Talk:List of countries by average wage

Problem with oecd I will fix it

You use "Average compulsory payment wedge and average tax wedge for single taxpayers without children at average earnings, 2009" figures from OECD. But it's the WEDGE , not the Average net personal compulsory payment rate by family-type and wage level (as % of gross wage earnings) Moreover your source is from 2011 and you use 2011 figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichek (talk • contribs) 13:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author should give the date of his figures. but he is not that smart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jajahada (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Accuracy of data

I'm not sure how you came to those figures on there. I am unsure what other countries are, although I know Australia's average wage is closer to $95,000 AUD, or $98,000 USD. ^[1] ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.200.88 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Date of the data?

It is not clear from which year the data is. Please add, who ever has information about it. --193.92.218.46 (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real wages?

Is there any research done on countries based on real wage? Average wages are essentially pointless when adjusted for inflation. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+1! The real wages are very valuable for research, too! --193.92.218.46 (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OECD figures

data was taken form OECD. there's a link! but for some countries numbers are the same, for others are different. how come? for example, belgium. wikipedia says 40,591 and OECD says 40,591 also. but on wikipedia canada has 42,019 and on OECD it says 38245....etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.254.53 (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gdp/average wage

esta es la tabla del PIB per cápita no de los sueldos leñe!

these are not average wages but GDP per capita --

Of course it's average wages. Do the calculations yourself, as described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lneal001 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the median wage, Where can we find that and compare? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.44.2 (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Median household income has 2007 in it, but it seems wildly off from this table. Harburg (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan

I find it hard to believe that an economically advanced country like Taiwan is lagging behind Poland. What is the primary source for this data? Readin (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you come to the idea that they are lagging behind? The article does not make this claims (as far as I can see). Tomeasy_{T C} 06:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only 25 countries are listed, so I assumed it was the top 25. Is that not correct? If it is the top 25, the fact that Taiwan isn't listed suggests that it is lower on the list than Poland. There are other countries whose absence seems strange. Israel? Singapore? Is there something about this list that is whooshing over my head? (very possible, I'm not an economist). Readin (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, your assumption is wrong. Tomeasy_{T C} 06:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Taiwan and others are not listed because no information was available. Rest assured however, that it would most certainly be in the top 15 and ahead of Poland and some other European countries. Basically, only OECD countries had this info. Kind Regards, Lneal001Lneal001 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~.

How do you come to the idea, Taiwan would be in the top 15. The list here is very much correlated - though not identical - with List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita where Taiwan is nowhere near rank 15. Tomeasy_{T C} 00:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I said top 25, not top 15. Second, I specifically pointed out that Poland was on the list but Taiwan wasn't. If you look at the GDP per capita list you'll find that Taiwan is well ahead of Poland (and others that are on the list). If the list is going to only include a few countries, the article should explain how the countries were chosen for the list. Readin (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My previous post was not a reply to you, Readin, but to Lneal001.

You are simply wrong, because you wrongly assume that all countries that are not listed (e.g., Qatar) must be behind those countries listed. I already told you above that this assumption has no grounds, and I have no idea why you find it so difficult to discard this assumption.

Nevertheless, I agree with you, Readin, that it would be helpful to mention why there are so few countries listed. I though this statement, "The calculations were made by the OECD.", did the job, but perhaps we need to say more specifically that non-OECD countries are excluded and not even all OECD countries are included.

Be bold and make your edit, if you like. I will proof-read. Tomeasy_{T C} 08:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at it. Sorry I missed that you were responding to Lneal001. Readin (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - well done. Tomeasy_{T C} 21:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

I find is very hard to believe Canadian wages are lower than Irish wages (considering Canada's current economic resilience has been noted internationally). I feel this list reflects the GNI per capita of OECD countries. I am going to do the relevant calculations for 2010 myself and make the necessary changes I feel are bound to materialize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.59.169 (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Canada isn't even on this list, realistically it is in the ~5th place range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.58.107 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing, Where is Canada on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.125.97 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Hi Lneal00, I am afraid to say, but for the table shown here, the same rules apply. We need to show the sources, and make the data verifiable. As I understand it, you have just provided a link for the NCU, which is the first step. We need to show this data (NCU) in a column that has a reference to this data. Then, we need to show the PPPs, and finally the column that is already there.

I know that this is again a lot of work, and I do not want to put you under time pressure. I just want to make clear that these improvements are eventually needed. If you do not feel like doing it now, it can be done later. Just let me know. Tomeasy_{T C} 23:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I will do it. Allow for a few weeks. Thanks for allowing me the time to do it. Lneal001 (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Tomeasy_{T C} 20:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a few more week ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.168.108 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing the Table

If you click on the citation #3 and the table doesn't show up, do NOT fix the referencing! You have to appropriately play with the pivot table function on the OECD website to show the table as it is shown on Wikipedia - so the number are indeed cited correctly. (99.238.62.49 (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It does not help to explain this here. It must be clear from the reference in the article. For good referencing that deals with this problem look at reference [6] on Household income. This reference provides the NCU-PPP conversion rates. there is no deep link to this data, but the reference makes clear how to obtain it.

I have not found the data you are referring to, but if you find it, you can help others and improve the article by properly referencing it, similar to what was done in the example above. Tomeasy_{T C} 09:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry, once I get back from Hawaii I will make the table just like the household income one, which is much better. No rush. Lneal001~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lneal001 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Won't it be nice to add in what currency the data are?

US Dollar? Euro? Zloty? Rubel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.234.191 (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is putting the 2010 data, please verify it here, and confirm that the data is true so I do not delete it. In particular, the data for Ireland seems wrong. Plus, 2010 data does not exist yet! ~~lneal001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lneal001 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominal column

I found this version useful. It was reverted by an IP user without explanation. Thoughts anyone? Scott Illini (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why the IP reverted it. The data come from the OECD. The ranking still uses the PPP (the most relevant) but I think that it is useful to see what it means in nominal value and/or per hour (after all, we are talking about wage, so there is a logic to look at these numbers too). I don't want to imply at all that the PPP isn't the best way to rank countries but if you don't have a little more information, how such an article can be encyclopedic? If someone disagrees, I believe we should discuss it on this talk page before to begin an edit war. Eleventh1 (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Median Wage

There should be mentioned also median wage in addition to average wage. Median wage is better figure, because it tells something how wealth is distributed to the people. --Jouni Valkonen (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Median wage, wage per hour, nominal values, etc should be presented. Other sources than the OECD could also show other important countries (China, India, Russia, Brazil...) and the numbers should be updated. But User:Lneal001 is unfortunately hostile to any modif of the article, even to improve it. Eleventh1 (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to include median wages; let me work on it and I will put it. Lneal001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lneal001 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any luck in finding median wages information? That would show a much more realistic picture, including vanishing the doubts on Spain, and showing the elites are getting way too much in relation to the majority of people (well, it's true for the whole Southern Europe) and even to the elites of Northern countries...88.114.146.244 (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"selected" OECD member countries

The article doesnt list the 34 member countries. Any reason why not ? (is the data not available ?) Would be nice to compare/contrast say Mexico with Spain. etc. Gizziiusa (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)gizziiusa[reply]

Sources.

