How are MPs paid compared to average workers, by historic standards? My chart tries to answer this question.
I constructed it as follows. First, I got the history of MPs’ pay - before allowances - from appendix A of this pdf: I divide this by 52 to get a weekly wage. Then, the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings told me that the average worker was paid £471.9 a week in 2008; the average is well above the median. This means that in 2008, MPs were paid 2.58 times as much as the average worker. Latest labour market data (pdf) update earnings for 2009. The history of average earnings comes from here.
Putting it all together shows that MPs’ wages have trended upwards, relative to the average worker, since the late 70s. Because wage inequality has risen during this time, I suspect that they’ve risen even more relative to the median worker.
Even now, though, they aren’t brilliantly well paid by historic standards.
The best times for being an MP were just after a salary was introduced in 1911, as it came in at more than six times the average wage. The late 30s were also a good time, as were the mid 60s. Indeed, even throwing in the maximum second homes allowance still leaves MPs worse off now, relative to the average worker, than they were in the mid-60s before expenses.
Whether such high wages in the 30s and 60s attracted a better quality of MP than we have now is a question I’ll leave for others.
I constructed it as follows. First, I got the history of MPs’ pay - before allowances - from appendix A of this pdf: I divide this by 52 to get a weekly wage. Then, the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings told me that the average worker was paid £471.9 a week in 2008; the average is well above the median. This means that in 2008, MPs were paid 2.58 times as much as the average worker. Latest labour market data (pdf) update earnings for 2009. The history of average earnings comes from here.
Putting it all together shows that MPs’ wages have trended upwards, relative to the average worker, since the late 70s. Because wage inequality has risen during this time, I suspect that they’ve risen even more relative to the median worker.
Even now, though, they aren’t brilliantly well paid by historic standards.
The best times for being an MP were just after a salary was introduced in 1911, as it came in at more than six times the average wage. The late 30s were also a good time, as were the mid 60s. Indeed, even throwing in the maximum second homes allowance still leaves MPs worse off now, relative to the average worker, than they were in the mid-60s before expenses.
Whether such high wages in the 30s and 60s attracted a better quality of MP than we have now is a question I’ll leave for others.
I'd have said on average it attracted a worse sort of MP.....
Posted by: kinglear | May 13, 2009 at 04:21 PM
That is an interesting graph - what would it look like with the top 5%, 3%, 1%, etc.? Would those statistics make MPs salaries look less desirable (comparatively speaking)?
Posted by: Kit Collis | May 13, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Worth reading this:
"Parliament must be saved from itself - The expenses scandal threatens democracy. Drastic action is needed and cannot be left to MPs" by Prof Vernon Bogdanor
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6282598.ece
Posted by: Bob B | May 14, 2009 at 02:28 AM
As you say, the average is well above the median. The average is skewed by dickheads at the top who steal money from the companies they purport to run and call it a 'bonus'.
What does it look like compared to the median?
Posted by: William | May 14, 2009 at 09:49 AM
This graph is a bit meaningless unless you can also show the spread of salaries at different times.
For example, in 1911 it's likely that all MPs were from the educated classes, which would have had far higher salaries than the vast mass of the population. So compared to their possible earning power they may well have been poorly done by.
Posted by: Rupert Stubbs | May 14, 2009 at 04:20 PM
what about in comparison to other politicians in the West?
Posted by: MT | May 15, 2009 at 09:13 AM
Just wanted to say HI. I found your blog a few days ago and have been reading it over the past few days.
Posted by: air jordan shoes | May 15, 2009 at 10:38 AM
What's new?
Try this news item from December 1997:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/40990.stm
And this from November 2002:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2511047.stm
I've already mentioned that the cost to taxpayers of MPs' allowances is small beer compared with the billions lost on failed and failing government computer projects.
Posted by: Bob B | May 16, 2009 at 02:29 PM
"The head of the army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, today delivered his starkest warning yet to the government about pressures on his soldiers, describing the defence budget as 'unbalanced' and 'heavily skewed' in favour of hi-tech, expensive platforms irrelevant to present conflicts such as Afghanistan."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/15/british-army-spending-equipment-afghanistan
Pretty obviously, Sir Richard doesn't understand the primary purpose of spending on defence: it's to provide well-paid jobs in or near Labour heartland constituencies to ensure the re-election of Labour MPs, not to conduct effective military operations in fourth generation or asymmetric warfare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare
Posted by: Bob B | May 16, 2009 at 02:44 PM
As if you didn't know, Speaker Martin started his illustrious political career as a member of the Labour group on Glasgow City Council.
This Sunday Times feature from January 1998 conveys something of the flavour of Labour politics in that council and a few others in Scotland:
http://briandeer.com/glasgow-labour-1.htm
This is why I shall be voting for the SNP in the next general election if they put a candidate in the London constituency where I live.
Posted by: Bob B | May 19, 2009 at 08:26 AM
That is truly interesting to find out this info during the time of war and recession/depression. Will they lower the age to recruit kids down to 16 years old? Mp's do have a tough job that may lead to possible death and or injury so they should be paid a decent wage, in my opinion.
Posted by: Jobs 16 | July 31, 2009 at 02:13 AM
Your blog is very good,very novel,let I learned a lot from,thank you very much.if you have time also attention our products.
Ugg Boot:http://www.boon-shoes.com
Air Jordan shoes:http://www.massjordan.com
Welcome to our website.You can buy something you like here.Thanks!
Posted by: Jordan Shoes | March 25, 2010 at 04:24 PM
What kind of people are all members of Congress
http://www.cheap-car-auto-insurance.net
Posted by: cheap car insurance | March 29, 2010 at 06:21 AM
I do not believe that members of Congress
Posted by: home equity loans | March 29, 2010 at 06:23 AM
Your point of view is right, thank you for sharing, if you have the time, also came to see my site:
NFL/MLB/NFL:http://www.fansshirt.com
Ugg boots:http://www.boon-shoes.com
Air Jordan:http://www.massjordan.com
I hope you enjoy them, thank you!
Posted by: Kate | April 11, 2010 at 07:55 AM
so cool!
Posted by: uggs online | October 28, 2010 at 01:46 PM
so pretty.You are a good teacher. Lucky student!
Posted by: red bottom heel | October 02, 2011 at 01:32 PM