You've made a version of this post over and over again, who are you talking to?

crossman47 · 18-02-2021 11:37am

Benedict wrote: »

Fri 26 June 20 Irish Times (using CSO 2019 figures) stated the following: "average annual earnings for full-time employees was €48,946".

In order to calculate this figure, they had to have been supplied with the number of FTW and the total amount paid to them.

So a small employer declares total payment of, say, 100k pa to his FTW. CSO are aware of a litany of features relating to the FT staff - such as age, sex, marital status, nationality etc. But are we to believe that the carve-up of the 100k is kept top secret? So CSO is prevented from, for example, statistically linking education to income level?

Are we to believe that "ready processed" FTW totals are simply dropped into the CSO system without the CSO having the ability to verify the data or to use the data from which the totals were constructed in the first place?

This cannot be true.

Clearly, there must be sufficient data available to support a median figure for FTW.

But if you read CSO's methodological notes, you will see it is true. They survey employers and get from them aggregate data for their employees, aggregates of employment, earnings and hours worked. They do not collect data on age, nationality, etc as part of this survey.

I suppose theoretically they could ask employers for individualised data but there would be howls of outrage from employers at the burden of compliance. That is why CSO use Revenue for individual data and, as you have been told over and over again, Revenue do not distinguish full and part time.

As another poster has said, countries who produce a median probably do it by means of a survey of individuals. It would be a nice extra to have but hardly a priority given all the demands on CSO.

ancapailldorcha · 18-02-2021 12:07pm

Mod: Backseat moderation post and responses removed.

Laura2021 · 18-02-2021 12:21pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Absolutely not, 100k is where ‘high earner’ starts.

Wouldn't know anyone who is single on 100k probably 70k - 80k .
I would say someone on 1k a week after tax is comfortable, if have a bunch of kids thats a different story .

Benedict · 18-02-2021 12:34pm

crossman47 wrote: »

But if you read CSO's methodological notes, you will see it is true. They survey employers and get from them aggregate data for their employees, aggregates of employment, earnings and hours worked. They do not collect data on age, nationality, etc as part of this survey.

I suppose theoretically they could ask employers for individualised data but there would be howls of outrage from employers at the burden of compliance. That is why CSO use Revenue for individual data and, as you have been told over and over again, Revenue do not distinguish full and part time.

As another poster has said, countries who produce a median probably do it by means of a survey of individuals. It would be a nice extra to have but hardly a priority given all the demands on CSO.

Yes, I agree that I have probably pushed this as far as it can go. But my thanks to all for the helpful and knowledgeable contributions made.

I must say I've learned a fair bit from this post - especially that I'm not the only one who can't get my hands on the median FTW wage figures - although Prof Regan (UCD) reckons that 35k would be a good estimate.
I suppose what annoys me a bit is that I have actually heard several FTWs who were on c40k bemoaning the fact that most FTW were earning more than they were when in fact they were earning more than most FTW.

But there you go, politicians like to pretend workers are doing better than they really are.

C'est la vie!

crossman47 · 18-02-2021 12:56pm

Benedict wrote: »

Yes, I agree that I have probably pushed this as far as it can go. But my thanks to all for the helpful and knowledgeable contributions made.

I must say I've learned a fair bit from this post - especially that I'm not the only one who can't get my hands on the median FTW wage figures - although Prof Regan (UCD) reckons that 35k would be a good estimate.
I suppose what annoys me a bit is that I have actually heard several FTWs who were on c40k bemoaning the fact that most FTW were earning more than they were when in fact they were earning more than most FTW.

But there you go, politicians like to pretend workers are doing better than they really are.

C'est la vie!

My own estimate given earlier was that it was in the region of 38k to 42k. Politicians will always try to put a gloss on things when they are in government but, in all honesty, I doubt if most of them appreciate the mean/median argument. They are just using the figure available.

Cyrus · 18-02-2021 12:59pm

Benedict wrote: »

Yes, I agree that I have probably pushed this as far as it can go. But my thanks to all for the helpful and knowledgeable contributions made.

I must say I've learned a fair bit from this post - especially that I'm not the only one who can't get my hands on the median FTW wage figures - although Prof Regan (UCD) reckons that 35k would be a good estimate.
I suppose what annoys me a bit is that I have actually heard several FTWs who were on c40k bemoaning the fact that most FTW were earning more than they were when in fact they were earning more than most FTW.

But there you go, politicians like to pretend workers are doing better than they really are.

C'est la vie!

if the median of annual earnings in 2018 was just over 36k how would the median of FTW be less than that?

moon2 · 18-02-2021 12:59pm

Benedict wrote: »

I must say I've learned a fair bit from this post - especially that I'm not the only one who can't get my hands on the median FTW wage figures - although Prof Regan (UCD) reckons that 35k would be a good estimate.