People in Spain have a higher disposable salary than in Germany? Well, if it is true, it is a surprise. Can I have the sources please? Coon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.202.64 (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take into account that this is the average wage, not the median one. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income and see what I mean. Bosses in Spain earn much more than they deserve and workers earn much less, so that's sadly true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.189.9 (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that net income determines well being dubious

"Unlike the gross wage, which can be an inaccurate indicator of the well-being of a citizen since it does not represent the full amount of money the worker will be left to consume on goods or services, the disposable wage excludes compulsory deductions such as income tax, municipal tax, provincial/state income tax, social security (pension plan, medicare) and compulsory insurance, thus measuring only the direct earnings of the citizen"

This is not true. There maybe circumstances in which it is true. For example if a tyranical government imposes heavy taxes for teh benefit of a narrow elite. However, in general compulsary deductions, will at least in part, be spent by governments on schemes which benefit workers. eg in Europe/Canada on National Health care. 173.178.55.185 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about OECD countries, so in theory there should not be "tyrannical governments", so in that context that text is true. 88.114.146.244 (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spain wages

Does really Spain have higher disposable wages than countries like Finland or Germany? This really comes as a surprise because most people in Spain believe that salaries in Germany etc, are much higher. What a disappointment they will get if they go to work to Germany! If these data are right, it is another example of the difference between reality and perceived reality.I know I already made some comments bout it before, but still it is difficult for me to believe. People in Spain often use countries like Germany to say that workers in Europe make three times more than in Spain and so on. If this is the case, the perception of reality in Spain is absolutely screwed. Coon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't conclude that from monthly wage data. The ratio of part-time workers is larger in Germany, both because of economic policy (400€ jobs and such) and because mothers are encouraged to do part time work. Since the average monthly wage is a mix of full-time and part-time wages, the "average wage" in Germany might well be lower, even if the hourly wages are far higher than in Spain. -- 192.223.158.46 (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norway

The average wage here in Norway is not in the low 40's, it was around 81 thousand USD in 2011 ^[1]. Whoever came up with this smoked something bad that day. 188.113.93.28 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In PPPs it is. And the source of this data for Norway is from Norway itself! According to stat bank, which has a slightly different df., the avg annual wage is 457,000 Kr. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.169.129 (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.dinside.no/893058/snittlonn-i-norge-i-2011-38-100-kroner-i-maaneden

Some caveats

I guess it is very complicated to have an exact figure for those estimates, but there is one big caveat: benefits. I have experienced it in person. I worked in Spain for some years and apart from my salary I received: one month paid vacation, health care insurance for my and my four member family, sick insurance, retirement insurance. All those things are mandatory in Spain and Western Europe. Now I am in the US. I do not have those benefits and if I had to pay for them, my salary would not even be enough. In short, workers compensation that does not include benefits is misleading. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Data for more countries?

First, this is the list I've been looking for for years. If I understand the description correctly, this is the effective average wage adjusted by PPP--that is, even though a country may have a low absolute average income relative to the U.S. dollar, the figure in this list is adjusted upwards on account of the lower cost of goods and services in that country. Am I correct?

Can the list also give an idea of what prices feel like to the average person visiting another country? In other words, if the average wage in Poland works out to $20,000 per year, and I from the U.S. make the average (as shown here) of $54,000 per year, and I were able to work remotely earning the same income and live in Poland, would I find that I could live like someone in Poland making 2.7 times the average wage? On the contrast, would a family from Poland with a head of household who makes the average wage there find themselves feeling like a family living below the poverty line here?

If so, then this is a hugely useful reference to use when talking to other people who traveling to your country or if you visit another country, especially developing countries. For example, an income of US$500/month in Uruguay sounds impossibly low to someone living in the U.S., but adjusted for the cost of goods and services in Uruguay, $500/month may get someone a reasonably decent standard of living--maybe equivalent to someone earning 3 times that amount in the U.S. But when that Uruguayan visits the U.S., he might have to dig really deep into savings just to afford a budget trip, while I can visit Uruguay and live like a member of high society for less a day than I usually spend in the U.S.

Anyway, my real question is: is there any way to get data for all countries in the world? I see that the current data was sourced from OECD, but is there any way to calculate the numbers for other countries? I'd be fascinated to see how it works out.

If the figures are reasonably straightforward to calculate and we just need a "data entry clerk" to go through the mundane process of doing the simple arithmetic, I would volunteer. Point me in the right direction, please! :) cluth (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done guys, well done

Obviously wages in countries like Poland, Slovakia etc. can't be the same as for example Germany. Whoever copied the data from the OECD source made a ridiculous mistake and listed the wages in national currency units for some countries and PPP USD values for others. I'm fixing the gross wages data for some countries.

Also it's very important that in some countries workers get additional compensation (bonuses, medical insurance) from their employers. Does the OECD data account for that? USA: average wage $20 per hour but $32 per hour with all bonuses according to Bureau of Labour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EasternClock (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total average compensation USA

Total average compensation (including all bonuses, health insurance[employer purchased is tax deductible]) in the USA is $31.16 per hour. Full time, full year worker equivalent is 2,080 hours. Therefore, the average annual compensation per full-time and full-year equivalent employee equals $64'812. (Sources: Bureau of Labor)

Much higher than the OECD figure that apparently does not include all compensations. EasternClock (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

This article has recently been updated by Techastrax (talk · contribs) to include map images showing the monthly average wage of each country. I reverted this change, based on the Wikipedia Manual of Style guideline to avoid the use of images to present textual information. The MOS is fairly clear on the reasons why such images should be avoided: they make the page slower to load and they reduce the accessibility of the information to visually impaired users. They also duplicate data already listed in the tables, and increase the workload to maintain the page (the same information must be updated in two places; and the map syntax is overly complicated). In short, I see that these maps do not improve the page, but rather make it less useful. After my revert, Techastrax re-reverted my change. In order to avoid an edit war, I invite Techastrax, and all other interested editors, to comment on the issue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need for more avg wage lists

There is no need for more average wage lists because the OECD list is the official list using the same methodology for all countries. And because the source of data is from national accounts, it's not subject to survey error. Also, the OECD gets it aggregate wages from the countries themselves. The OECD merely does the derivation to get full time wages. Another user is posting a list where the methodology is different for every country and therefore not comparable. His list cannot be permitted. lneal001 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is a list of average wages, not a list of median household income. So we're talking about two completely different lists here. That OECD list you seem to be talking about doesn't have a direct source to start with - Where is the link to your OECD numbers? The original list has clear, direct references as far as I can tell, and simply blanking it out because you don't like it is not permitted as per WP:Verifiability. Massyparcer (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said this was about household income. I made clear that it was about wages. The OECD figures do have a direct source. Please go:

http://stats.oecd.org/

select "labour," "earnings" and then "average wages."

The methodology is the same for all countries. The other lists use methodology according to every country, and therefore are not comparable. One country is measuring full time workers, other include bonuses, others include other workers, etc. The OECD ensures that we are comparing apples to apples. By the way the methodology can be found here:

