Talk:List of countries by average wage: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 165:

This article has recently been updated by {{user|Techastrax}} to include map images showing the monthly average wage of each country. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_average_wage&diff=597113843&oldid=597071196 reverted] this change, based on the [[WP:Manual of style#Avoid entering textual information as images|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_average_wage&diff=next&oldid=597113843 re-reverted] my change. In order to avoid an [[WP:Edit warring|edit war]], I invite Techastrax, and all other interested editors, to comment on the issue. [[User:WikiDan61|WikiDan61]][[User talk:WikiDan61|ChatMe!]][[Special:Contributions/WikiDan61|ReadMe!!]] 20:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

~~== 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. [[User:lneal001|lneal001]] ([[User talk:lneal001|talk]]) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 23:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

::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]]. [[User:Massyparcer|Massyparcer]] ([[User talk:Massyparcer|talk]]) 11:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

~~:::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. [[User:Lneal001|Lneal001]] ([[User talk:Lneal001|talk]]) 16:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

::::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. [[User:Massyparcer|Massyparcer]] ([[User talk:Massyparcer|talk]]) 03:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::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. [[User:Lneal001|Lneal001]] ([[User talk:Lneal001|talk]]) 06:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::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. [[User:Lneal001|Lneal001]] ([[User talk:Lneal001|talk]]) 06:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::Okay at this point I have to challenge your claim that there's "no defined methodology" on the ILO list. The source makes its [http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040 methodology] very clear: {{quotation|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: {{quotation|"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. [[User:Massyparcer|Massyparcer]] ([[User talk:Massyparcer|talk]]) 06:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::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! [[User:Lneal001|Lneal001]] ([[User talk:Lneal001|talk]]) 02:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

~~:::::::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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Lneal001|Lneal001]] ([[User talk:Lneal001|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lneal001|contribs]]) 02:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::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:

~~::::::::{{quotation|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. [[User:Massyparcer|Massyparcer]] ([[User talk:Massyparcer|talk]]) 14:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

~~== 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. [[User:Massyparcer|Massyparcer]] ([[User talk:Massyparcer|talk]]) 04:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)