Have you, or anyone else, gotten in touch with the CSO and asked them directly? If you really want to dig into the median, this is the most likely way of getting more info on the topic.

I'm interested, but not so interested that I want to badger them with requests

HillCloudHop · 18-02-2021 8:03pm

Does the median include people working 1 day week?

Peregrinus · 19-02-2021 3:05am

HillCloudHop wrote: »

Does the median include people working 1 day week?

Benedict is explicitly looking for the median earnings for a full-time worker so, no. The median Benedict wants does not include people working 1 day a week.

But the median earnings for all workers would of course include all full-time and part-time workers so, yes, that figure would include those working 1 day a week , and those working five days a week plus lots of overtime, and everyone in between.

stefanovich · 19-02-2021 8:50am

Median wage per hour would be interesting.

Peregrinus · 19-02-2021 9:01am

stefanovich wrote: »

Median wage per hour would be interesting.

It would. But it requires even more granular data than median wage for full-time workers, so won't be easy to find. You might find median hourly rates for certain industries or sectors, based on employer surveys, but I wouldn't be wildly optimistic.

Benedict · 19-02-2021 9:02am

As I say, I wouldn't be inclined to push this any further - the CSO system is unlikely to change on account of Benedict. But clearly I'm not the only one who can't find data on the median wage for FTW. In the IT article I have quoted, Leo not merely refers to "average" wage of FTW but also to "average people". And it is only my opinion of course but I feel that most workers interpret this as meaning that if you're earning less than 49k, you're sub-normal in wage terms. Okay, maybe they shouldn't interpret it that way but I think they do and I think it's likely that those who tout this message know perfectly well what perception they are creating and that it is incorrect.

The nearest I've come to a credible estimate of the median - (the norm?) is Prof. Regan's 35k - a long way from 49k - and if the public adopted this figure instead of believing that most were swanning 'round with the guts of 1k in their pocket each week, they might see things differently.

Those in power know perfectly well that the terms "average" and "median" are perceived by the public as one and the same. Maybe the public shouldn't perceive it that way but as Judge Judy would say "coulda woulda shoulda".

beggars_bush · 19-02-2021 10:45am

Surely a parliamentary question would acquire the necessary information?
Or FOI request?

Cyrus · 19-02-2021 10:54am

Benedict wrote: »

As I say, I wouldn't be inclined to push this any further - the CSO system is unlikely to change on account of Benedict. But clearly I'm not the only one who can't find data on the median wage for FTW. In the IT article I have quoted, Leo not merely refers to "average" wage of FTW but also to "average people". And it is only my opinion of course but I feel that most workers interpret this as meaning that if you're earning less than 49k, you're sub-normal in wage terms. Okay, maybe they shouldn't interpret it that way but I think they do and I think it's likely that those who tout this message know perfectly well what perception they are creating and that it is incorrect.

The nearest I've come to a credible estimate of the median - (the norm?) is Prof. Regan's 35k - a long way from 49k - and if the public adopted this figure instead of believing that most were swanning 'round with the guts of 1k in their pocket each week, they might see things differently.

Those in power know perfectly well that the terms "average" and "median" are perceived by the public as one and the same. Maybe the public shouldn't perceive it that way but as Judge Judy would say "coulda woulda shoulda".

ill ask again as maybe i am being thick but

if the median of annual earnings in 2018 was just over 36k how would the median of FTW be less than that?

zell12 · 19-02-2021 11:01am

Well this Senator says:
The median wage is €28,500.
and this TD says:
of two workers on a median wage of €30k, that is, a combined income of €60k

Cyrus · 19-02-2021 11:07am

zell12 wrote: »

Well this Senator says:
The median wage is €28,500.
and this TD says:
of two workers on a median wage of €30k, that is, a combined income of €60k

you know how you know Paul Murphy is lying?

he is speaking

19-02-2021 11:08am

For what it's worth OP it always irritates me that it is the average figures which are always given instead of the median. Even when I try to search very specifically on google for the median it keeps giving me the average. Nobody gives a f'uck about the average - median is all that is relevant. And median net income at that.

hots · 19-02-2021 11:12am

Benedict wrote: »

Those in power know perfectly well that the terms "average" and "median" are perceived by the public as one and the same.

I think this thread is showing that there's a small minority who don't understand the difference.

Benedict · 19-02-2021 11:13am

beggars_bush wrote: »

Surely a parliamentary question would acquire the necessary information?
Or FOI request?