http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/AVERAGE_WAGES.pdf

As a result, given that these are official results from a single source with the same meth., we shouldn't combine other results that are not using same definition. Lneal001 (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the OECD list is the most reliable we have here. The other poster is inventing a list using official national statistics, which varies from country to country, so should be taken with a grain of salt, and removed since it can be way too misleading. I'm not sure about the ILO though, the source is the BBC and it makes the methodology very clear - Sure they can't be perfect on this, but it is still a the most reliable source on this matter and they have tried their best to keep things as fair as possible. I mean, you can't get reliable data on certain developing countries anyway because of underground economies. Every list has its flaws. I think we should keep the ILO one just for reference. The problem with the OECD is it misses many developing countries and is restricted to its members. Also, I would advise you to stop reverting to the old 2011 data, when users have updated it to the 2012 data. Massyparcer (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with keeping the OECD results for 2012. I am not sure the tax % is correct, but I will leave it for now until I can further verify it. As for the ILO, I still disagree. First off you have to understand that the OECD figures are from OECD, but the data the they use to calculate it comes from national statistics office. In other words, they get aggregates for wages, employment, etc, from national offices. All OECD does is divide one into the other and multiply it be a ratio also provided to it be national office (see methodology). The wage figure is the SAME figure that goes into Gross Domestic Income (GDI includes wages and salaries). In other words, there is no better source. The ILO simply gets it data from national surveys (not dividing aggregates into another) and thus is subject to limitations. I know this as a fact. For example, the OECD figure for the US as expressed monthly would be $4,700. The reason why the ILO figure is lower is because it likely is excluding various forms of extra payments, survey error (remember the OECD method does NOT involve surveys, inclusion of part time workers, etc. Other countries seem on par with the OECD figures, some lower and some higher. The ILO simply collects what the country gives it. With the OECD WE KNOW what is given because the OECD does the calculation itself. With this in mind, I plead that you reconsider, and at the very least, simply leave the ILO list for all non-OECD countries. Lneal001 (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that the ILO figure doesn't give a def. of what constitutes wages. Again, we run into the problem of some countries having different definitions. It also doesn't give any method for derivation or source for the wages. In fact, the BBC article is the only source I see. By contrast, because the OECD is using "wages" from the national accounts, we know whats inside wages, because in GDI, "wages" is specifically defined in accordance with the System of National Accounts. So the same def of wages is used, along with same standard methodology. How much more do you want? With the ILO I have no idea what they mean by wages. I suggest you delete and leave only non OECD ILO figures. Lneal001 (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay at this point I have to challenge your claim that there's "no defined methodology" on the ILO list. The source makes its methodology very clear:

Let's consider the scale of the Herculean task the number crunchers at the ILO set themselves. First, they work out the total wage bill for every country in the world. To do that they get the average salary from each office for national statistics, and multiply that amount by the number of earners in each country. In this way, they are able to give more weight to countries which have more workers in them. The average salary in China has more influence on the world average than the average salary in New Zealand, where many fewer people live.

The ILO has done a very fair job on this, which we have never seen until to this date, especially for developing countries. I'm not saying it doesn't have flaws like you said, but that should hardly be a reason to blank this out entirely. If the source is reliable, you leave it alone as per WP:Verifiability. We can't apply our own judgement on whether it is reliable or not in this case because it would violate WP:OR. The best we can do is list the flaws it has as per the source so that people reading this are informed. The article itself admits it has flaws but also adds that it is an "exercise worth doing", saying that:

"It certainly tells you something about the state of worldwide economic development, I would say. We always use Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the reference, but I think we also have a whole lot of trouble understanding exactly what is the meaning of GDP, whereas wages are a much more obvious indicator of the quality of life. "It tells you something about the quality of life of the middle classes. It tells you where most of the people are at the end of the month, and it gives you an idea of how they live - how often they can go out, what they can buy, where they can live, what kinds of rents they can afford. And that's the interesting thing, compared to GDP per capita, which is a much more abstract notion." And if you understand the limitations of this number - that it gives a rough idea of average employee salaries - Belser says it holds an important lesson."

As you can see, the article's conclusion is that there's still a very good reason for doing this and a valid reason for the existence of this list, despite the flaws it has. It is still one reliable organization that has done number crunching for all countries. You need to be balanced on controversial issues, and remember to respect WP:NPOV. List of countries by life expectancy also has many lists from WHO, UN and CIA, and one may be more reliable than the other, but they haven't blanked out the rest because they're still reliable sources. Massyparcer (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OECD list divides the total wage bill by total number of earners, and converts that figure to full time equivalents. When I take the total wage bill of the US, for example, and divide by number of earners, see below for both figures, (for 2012), I get (6.9 trillion/138.7 million earners)=$49,700. And remember this is the official wage aggregate directly from the govt, not a survey estimate. It's included on the income side of GDP. Therefore, knowing this, I refuse to allow a figure for the US that I know is wrong BY THEIR OWN METHODOLOGY. I have the proof in the simple division I did. If anything please exclude the US from the list and I will allow it. I don't know where in the world the ILO got it's wage bill estimate for the US, but it's clearly wrong and the official source backs me up. Other countries seem wrong too by the way! Lneal001 (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=189

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=193 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lneal001 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ILO's figures may not correlate to the number crunching you have done because of the varying methodologies between OECD and ILO. But again, this is an issue we have had with lists that is as old as this encyclopedia itself. Wikipedia policies state that neither you nor me have any right to apply our own judgements into these lists as per WP:OR and that when the two sources disagree (which happens all the time with lists from different organizations), this is what you do:

When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. Source: WP:Verifiability.

You can't take out the US from this list just because you don't like it for personal reasons. We must present it as the sources say. Any modifications to the source would constitute to vandalism. The best you can do, like I have said before, is mention some of your concerns that are sourced to inform users of the potential flaws of that list. But blanking out a reliable source entirely or just taking out one country is definitely a no go. Remember that cherry picking is prohibited at Wikipedia as per WP:Cherrypicking. Just relax. People will see both lists and their methodologies to compare and make informed judgments on them. Massyparcer (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no differing methods. I applied the ILO methodology as you quoted and got a different number not just for the US, but for many others as well. Given that the OECD gets its data from NATIONAL ACCOUNTS (which pre-empts any other source by definition), the National Accounts data must be prioritized. Remember the wage aggregate I used in my example is the same the OECD uses, and is the wage aggregate which feeds into GDP on the income side. If I am not getting similar results using the ILO's own meth., then it must be struck down. The protocol you quote presumes that no source is more correct than the other. I am telling you that the OECD is using data from the national accounts, which is made by each country's statistical office, which also are use to construct GDI. Thus, the protocol is not impaired because we are comparing a transparent method whose source is linked to each country's statistical office, to ONE BBC link quoting ILO. As I look at the ILO website, I see no evidence of these numbers, by the way. That's another issue. Lneal001 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you have to be honest here and drop any nationalistic bias. I know you don't like the numbers for the US but applying your own logic to claim that the ILO is wrong is something you can't do at Wikipedia as per WP:OR. This isn't a place for such number crunching debates but rather to deal with sources and Wiki policies. WP:Verifiability doesn't say that "no source is more correct than the other" - It does emphasize reliable sources and that one may be more reliable than than the other. But just because one is less reliable doesn't mean it's useless and you blank it out and remove it. It still holds value to Wikipedia's policies. You seem to suggest that the OECD's one is more accurate since it is sourcing their numbers from "each country's statistical office" - Well, if you haven't read ILO's source properly that I quoted before, it clearly says that "they get the average salary from each office for national statistics" - Clearly, the OECD and ILO are both getting their numbers from national statistical offices. Your claim that you can't find those numbers on ILO's website is irrelevant because we already have a reliable source which is the BBC. I do agree that the OECD may be more reliable, and hence why I put the OECD list ahead of the ILO. But you can't remove the BBC source because you don't like it or think it's flawed. This is simply not how it's done in Wikipedia or journalism in general for that matter. Massyparcer (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I CANNOT find these ILO figures on the ILO website. I find no evidence of its existence. How do you know the ILO did not retract these estimates? Maybe they realized it was wrong and that's why it's not on its website anymore? Why else do these figures not exist outside a lonely BBC article? That is the first ground for removal, because the numbers cannot be traced to the actual website. Second, the OECD is indeed getting its info from national offices, correct. But the ILO must have done it wrong because when I use their methodology i get a completely different number. There is only one organization which estimates the "wage bill" for the US, and that is the BEA, which is uses its estimates for GDP. Cannot get anymore accurate then that. The problem is I don't know how in the world the ILO got the figures. There is no trace of it on ILO website, no source for where they got their figures, etc. The US wage bill is not in dispute. There is only one actual estimate--BEA. All other estimates like from Census are surveys and underreport vs BEA. And like I said, the numbers for the OTHER countries are incorrect as well. I have a feeling they may have used estimates from the BLS CES, which estimates wages for nonsupervisory workers. The numbers seem reasonably close. The problem is that this BLS estimate excludes higher paid govt workers, extra payments like overtime and bonuses, unrecorded tips, etc. The BEA gets its wage estimate from a Census (QCEW)and makes an adjustment to include all workers, all wages, and even unreported (hidden wages/tips). So obviously the BLS CES estimate will be lower with these parameters! It's the same problem with the national statistics that you talked about before; we are comparing apples and oranges. The methodology is so loosely defined that different countries likely sent different types wages (if indeed they didn't divide wage bill by earners, which as I said before, leads to incorrect figures, when I do that exercise myself). The US sent the BLS CES wages that are limited in scope, whereas another country may have provided wages for only full time workers, whereas yet another excuded agricultural workers, etc.

