2:49 am
Phil
Tall Mike, only if you are using it for more than it is, which is to track changes, Think you missed that bit. Also by highlighting it, it keeps the debate on equality or currently the lack of, in the public domain. We need parity and fairness. We still can't get enough female politicians due to a system still run by men. If we had 50:50 split in politics, I bet we'd get much better government.
4:50 pm
TallMike
Phil, do your comments about the tracking of trends in employees' earnings by the Australian government refer to the Wage Price Index (WPI) described in the document linked here?:
https://tinyurl.com/y8z47nzj
I don't see anything in the Explanatory Notes which would suggest that the WPI data is collected for male employees only.
Are you referring to some other index?
9:54 pm
Phil
TallMike, I'm sure Dr Google will assist in comparing the two, I believe they are slightly different ways of measuring the same thing. Statistics have and always will be used by politicians and others to show what they want them to show. Far too easy to set the parameters to provide results you want. Personally I think they in the main should be taken with a grain of salt, much like anything that comes out of a politicians mouth.
11:39 pm
TallMike
Phil, I have now done some more research. Australia does indeed publish average earnings data for full-time male employees in the form of an antiquated index called Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE). The government MTAWE reports do not cite reducing variables as the reason for excluding female employees' earnings. Instead they explain that MTAWE is referenced in a lot of legislation and is therefore used for various purposes including setting pensions - not quite what you implied when you said it was mainly used to track trends in wages.
The modern Australian approach to tracking employees' earnings is the Wage Price Index, which I referenced previously. It is not gender biased.