In 2007, there was a widespread perception that if you couldn't take your family to Florida twice a year and have a Lexus in the driveway there was something wrong with you.

The Irish people should know better than most that "perceptions" should carry a health warning!

Now, the perception is that if you're an FTW earning less than e950 a week you should wear a paper bag over your head in public.

This is despite the fact that most FTW don't earn anything like that amount!

stefanovich · 19-02-2021 11:13am

Deleted User wrote: »

For what it's worth OP it always irritates me that it is the average figures which are always given instead of the median. Even when I try to search very specifically on google for the median it keeps giving me the average. Nobody gives a f'uck about the average - median is all that is relevant. And median net income at that.

That'd be an interesting figure. People raging against high salaries might rage less if they saw actual take home pay.

stefanovich · 19-02-2021 11:14am

Benedict wrote: »

In 2007, there was a widespread perception that if you couldn't take your family to Florida twice a year and have a Lexus in the driveway there was something wrong with you.

The Irish people should know better than most that "perceptions" should carry a health warning!

Now, the perception is that if you're an FTW earning less than e950 a week you should wear a paper bag over your head in public.

This is despite the most FTW don't earn anything like that amount!

950 gross? That's 49,400. Is that what making it looks like in Ireland?

Not a high salary.

crossman47 · 19-02-2021 11:47am

Cyrus wrote: »

if the median of annual earnings in 2018 was just over 36k how would the median of FTW be less than that?

I agree. I posted earlier I would estimate the f/t median as in the range 38 to 42 K.

Benedict · 19-02-2021 11:50am

stefanovich wrote: »

950 gross? That's 49,400. Is that what making it looks like in Ireland?

Not a high salary.

Perhaps you wouldn't say "making it". But e49,400 for an FTW is pretty good and I don't think people realise this.

Watch "How to be Good With Money" (RTE last night). A couple, early 30's, both professional FtW, (one a professional public servant), joint take home pay 4.8k pm.

The median wage for the fire service (FTW public service) is 35k. (And remember public service workers are notoriously better paid than private sector).

We need to smell the coffee!

19-02-2021 12:25pm

Smell the coffee?
How so?
What exactly are you blathering on about.....

hots · 19-02-2021 2:19pm

Benedict wrote: »

(And remember public service workers are notoriously better paid than private sector).

Geuze · 19-02-2021 2:40pm

stefanovich wrote: »

Median wage per hour would be interesting.

Here you go:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/earn_ses_hourly/default/table?lang=en

Structure of earnings survey: hourly earnings
online data code: EARN_SES_HOURLY

Median hourly earnings

2014 = 20.16

2018 = 16.59

I mentioned these before on this thread, something odd here............

Benedict · 19-02-2021 2:41pm

It's understandable that not everyone can be expected to appreciate the subtleties of the issues raised in this thread - but intelligent and civilised queries are the most likely to merit a response.

Thankfully most have been both civilised and intelligent.

Geuze · 19-02-2021 2:43pm

Benedict wrote: »

Perhaps you wouldn't say "making it". But e49,400 for an FTW is pretty good and I don't think people realise this.

Watch "How to be Good With Money" (RTE last night). A couple, early 30's, both professional FtW, (one a professional public servant), joint take home pay 4.8k pm.

Note that take-home pay on shows like that may be after a whole list of non-tax deductions like:

pensions
AVCs
health insurance
income protection

For example, there are 8 deductions on my payslip, of which three are tax/PRSI.

19-02-2021 2:45pm

Benedict wrote: »

It's understandable that not everyone can be expected to appreciate the subtleties of the issues raised in this thread - but intelligent and civilised queries are the most likely to merit a response.

Thankfully most have been both civilised and intelligent.

Some responses have been quite rude........

Benedict wrote: »

.......

Can you not get your head around the fact that although CSO don't seem to "get" the figures doesn't mean they don't exist?

.........

And some folk have no idea what average means

Benedict wrote: »

When Leo (or someone in a similar position) stands up and announces that the "average wage for an FT worker is almost 49k", I feel sure that the vast majority think this means MOST FT workers (ftw) are earning that amount at least.

...........

Benedict · 19-02-2021 2:47pm

Augeo wrote: »

Smell the coffee?
How so?
What exactly are you blathering on about.....

If you feel that there is something you cannot understand, perhaps you could articulate it more clearly?

I'm sure most would feel inclined to help those who might not understand the subtleties of the issues raised.

19-02-2021 2:53pm

Benedict wrote: »

..........

The median wage for the fire service (FTW public service) is 35k. (And remember public service workers are notoriously better paid than private sector)..........

The median wage for full time firemen is €35k?
OR does your figure include Retained Fire-fighters (Part-Time)

Benedict · 19-02-2021 3:16pm

Correction - Fire Fighters median pay e39,293.