Please read this piece on why the avg wage list from OECD is really the most exhaustive and apples to apples comparison we have:

http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/AVERAGE_WAGES.pdf Lneal001 (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to get the point I'm trying to make multiple times. It doesn't matter whether the numbers on that ILO list match with *your original research*. You just can't apply your own logic and conclude that the source is wrong and remove it for that reason alone. I strongly advise you to read WP:OR. Please do us a favor and read it. It doesn't matter whether the ILO has those numbers on their websites or not. Wikipedia only requires one reliable source for those numbers, which is the BBC. The only thing you can do is put everything you said (provided that they are sourced) on a footnote on USA's numbers. This is the only thing I can think of that is acceptable within Wiki policies. Please stop arguing whether the ILO list is flawed for the US number or not based on your calculation. It is irrelevant according to WP:Verifiability because the BBC is considered a reliable source, regardless of whether it is alone or not. Massyparcer (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing original research! I am merely dividing one published aggregate (wages) by the other (earners). This is exactly what the OECD does to get its figures. All I did was divide. The ILO numbers are not on its website and therefore raise a presumption that they have since been retracted. Now it's your burden to rebut this presumption. Otherwise it's a ghost citation. Until you rebut this presumption I will request that the whole list be deleted. Agencies redact articles and figures all the time, you should know. I would like to place a footnote on the US, but again, how can I do this if the ILO has absolutely no reference to the numbers nor from where the wage bill was gathered? Again it simply looks like they got it from BLS CEW, but this is an estimate based on the similarities with the BLS figures.Lneal001 (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're trying to do the math here. You're not suppose to. Anything that requires personal judgement is considered a violation of WP:OR. Just list it as the source does, with the flaws mentioned in the methodologies. Full stop. That's how Wikipedia works. Massyparcer (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National statistics and OECD exchange rate figures

We shouldn't use exchange rate figures in any lists here that are comparing countries internationally because it doesn't take into account the cost of living and is therefore misleading and uncomparable. Users need to stop adding exchange rate figures to the OECD list. Now, as for the more pressing issue, I have said multiple times that using national statistics is deceiving and highly misleading due to the massive differences in methodologies used between different countries. We must only use internationally agreed methodologies set by a single source. Inventing a list out of national statistics is a clear violation of WP:OR and will be removed. Massyparcer (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People keep putting back the national statistics. What can you do to block them? Lneal001 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to know that we can't block anyone because they're putting back that list. However, if we have a consensus here, which we do here since none of them are joining this discussion, they can't keep reverting to a controversial version they like. This is a violation of WP:Consensus. If you want to make controversial reverts, you go first to the talk page and discuss the matter first, and if people agree, then you go ahead with your changes. Simply reverting like that is unconstructive and disruptive editing that is significantly violating WP:Consensus and prevents the process of gaining consensus. If this continues, I would suggest to report these people to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. But warn them on their talk pages first. It also appears that there are multiple new users coming out of nowhere and immediately starting put back those controversial numbers. If this continues, we need to report them to a sock puppet investigation, which will lead to a ban - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Massyparcer (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Um, technically, a ban means that the community, rather than a single admin, decides that the user is not allowed to edit Wikipedia, and that they are not a part of the community anymore. Blocked users are still part of the community. And everyone editing this article is a looooong way from being banned. Epicgenius (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this page is a list of countries by average wage, not of OECD countries solely. The ILO study is certainly a good addition, as is the list based on national statistics - so long as the section clearly notes that the sources are national stats with appropriate references added (which it does). 98.166.157.157 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ILO data is not available on the ILO website. It has since been retracted and deleted. Thus it is not reliable. The National Statistics page does not use a defined meth and therefore we are comparing apples and oranges. I found a source that does have a defined meth and can be accessed below. Would someone be kind enough to use the source below and place it in a table?

http://w3.unece.org/pxweb/dialog/varval.asp?ma=60_MECCWagesY_r&path=../database/STAT/20-ME/3-MELF/&lang=1&ti=Gross+Average+Monthly+Wages+by+Country+and+Year Lneal001 (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has a point - We should be including not just OECD members but all countries. Hence why the ILO list is valuable. However, national statistics should be out as agreed with Lneal001 for the same reason. Massyparcer (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the "List of countries by average wage" page include OECD, ILO, and official national statistics?

I find that there is consensus to exclude the separate national statistics. Homunq (࿓) 12:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "List of countries by average wage" page include ILO statistics and official national statistics in addition to the OECD statistics? Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Follow the format of other similar pages, e.g. List of countries by GDP (nominal), List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, List of countries by income equality and List of countries by current account balance. Only international statistics from a reliable international organization should be included. Follwing that priciple, we should include the ILO statistics, and exclude national statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencekhoo (talk • contribs) 06:54, 25 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Exclude national statistics per discussion below. AIRcorn (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

I don't have a vested interest in either side of the dispute, and am not !voting, but I see a lot of edit warring on this page with both sides claiming to have consensus. Limiting reverts to two a day to avoid WP:3RR is still edit warring. I am not well versed in the topic (I came here as a recent changes patroller), but from what I can see all three lists are from WP:Reliable Sources, so I don't see any problems including all three. Any issues with methodology can be mentioned in the introduction to that list (as long as such issue with methodology is documented in a WP:Reliable Source). Correct me if I'm wrong. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you cannot make direct rankings and comparisons when every country is using different methodologies, which is what is happening with the National Stats page. As I said, the ILO no longer has the data as it has been retracted and deleted. The only other option I see is the source below from the UN. Would you be kind enough to make a table based on the below? Unlike ILO, it hasn't been retracted and can be accessed to original source and unlike National Stats, is defined with a comparable methodology, so a ranking can be made.Lneal001 (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://w3.unece.org/pxweb/dialog/varval.asp?ma=60_MECCWagesY_r&path=../database/STAT/20-ME/3-MELF/&lang=1&ti=Gross+Average+Monthly+Wages+by+Country+and+Year

To reiterate, I agree that it would be good to have OECD countries listed, but lets make it as comparable as possible. The above from the UN is the best I have found because of the same source, same meth.. Someone has to make the time and make a table out of it. Anyone? Lneal001 (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with Lneal00 to keep those national statistics out because of completely varying methods used by different stat agencies in different countries. The numbers must come from one organization, claiming A+B = C is synthesis and is a direct violation of WP:OR. However, I agree with Ahecht that there's no problem with the ILO list. It's from the BBC and the ILO list should be in because the numbers are coming from one highly reliable organization, if not the most reliable one, so we are comparing apples to apples, even if there are some flaws in that method. That flaw, as Ahecht suggested, should be mentioned in the methodology. But blanking out such a highly reliable source because of that is unacceptable and a serious violation of WP:NPOV. We can't favor one source over the another. Also, using the UN figures would be highly misleading since it is a gross number and not the net number. It's not the real income people take away home. Massyparcer (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a list of countries by average wage - and not solely one of OECD countries - including one or more lists that contain as many of the world's nations as possible is a real, if not essential, improvement. Where the national stats list is concerned, please remember that a Wikitable containing multiple reliable sources is hardly a violation of WP:V or WP:OR. 98.166.157.157 (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Massyparcer, the income from ILO is not net. It is gross. The UN data covers even more countries and is actually available on the UN website. The ILO data is not available on ILO website. Also as mentioned above the ILO data when compared to official govt data is wrong. Just use the UN data from the link above. Why use ILO over UN? I gave 3 good reasons why UN should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lneal001 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lneal001. --Fox1942 (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude the information. Called by the 'bot. As other editors have noted, data retrieved from socio-economic statistics and research is only useful when the methodologies to retrieve that data are legitimatly equal, and mixing methodologies introduces the need to "brand" the reporting of said data so that researchers understand the limitations of the information -- which is not desireable.

