Job Discussion Forums

[RL]

Understandably, there is a lot of focus in this forum on income to be earned from teaching esl in foreign country. Has anyone taken the time to compare the starting salary of a "newbie" esl teacher (someone with for example a batchelor's degree in an unrelated field and a CELTA or equivalent) with that of the median salary of the country in which the newbie plans on teaching? I have not.

For instance, I believe I have read in the Mexico forum that the average newbie could expect to earn between 7,000 and 8,000 pesos per month. What then is the median income level in Mexico for purposes of comparison. This information would be helpful to anyone, myself included, wanting to understand where esl teaching places a person economically within a country and whether the profession produces a "livable" income.

RL

[Phil_K]

Maybe minimum salary would be a better guide, as salaries vary so much and surveys are always out of date. As a guide though, in Mexico City I'd estimate the following.

Kitchen Assistant $4000 (pesos) p/m
Security Guard $4-5000 p/m
Junior Computer Programmer $7-8000
Small Store Manager $10,000 p/m
Senior Manager $15-25,000 p/m...

...President of Mexico $195,000 p/m (2009)

[TeresaLopez]

Jobs that require little to no training, but have a education requirement - usually the secundaria (9th grade) - usually pay around $4000 TO $5000 pesos per month. Receptionists make around $5000, entry level secretaries a little more. Lots and lots of jobs that are considered middle class is the US or Canada pay in the $8000 to $10,000 peso range, which is considered a decent working class salary. Bear in mind that the cost of living in parts of Mexico is far lower than in the states. In a small town you can easily rent a nice house for $1000 pesos a month, and even in Mexico City you can rent a 1 bedroom apartment for $3000 in a nice (but non-trendy) area, sometimes for less. And. just about all necesities are far less - food, transportation, electricity - so I think that ha to come into the equasion as well, especially if you look at $8000 pesos and think, geez, that�s like $650 US a month, how can I live on that.

[Justin Trullinger]

Various measures of cost of living actually give a better idea of what you're getting into- like cost of rent, groceries, public transport...that sort of thing. (I know a guy who calculates salaries in beers- it does give a reasonable comparison between wages and costs.)

Because standards of living are so different...

Best,
Justin

[RL]

Justin - I'm not sure I understand your logic. It would be nice to know the cost of rent in various locations, but that would take an extraordinary amount of information, and in reality, what does that tell a person as to the standard of living he or she could maintain. On the other hand, a country comparison of median income seems doable, along with an assessment of a typical newbie esl salary in that country.

I definitely agree that people measure their respective economic worth differently, i.e., your example with the guy who measures it in beer. But, I argue that local currency is the true measure of one's economic standing relative to others operating within that currency.

[tttompatz]

[Justin Trullinger]

I think what I was getting at was that trying to make comparisons about things like this across countries was that it does, indeed, take an extraordinary amount of information.

YOur statement:

[Justin Trullinger]

Also, just to clarify, do you mean "median" or "average?"


Best,
Justin

[RL]

By "median," I mean the salary above which half the population earns more and below which half the population earns less. I believe median is a better gauge than average because average tends to be skewed by extremes on both ends of the spectrum.

To answer your question, Justin, I would argue that, economically, you were better off in Ecuador as compared to Korea. As to using median income as a comparison to others operating in that economy, or whatever I said exactly, I just mean the other workers being paid in the currency of whichever country you are in, be it Mexico, Korea, Ecuador, etc. One could then take his or her esl salary and measure it against the median income of that country to get an idea of the expected standard of living he or she would achieve as an esl teacher.

RL

[Justin Trullinger]

It�s clear what you mean. I just think that your system (using median related comparisons to draw conclusions about standard of living) is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption: that median salary corresponds directly to standard of living.

A list of salaries in proportion to median income is probably interesting information, but it won�t tell you much about standard of living or the life an English teacher can expect to have.

It�s like comparing fractions without a common denominator. It�s using the median as if it were a �common denominator,� but it won�t really work. What the median means, in terms of standard of living, varies too drastically from place to place.

Take this hypothetical- if in two countries, a teacher is offered a salary that is equal to the median salary, your system would say that he or she is equally well off in both places.

If the two countries are, for example, Japan and Bolivia, you couldn�t be more wrong. In Bolivia, where poverty rates are well over 50% by most estimates, the median salary will be below the poverty line. Japan is usually ranked as having one of the world�s very highest standards of living, and poverty is very near zero. The median Japanese salary is far from poverty; more like a comfortable living.

In one country, the median salary may buy a smartphone and a car. In another, it may mean economizing on groceries, or worse.

Comparing earnings to median salaries as a way of comparing standards of living isn�t going to work, because there is no median cost of living measure.

All the best,
Justin

[RL]

Justin - Interesting example. Thanks for your input. I hadn't thought of it like that. I'm the first to admit that I'm no economist. Maybe someone smarter than me can figure this out.

RL

[tttompatz]

[sojourner]

Tom,

You mentioned that "at home" (US ? UK ? Aust ?) your salary would enable you to buy 400 beers . Yet, in Thailand, a local EFL salary would enable you to buy 450 beers - in other words, you are better off living/working in Thailand than in ROK or back in the West !

Incidently, are you referring to your weekly, or monthly, consumption of the amber fluid ? Also, are you referring to the beer that you buy in bars, or what you happen to buy "on special" at your local corner shop ? Also, what is the size of the bottle (330 ml? 576 ml?), cheap local brew or the upmarket/boutique/imported stuff ?

In my current job in China, my net salary enables me to buy 3400 bottles ( 576ml) of cheap local beer a month - certainly beats your 400-450 !

Apart from the issue of beer affordability, other interesting insights can be obtained from the Big Mac Index, put out by the "Economist" (London). But, here, as with the beer illustration, there can be problems re comparison - I have been told that in Japan, for example, the Big Mac is considerably smaller than what would expect in most other countries !

Peter

[Justin Trullinger]

The BigMac index, or beer index, or whatever common expense you tend to use, is an interesting experiment.

The relative cheapness or expensiveness of that product is a variable too, though. In Ecuador, McDonalds was a relatively high end place to have lunch. (Go figure.) If I would eat such a thing, which I would not, my salary would have bought maybe 300 big macs. COmpared to 500 nice three course lunches in more local places.

Or 1100 supermarket beers.

It really comes down to the fact that economic comparisons that attempt to compare standard of living are just pretty complicated.

Public services come into it too. On a starter salary in Ecuador, you can live well, but could not afford to educate children. On a starter salary most places in Europe, you live hand to mouth, but education is publicly funded, so you'd be okay there. (And healthcare.) YOu'd be in a smaller flat most places in Europe, certainly couldn't have the kind of space you could in Latin America...but there are other things you wouldn't be out of pocket for at all.

It's hard to quantify it all,

Justin

[naturegirl321]

HOnestly, for me, it's not important. Employers will throw numbers at you and say that you will make three, four, five times more than the locals, but that means nothing. Locals often live with their families, so don't pay rent. Konw where to shop, so pay less. Eat local food, again less. Can bargain, again pay less. Local transport, less than taxis, don't want to fly to the other side of the world to see fmaily once a year.

Do you see where I'm going with this? If you want to live like a local, fine, that's ok. But it gets old for a while. Especially if the locals live on less than $200 a month. I'm So glad I'm back in Asia