But it still means most are earning a lot less than 49k?

stefanovich · 19-02-2021 3:41pm

Benedict wrote: »

Perhaps you wouldn't say "making it". But e49,400 for an FTW is pretty good and I don't think people realise this.

Watch "How to be Good With Money" (RTE last night). A couple, early 30's, both professional FtW, (one a professional public servant), joint take home pay 4.8k pm.

The median wage for the fire service (FTW public service) is 35k. (And remember public service workers are notoriously better paid than private sector).

We need to smell the coffee!

And a single income household will pay quite a bit more tax on the equivalent gross income. State encouraging both parents to work.

Also - they are in a position where they both have to work and if they have kids they need to pay for childcare.

Much better for the kids to be looked after by a parent when they are young.

Better for the state if husband and wife and childminder all in employment paying tax and increasing GDP.

stefanovich · 19-02-2021 3:42pm

We need significant tax reform and simplification in this country. We also need to get value for money from the public sector. Waste is the only thing you can depend on.

Benedict · 19-02-2021 4:20pm

Most people will accept that public service pay is (in general) higher than the private sector. So look at what a nurse gets? Without a managerial position, a nurse will never reach 49k. A teacher having spent 4/5 years in college will be well into his/her thirties before reaching 49k. We've talked about the fire service. And these are public servants - see below from Irish Indo.

Anne-Marie Walsh

May 28 2019 02:30 AM

"Private sector workers' pay is rising faster than public servants' - but State workers still earn 35pc more."

So where is Leo getting his 49k?

Maybe he's including Bill Gates in his calculations (and a few thousand other billionaires).

Those FTW out there who are earning 40k should cheer up. Because the truth is, they're earning more than most FTW.

Anyone out there have evidence to the contrary?

Let's hear it then!

19-02-2021 4:43pm

Benedict wrote: »

................. So look at what a nurse gets? Without a managerial position, a nurse will never reach 49k. ..................

Including shift premium a nurse will never reach 49k?

This tells me they get 25% shift premium for night duty.....
https://www.inmo.ie/Article/PrintArticle/425

And this tells me salary is €30,609 to €46,021 (12 point scale)......
https://www.inmo.ie/salary_information
Nurses pay including shift premium will exceed €49k once they are on the 7th point of the scale (€39,317 )

Cyrus · 19-02-2021 5:01pm

Benedict wrote: »

Most people will accept that public service pay is (in general) higher than the private sector. So look at what a nurse gets? Without a managerial position, a nurse will never reach 49k. A teacher having spent 4/5 years in college will be well into his/her thirties before reaching 49k. We've talked about the fire service. And these are public servants - see below from Irish Indo.

Anne-Marie Walsh

May 28 2019 02:30 AM

"Private sector workers' pay is rising faster than public servants' - but State workers still earn 35pc more."

So where is Leo getting his 49k?

Maybe he's including Bill Gates in his calculations (and a few thousand other billionaires).

Those FTW out there who are earning 40k should cheer up. Because the truth is, they're earning more than most FTW.

Anyone out there have evidence to the contrary?

Let's hear it then!

you do know that billionaires dont get paid salaries in the billions so they wont be skewing the numbers.

40k as a full time worker is not earning more than most, best case its slap bang in the middle, more than some and less than some.

if you are on a mission to tell people they are doing great if they earn 40-50k there is no harm in that but those platitudes wont help much if they are trying to purchase a house in a city.

19-02-2021 5:09pm

Cyrus wrote: »

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

if you are on a mission to............

I'm at a loss as to what the mission is and what coffee he wants us to smell tbh.

hots · 19-02-2021 6:18pm

Benedict wrote: »

Most people will accept that public service pay is (in general) higher than the private sector.

Any source on that?

Benedict · 19-02-2021 6:20pm

I mentioned Bill Gates in the figurative sense - I do know that he doesn't get a pay-cheque every Friday! (Honestly I do!)

Anyway, as I've said before, there are always those who when they can't come up with a compelling counter argument, they attack the person. It's called the fallacy of "ad hominem" in case anyone's interested in looking it up and it's been around since people were writing to each other on stone tablets.

But hey! You expect a bit of that.

Actually, I think the point I've made is an important one and I've satisfied myself that the notion that every Tom Dick and Harry is making 49k is poppycock. And nobody has been able to show me otherwise. I thought they just might, but they haven't.

I doubt if I'll be back to this thread anytime soon but I may have a peek in a week or two - just to see if anyone has said anything of importance.

Thank you for all the contributions (helpful and otherwise).

Average V Median wage Ireland?

Comments