The other problem as I see it is that any socio-economic information produced by any entity -- whether governmental, a "think tank," an "Non Governmental Organization" NGO, commercial entity, whatever you have -- any such information is going to be biased by ideology, so for Wikipedia purposes to be encyclopedic a single source of all data must be provided which a researcher may determine for herself the level of legitimacy. Multiple sources inflicts additional research on people utilizing Wikipedia in that citations and references to single-sourced data reduces researchers' work load. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The national statistics will be removed since they use completely uncomparable methodologies/definitions from different statistics agencies in different countries. It's simply impossible to make a comparable list out of a mix match of patchy data from different countries' stat agencies. I moved the ILO list to the top since the UN data unfortunately excludes many Asian countries like China or Japan, with no mention of South American or African nations. It is far less comprehensive than the ILO list and is more like a Western countries exclusive edition as it seems. Massyparcer (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just hope that "someone" can come up with a better source and provide an update that is suitable and makes sense to researchers who won't be asked to "tweak" the data to account for differences in methodology. Yet there are still references and sitations in the article here which go to broken and otherwise obsolete links, am I correct? That can be a lot of work to repair; if that's a problem do you know if anyone is working on fixing them? Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UNECE Most reliable source

I have remarked that Ilo's stats were in PPP dollars but in 2005 dollars, so when people visit this article they won't understand because on ilo table us wage is about $3200 but in the reality it's about $4500 from the government so I keep UNECE on the top because it's the most understanding source in real dollars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techastrax (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. The UNECE list, as I have mentioned before, is very uncomprehensive and restricted to Western countries. There are no East Asian, South American or African countries in that list. The ILO list is the most comprehensive one we have and also the organization from the UN that specializes in earnings calculation. Hence it is the most reliable source we have and should be put on the top. Massyparcer (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ILO list. I go to the ILO website and there is no such list available anywhere. I am afraid the UNECE list is the best available.Lneal001 (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is. I would appreciate if you're honest here when we have the BBC as a source quoting the ILO. Massyparcer (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you have to mension what kind of dollars is used fort each list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techastrax (talk • contribs) 02:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please update the UNECE list and use PPP's for private consumption? It's the only way to compare the purchasing power. Lneal001 (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop destroying ILO list

This is fort Lneal. Don't delete it. read consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techastrax (talk • contribs) 02:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus. I am the one who created this page and the ILO data which has since been deleted by ILO, and is verified as not accurate (compared to OECD and UNECE) should not be used. OECD and UNECE actually match pretty well. Lneal001 (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we have to seriously question what your real agenda is here. It doesn't matter whether you created this page or not. You have no source to prove they were "deleted" by ILO and have no source to prove they're "verified as not accurate". Please backup your claims with sources otherwise nobody will believe anything you claim. Any such claim will be taken with a grain of salt in such controversial debates. If you haven't read WP:Consensus:

Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable).

We do have a very strong consensus here. You're the only one removing the ILO list and making all sorts of unsourced claims from telling me that you phoned the ILO up (textbook example of violating WP:OR) to doing your own invented calculations, which by its very nature is violating WP:OR. The truth is that we have a very reliable source which is the BBC quoting the ILO numbers and thoroughly mentioning its methodology and flaws, which as other non-involved editors have pointed out, is not a problem by Wikipedia policies. Please let the readers make their own judgement as to whether it is accurate or not - You have no right to do that judgement yourself here. I strongly advise you to take your time and read WP:OR and cease your disruptive editing. Massyparcer (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is not unsourced. Look at the ILO website and see for yourself that the data is nowhere to be seen. Use some logical deduction of what the retraction of a set of numbers can possibly mean. IN ADDITION, if we compare the numbers to the OECD and UNECE they are completely off course, which would CORROBORATE the reason as to why they were deleted. Lastly, I manually did the figures myself for some countries, and even provided an OFFICIAL GOVT SOURCE for the US, and saw that the figure was way off. I am not making up anything. Divide the figure yourself and see. The ILO figure is obviously excluding something making it less exhaustive. But anyway it's been deleted, and it can be proven by the fact that it's not on ILO website. So what if it came from the BBC years ago? Ever heard of a retraction? The BBC was merely reporting on the assumption it was true. If the source later retracts, then it's equivalent to the BBC itself retracting. Also, the UNECE results should be in PPP's not exchange rates. There are too few people here to form a consensus. I do not call 2 vs 1 a consensus especially when neither have rebutted the argument I am making above. In fact the only people making verbal arguments are you and I, so it's really 1 vs 1. All you do is say "consensus" which is not rebutting the points I made above. 2 people can agree on something totally wrong very easily. Lneal001 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is you're the only one vehemently trying to remove it and we already have a consensus by RFC. If you look at the edit history, virtually everyone has been putting back that ILO list. User:Damotclese has warned of WP:SPA and that if you continue to remove it based on original research (which is anything with your personal judgement involved), there is a substantial chance of being accused of SPA. Such accounts can be tagged with SPA and could affect you negatively. I'm sure this is not what you want. This is my big advice to you if you want to last as an editor given in good faith: You need to stay neutral when it comes to sources, whether you like it not..that's just how Wikipedia works. Massyparcer (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that lneal has a good idea so we only have to do like on the article GDP per capita, to do lists in PPP and an other part in current USD. So it will be clearer for everyone. Do lneal used world banks figures for PPP conversion?Techastrax (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used PPP rates from OECD for the UNECE list, and for some countries where not available I used rates from IMF. Lneal001 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Lneal001! There is also a Wikipedia guideline WP:SPA -- Single Purpose Account. Looking at your efforts to participate in the Wikipedia project I see that your efforts have been pretty much contained to this article and one other, both of them focused upon economics for income of national citizens, going back a couple of years. :)

Because there was an RFC on these proposed edits and there was a fairly strong resolution (we rarely see 100% agreement on anything in Wikipedia) what I have seen happen to WP:SPA accounts involved in continued contention is the SPA account gets suspended for a bit -- which is a shame since everyone are unpaid volunteers and every editor is precious, we don't want to lose any of them.

I mention it because your account looks like an WP:SPA and we need your participation, I would hate to see another editor get annoyed to the point of asking a mod to offer you a vacation. :) What would be best is for better information to be accumulated, something that can be proposed that replaces what exists, something most people can agree makes researchers' efforts easier, more informative, and a better experience. Damotclese (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid being accused of a SPA account, Lneal001 needs to stop over promoting other lists in favour of another based on original research like claiming to have "phoned up" the source. All lists from reliable sources hold equal value here. Just look at list of countries by GDP which went through high scrutiny and a strong consensus - They list the numbers from different reliable sources and let the reader make their own judgement on them. Lneal's claim is that since the numbers from the ILO are absent in their website, we should remove it. However, the BBC hasn't retracted the numbers and just because we can't find them on the ILO doesn't mean we can make our own conclusion that they're not valid. There's no point in having a conspiracy theory against the BBC. This is a direct violation of WP:OR. Unless the BBC retracts them, the list must stay. Massyparcer (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange rates should not be used

Consistent with the fact that exchange rates do not measure money's purchasing power, and with international backing (OECD, WB, etc), only PPPs should be used. Thus I am in a position of continually getting rid of lists here that are on the basis on exchange rates. The editor who was doing this said "PPP is garbage" which obviously flies in the face of consensus, and is flat out false. PPPs are much better than exchange rates when comparing incomes. Lneal001 (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. Any exchange rate lists must be removed as they are completely uncomparable no taking into account the different livings costs in different countries. Only PPP must be used in such lists. Massyparcer (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All figures must be disposable net figures, not gross

In addition to listing everything by PPP that Lneal has raised above, I will add that all figures must be disposable net figures. Now, this is obviously not possible for the UN or ILO list since neither source has compulsory deduction figures. However, the OECD does and we shouldn't list a duplicate gross income list here. The disposable wage must be recalculated into monthly figures and replace that gross list to avoid duplicate lists and confusion. This must be mentioned in the methodologies, otherwise these lists can be highly misleading, not representing the real income people actually take home to spend on goods and services. Massyparcer (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But shouldn't we have an annual figure as well? Lneal001 (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those figures should be in annual if the source lists that way. Certainly that's the case with the OECD. People shouldn't be converting the sources' figures into different formats of their choice since it would violate WP:OR. Just list is as the source does. Massyparcer (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY DISAGREE You have to use gross, net, current USD and PPP that's right. But the way it's calculated depend of everything, we are not fiscally able. There are a lot of different ways to pay 0 taxes, it's an individual calculation. Your oecd figures show the edge percent of compulsory deduction. So we can mention it to get an idea. So you can build your list after other lists. But you have to let the gross and original datas. Thanks for understanding.

User:Colioneros, I suggest you sign posts since we don't know who you are. You must understand that gross and exchange rate figures are very misleading not taking into account living costs and the real income people take home. While it's easy to get PPP by using IMF conversion rates, there are no compulsory deductions for ILO or UN. But there is for the OECD and somebody removed it completely, which will be put back since it is fully sourced from the OECD tax database. Also, since the OECD source lists it annually, people shouldn't be converting it to monthly figures as this violates WP:OR. Just leave it as the source says. Please do not mess with it. Massyparcer (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to add a net table of annual wages from oecd containing ppp and current usd. Current usd is used in gdp per capita more than ppp so don't destroy the original table from unece, it's not misleading at all and you converted it in ppp so it's a second violation, then someone deleted the ilo list it's a third violation. It's messy on this article. So I ask everyone to contribute normally and don't destroy original sources and wrong advices.

I have not converted it to PPP - The numbers were in PPP on the OECD statistics database itself if you haven't looked into that yourself. Again, you really need to sign everything as this is a very basic rule at Wikipedia. Massyparcer (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Massyparcer, I made the changes and eliminated exchange rate lists. I still disagree with ILO, but we can settle that later. Lneal001 (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People keep putting back the exchange rate lists and remove the sourced OECD net list. We seriously need a RFC if this continues. There was already a RFC for ILO - If you continue to ignore it, as another non-involved editor has warned, it could get you being tagged of SPA. Remember that we must play by the rules set by Wikipedia. Massyparcer (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current USD

I agree to add a net table of annual wages from oecd containing ppp and current usd. Current usd is used in gdp per capita more than ppp so don't destroy the original table from unece, it's not misleading at all and you converted it in ppp so it's a second violation, then someone deleted the ilo list it's a third violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colioneros (talk • contribs) 20:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't keep starting a new topic because this one is identical to the above. GDP per capita and annual wages are very different topics here. You better be clear about who "destroyed" the UN list because I certainly haven't. Neither have I converted it to PPP. You are certainly talking about some other editor here. I strongly suggest you either stick to the current consensus of leaving exchange rate lists out or we seriously must start a RFC as I raised before. Massyparcer (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you deleted it. No the consensus is against the us propaganda who want to be first on the list. But Norway and Switzerland have higher salaries. Nobody can't say that after PPP conversion us is the first because PPP depends on the place you are in a country too (cities / country side). So we have in this page 2 lists with every figures (current and PPP).

I keep telling you to sign your posts but you don't seem to listen. That doesn't excuse you from destroying the OECD list with disposable net income. You keep removing that, which has no consensus. I strongly suggest you either find a way to integrate the disposable figures into your list or leave it alone because it is sourced from the OECD tax database. Massyparcer (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Colioneros, there is no propaganda. The PPP rates for western countries are made by the OECD and Eurostat, both of which are based in Europe, so you obviously have no idea what you are talking about saying that this is "US propaganda." Also, multiple sources say that that PPPs are better to use, including the Canberra Group. Is Canberra in the US? No. It makes logical sense as to why PPPs are better, in that they give us an indication of what that money can buy. Obviously in PPPs, Norway and Switz do not have higher salaries, but maybe once you realize that those countries are very expensive, it would make sense to you. Lneal001 (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That we use PPP instead of exchange rate for these lists should be very obvious if you have taken a basic course in economics. These IPs (172.254.70.161, 216.139.138.217) coming out of nowhere tell me to "read the consensus" - Well, the consensus is clearly to leave the OECD list alone since none of them are joining the discussion to propose their controversial edits with any reasonable evidence. This is seriously starting to smell of sockpuppets. Massyparcer (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't know what are you doing Massyparcer but the real original figures are the official ones. PPP is ok for me but subject to discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboubox (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're coming out of nowhere with no edit history and suddenly claiming against the consensus which is clearly pointing to WP:SPA. I repeat again that this is very much starting to smell of meatpuppets here that must be dealt with. The process of gaining consensus is seriously being undermined by sockpuppets on this article. Massyparcer (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EXCHANGE RATES MUST BE USED

Gdp per capita are exprimed with exchange rates and PPP, so nobody can delete exchange rate. Masyparcer is the only hostile from the consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboubox (talk • contribs) 16:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, since we are comparing wages, exchange rates should not be used because they mean nothing about what the wages can do. I have linked a paper from the Canberra Group saying just that. When making comparisons, the OECD, WB, and UN only use PPPs for things like poverty and standard of living. They do publish nominal GDP per capita, but its always noted that it does not measure standard of living. PPPs already include purchases made abroad btw. Lneal001 (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vehemently disagree using exchange rates. And Zhoubox, I strongly suggest you stop posting the same issue over and over again on a new section to grab attention. This is called disruptive editing. At this point, we seriously have to question what your real agenda is - You're coming out of nowhere (a new WP:SPA account created a couple of days ago which is undergoing sockpuppet investigation). It should be obvious to anyone who has taken a basic introductory course in economics that only PPP is used for international comparisons of wages given the significant flaw of exchange rates not reflecting the the differences in cost of living across different countries. If you haven't studied economics, I suggest you learn first about it before going in a frontal collision course against the textbook. I hate having to reiterate textbook examples, but say the Mexican peso falls 50% in value against the US dollar in a year. Has the real income of the Mexican people been cut away by 50%? No. Because the real cost of goods/services are still the same. This simple textbook example illustrates why exchange rates should never be used to compare wages..the existing consensus I share with Lneal and the school of economics is that exchange rates must never be used for comparing wages. GDP per capita and wages are very different things, do you get it? Massyparcer (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY DISAGREE. It's your opinion. Current usd is used in official sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboubox (talk • contribs) 02:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only one disagreeing without proving with a single valid literature reference. Please read WP:Consensus. Shouting around in capital letters won't get you anywhere at Wikipedia. Massyparcer (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Zboubox and other socks ignoring the prevailing legitimate consensus to use PPPs and not exchange rates have been indefinitely blocked as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ichek. Please watch out for any other new users emulating their behaviour and report them accordingly. This article has been abused for too long by puppets and seriously needs to be protected from new users to allow experienced editors gain consensus in the correct and healthy way..I have put the list back to where it was before those socks vandalized it. Massyparcer (talk)

Restoring Real figures at exchange rates

Because it is the real figures of the UNECE. Someone converted it in PPP, this is a violation because it is not sourced... They made themselves calculations and I am not sure that data are correct. What's the methodology used? So STRICTLY DISAGREE that someone remove the original figures. Consensus done because masyparcer is the only one hostile and doesn't improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.231.154 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet. You seriously need to read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and stop violating that Wikipedia policy. Also, please read WP:SPA - You're coming out of nowhere and emulating the other socks. You're seriously abusing and manipulating the process of gaining a legitimate consensus. Massyparcer (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Above IP user blocked for sockpuppetry. Massyparcer (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the uncommented and wrong reversed edits about Switzerland the by User:Massyparcer

Hi Massy,

about your uncommented/unmotivated reverse edits about Switzerland's figures.

Your figure, the 39.89% as the compulsory deductions (or as you put it: "average tax wedges and compulsory payment wedges (updated March 2013) for single taxpayers at average earnings without children in 2012") would only be true for a very small percentage of all tax paying Swiss inhabitants (probably less than 1%), since the top marginal tax rate (Personal income tax & employee social security contributions (All-in rate)) in 2012 was 41.8% (top marginal income tax: 31.6%). And we have a so called progressive tax rate... getting higher the higher your income is. Hey, I live here!

But we speak about the average wage (Switzerland: US$ PPP: 53 265) in this table, don't we?!! And in order to reach 41.8% you must earn a lot more than this average income!

And the "All-in average personal income tax rates at average wage by family type" (Table I.6) for a single person without children in 2012 in Switzerland was 17.1% (all in rate)!!!

So US$ PPP 53 265 - 17.1% makes still = 44157, don't you agree?!

So please, would you be so kind to explain how you derive the "compulsory deductions" figures?!

By the way: To deduct the all-in tax rate of a single person without children from the average wage of a country in order to make countries comparable is not the most reasonable/smart way to do it, since only a minority of all working people in a country is not married and has no children! ;-)

-- Cherio, ZH8000 (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as per your suggestion, I have redone the whole tables to the two major family-types at 100% average wage. The figures are the latest updated in April 2014 and are directly calculated and published by the OECD, so this comes directly from the horse's mouth. There's no calculation whatsoever involved in my part, so it would certainly not void WP:OR. This has got to be the most accurate measure of net income we have ever had in this article. Massyparcer (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Massyparcer, Please use the tax rates to the original, official wage stats that we were using before. You can still use different tax wedges, but apply it to the wage data. The figure you are using is first of all NOT wages, but labour costs, which is a different concept. Labour costs include many things that are not wages, like employer contributions to social schemes, employer taxes, etc. Furthermore, when we go into the official OECD database, stat.extract, and click on "average wages," it's the wage figures we were using before that are used. Notice how different the gross figures are between both; this is because one is wages and the other is labour costs. Also, for the labour costs statistics, the same definition is not being harmoniously applied so this further complicates things. These figures are published to get an idea tax wedges, and NOT to compare wages, because for that we have the other figures, which use the same definition. Where it is applied using same definition we get much different figures:

http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?datasetcode=PDBI_I4

In any case, it's labour costs and not wages, and the wage figures published for comparison are the ones that you were using before (from the horses mouth). And ZH8000 is right to suggest that you few people are unmarried and without children. This is why you should use the different tax wedges on the WAGE figures. ThanksLneal001 (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Here are the % for taxes paid for single person with no children and for a person with children. http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-burdens-on-labour-income-continue-to-rise-across-the-oecd.htm. Also, the methodology of the labour costs shows that the earnings component of labour costs has DIFFERING methodologies. For example, some countries include part time workers, some don't, some include fringe benefits, some exclude fringe benefits, some exclude overtime, etc. http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/Taxing-Wages-Methodology-2014.pdf (see table A4). Also, the entire govt sector is excluded, which makes a difference in many countries. Also, they used PPPs for GDP and not for private consumption, as did the OECD for the wage list, and which is more accurate. By contrast, the wage figure from the OECD we were using before had the same exact definition and inclusions for all countries, and the OECD themselves said that it was "comparable," as we see here: http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/AVERAGE_WAGES.pdf . In fact, this document says in detail why the other figures are not comparable, i.e. for the reasons already mentioned above, and why the wage figures (used before) are the comparable ones.Lneal001 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then what do you suggest we apply for taxes to the average wage list we had previously? I'm not sure we can apply the single/not married/100% average wage category again since clearly not every worker is like that. If only the OECD publishes average tax rates, this issue would be resolved. Labour costs and average wage are the same thing - The very document that you showed me clearly reads right from the start that they're comparable: "This Report therefore adopts a specific methodology to produce comparative statistics covering taxes, benefits and labour costs across OECD Member countries". If you disagree, you should prove that labour cost and average wage are different with an academic source, otherwise it would constitute to OR. Until we can figure out how to get a net income addressing specifically ZH800's concern, I suggest the current tables stay since they do not require additional potentially original researched calculation that would violate WP:OR. The current tables, as it stands, do not violate WP:OR and meet WP:V. Massyparcer (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labour costs are defined in the PDF methodology I gave you. It says it's "The sum of Gross wage earnings,employers’ social security contributions and payroll taxes." This is not wages, because it includes employer contributions to payroll. Also, the same methodology piece says on Table A5 that differing methodologies are used. It never says anything that the wages are comparable. And it's common sense if you see Table A5. So not only is this not wages, but there exists differences in methodology for each country. This was not the case for the previous wage list which used the same methodology.

As for what the user was saying, he is correct that few workers are single with no children. So I propose to use the wage list before, since it uses the same methodology for each country and represents wages not labour costs, and simply apply the rates for singles with no children and families with 2 children. I provided a link where you can find these %. Or simply forget about net income and just use gross income until we find avg tax rates, which you seem to suggest. I am leaning to this last option. While obviously it would be great to have net income, if such data is unavailable then there is nothing we can do but wait. Lneal001 (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for what? The OECD will never publish data like that. Full stop. This list without net figure is useless and totally misleading, especially since we already have tax rates for certain groups. A list with a slight flaw is still better than nothing, or even worse, hiding the reality. All you're telling me here is to turn a blind eye and be ignorant to the truth. From what I remember, the OECD applied the single, unmarried category as their general tax rate onto the gross wage we had previously - Which was the justice behind using it. I will try to get this article if I can find it. We have a consensus until then - Leaving the list alone as it was before ZH800 showed up. Massyparcer (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am sorry, but what you listed is not wages, and even the wages which form part of labour costs are not using the same definition (Table 5). They try and be comparable, but as table A5 says they are not exactly and differ in many key categories, such as exclusion of govt workers, inclusion/exclusion of part time workers, overtime, etc. This is all cited by the OECD itself. You just cannot use it to compare wages. The only source that is used to compare wages from OECD is the one which we have been using, and it has a separate meth piece saying that this is the way to compare wages. The motive of the other piece is NOT to compare wages, but rather to compare employer and employee taxes and a % of "labour costs." It admits that there are data limitations to the wage figures, which are outlined in Table A5. The wages we were using have no such limitations because they were calculated by the OECD using the same definition. Also,it appears that the labour costs include certain "government benefits" which would be inconsistent with the definition of wages. So all around, this is a really bad figure to use as wages.

And no this isn't just a "small flaw," just look at the previous wages we used and compare them to the labour costs figures you used. They are massive differences, due mainly to the methodological differences that are documented. If fact, the OECD developed the avg wage list as a response to the methodological discrepancies of other lists such as this one.

The other user is right to point out that the tax wedge figure was misleading because it represented a small portion of the population. I therefore removed it completely, and I cannot find an overall tax % for the avg wage. If you do not like gross wages, then I suggest you find a tax calculator for each country and plug in the figure, or simply use the tax wedges already provided. The OECD tax wedges are misleading however because they include employer costs and also represent a small % of workers (as mentioned). Lneal001 (talk)

I don't think you have read what I said properly. I have never said labour costs and wages are the same - In fact labour costs requires an entirely different article. The key in my message is to not use gross figures alone - especially since we have a tax rate (single/unmarried) that was used by the OECD itself for calculating net wages. Massyparcer (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use wage/tax calculators?

Massy,

One way to get a net figure and produce a more consistent figure is by finding a tax calculator for each country and simply plugging in the number and getting a net figure. I can find one for most of these countries. What do you think? The current tax figure is better than nothing but represents more than what employees pay as it also include employer costs, which therefore overstates an employees tax burden. I agree to maintain to the stable version, but please tell me what you think about the idea of cited wage calculators. Lneal001 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad idea but it's not just tax we're dealing with here - There is also a so-called non-tax compulsory payments which the OECD tax database compiles that includes such things as compulsory medical payments, social insurance and so on. Plugging in those numbers into a tax calculator only gets half of the story here and could be even more misleading than applying the current figures which include both tax and non-tax compulsory payments. At this point the stable version still has the most accurate form of net wage. Massyparcer (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tax/contribution rates that are being used now include employer contributions, not just employee contributions. Thus, it is overstating what employees have to give from their paycheck. Also, I do not believe it include nonmandatory contributions. Can you please tell me where it says that? Nonmandatory contributions are by definition up to each person, so how could this be included as a fixed rate? The tax calculators I am talking about include taxes and mandatory social contributions, which in most countries includes retirement and health insurance. For example, the German wage calculator I found takes into account both taxes and the social contributions paid by employee. Thoughts? Lneal001 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than me talking about it, let the OECD explain it to you: [1] Massyparcer (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, what they are talking about are "non tax COMPULSORY payments" which is obviously by definition compulsory. The tax calculators that I have mentioned include all compulsory wage deductions (whether tax or social contributions) and EXCLUDE employer contributions, which these current tax % continues to include. Knowing this, please tell me what is wrong with using tax calculators? Lneal001 (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed before in a previous discussion and the consensus was to use the OECD's tax rate + non-tax compulsory payments because your tax calculators do not include the various compulsory payments that vary in European countries. Each country has a different system (social insurance or compulsory medical payments) that are not included in your tax calculators. It's only accounts for half of the story, hence why it was previously concluded to use the final, tax + compulsory payments rate. Massyparcer (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the calculators I have found do indeed include non tax mandatory payments. You have yet to see the calculators so how can you make that statement? The net wage calculator for Ger, UK, FR, USA, Sp, etc all include not just taxes but also mandatory contributions to schemes such as health, old age pension, and unemployment insurance. What say you now? Lneal001 (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of the proof lies on you, not me. By tax calculator, anybody would interpret it as only including tax. If you can read English, you would know that non-tax compulsory payments have nothing to do with tax. Whatever calculator you have got, unless it is officially and directly from the OECD, it will never be accepted as it would be synthesis of two different sources, hence violating WP:OR. Massyparcer (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of a net wage calculator: http://www.parmentier.de/steuer/steuer.htm?wagetax.htm . It takes into account taxes and mandatory non tax payments. I do not understand why it must come from OECD. Can you please quote the relevant text to support the violation theme you have alluded to? I have seen it many times on wiki with no violations. Lneal001 (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read this on why you can't mix your tax calculator with the OECD figures: [2] Two completely different sources violating WP:OR if used. Massyparcer (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THE DATA ON THIS PAGE IS VERY INACCURATE. I CANNOT CODE, BUT I JUST CHECKED THE 2014 OECD BETTER LIFE INDEX www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org. PLEASE CHECK THIS WEBSITE (ITS VERY CREDIBLE) AND UPDATE THIS INFORMATION — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledharri (talk • contribs) 22:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm the data is off by a mile, for example, here is the official average wage for Brazil: http://www.brasil.gov.br/economia-e-emprego/2014/04/salario-medio-alcanca-patamar-de-r-1-166-84 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.138.204.165 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OECD data outdated, newer data available

New data can be obtained at: https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm Someone should update the article with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.229.1 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shows only net annual growth rates, not numbers. Seligne (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original research of OECD section

"Gross income" (Average annual wage) includes all family types not limited to 1 earner, 2 children. Whereas "Disposal income" is deducted (actuary multiplied by "Compulsory deduction percentage for 1 earner, 2 children)". This is clearly Original research. So "Disposal income" should be removed from the table.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure all the tables are sorted in some order

Some of the tables do not seem to be in any exact order. Jidanni (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxing Wages

I removed the Taxing Wages sourced net earnings because in addition to the footnotes that listed the limitations, I just found out that the net earnings excluded a huge part of the labor force and are not reflective of all workers.

http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/Methodology.pdf

"Earnings are calculated for Sectors B to N inclusive of the ISIC Rev. 4 industry classification for most countries"

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=27

And sectors B to N excludes all government workers and other industries. In some countries like France, public workers constitute over 1/5 of the labor force (not even including the other excluded industries), so the exclusion of these workers makes the data not appropriate for the page where the idea is to calculate ALL wages of ALL workers, and where the presumption of the page is that it represents all workers. Lneal001 (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstating ILO list?

I just noticed that this article didn't contain the ILO list. It looks like at the time it had been deleted from their website, but the list is there now. Is anyone up to reinstating the list? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list, which reported data for 2009, was removed from this article by this 24 August 2016 edit. The link provided above shows data updated for as recently as 2017, but the year of the data varies by country reporting it. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: So is there any opposition to adding/restoring this self-reported data? There are many lists around having self-reported data from various years, IMO they are usually pretty useful. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to drive by this list article when I was correcting misspellings of International Labour Organization per MOS:CONSISTENCY, so I don't have any strong opinions or objections about the content. My point was that the previous version of the list, which did not include a column showing the year of the data, was a bit misleading because it implied that the figures were all for the same year. It should be made clear to readers that the figures are for approximately, but not exactly the same time period, so should be regarded as reasonable, but not precise, comparisons of actual average wage differences between countries. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intro wording

Hello all- I have no interest in this article, but I wanted to comment that the second sentence starts off with an interjection that could use some explaining: The wage distribution is right-skewed... The wage distribution being referred to should be identified, and "right-skewed" should be defined. Eric ^talk 00:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to right-skewed, but it's not currently explicitly defined in the article. As for the whole sentence, I agree it's not accessible enough. However, it needs to be said and I have no idea how to reword it. Maybe it should just be part of a more descriptive paragraph. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yan. Do you know what wage distribution is being referred to with the wage distribution? Eric ^talk 12:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, maybe it should just be omitted. I think someone meant to say that in general, wage distributions are skewed. Indeed, I can't imagine a situation where the average wage is lower than he median. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if the intention might mean in general. Could originate from a language that always uses the definite article. Maybe it should read: Wage distribution figures can be (or tend to be) right-skewed.... But it would probably want a ref as well. Thoroughly out of my area of expertise here... Eric ^talk 16:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://content.mycareer.com.au/salary-centre

[2] ttp://www.seek.com.au/jobs-resources/?cid=sk:main:au:tab:tools

[3] ttp://www.dinside.no/893058/snittlonn-i-norge-i-2011-38-100-kroner-i-maaneden

[1]

[2]

[1]