Where occupation-level data exists — the UK, Canada, Australia and several EU members — you can compare your occupation directly, with the caveat that classifications map onto each other loosely. Everywhere else the best available approach is to bracket: sector averages, the country's overall wage level, and any collective agreement covering the work. A confident occupational figure outside that group is an estimate wearing a citation.
Doing it where the data exists
Find the occupation in your own classification, then find the nearest equivalent in the other country’s. Read both distributions rather than both medians, because occupations with wide spreads can rank differently at the top and the bottom.
Then apply the four steps: net, annualised, purchasing power, benefits listed separately. A raw comparison of two occupational medians in two currencies is not an answer.
Why the classifications are the weak point
Two countries can have an apparently identical occupation covering different work. Scope creeps in one and not the other; a task that requires a license in one is unregulated in the other; seniority is folded into the code differently. The error this introduces is real and nobody quotes a figure for it.
The practical response is to treat cross-country occupational comparisons as approximate even at their best, and to weight the direction more than the magnitude.
Bracketing where it does not exist
Three inputs, none sufficient alone. The country’s overall wage level relative to yours, from a source that says whether it is mean or median. The sector average for the industry the work sits in. And any collective agreement covering the occupation, which where it exists is frequently published in full and is the most reliable single item available.
Together those give a range. A range is a legitimate answer and a considerably better one than a point estimate with no method behind it.
The thing that outweighs the pay figure
Whether you can practice at all. Licensed occupations frequently do not travel — the qualification is not recognized, or recognition requires examinations and supervised hours that take years. For those occupations the pay comparison is downstream of a much larger question, and getting the order wrong wastes a lot of research.
Where the answer is usually surprising
Occupations that are scarce in one country and ordinary in another, and occupations whose pay is set by collective agreement rather than by a market. Both produce rankings that do not track country wealth, which is why the general rankings are a poor substitute for the occupational question.
Common questions
Can I find what my job pays in another country?
Directly for a handful u2014 the UK, Canada, Australia and several EU members. Elsewhere the honest approach is to bracket from sector averages, the country's wage level and any collective agreement.
Why are cross-country occupational comparisons approximate?
Because classifications map onto each other loosely. Apparently identical occupations can cover different work, and nobody publishes a figure for the error that introduces.
What is the most reliable source where no survey exists?
A collective agreement covering the occupation, where one exists. They are frequently published in full and are more reliable than any commercial estimate.
What matters more than the pay figure?
Whether you can practice at all. Licensed qualifications frequently do not travel, and recognition can take years u2014 that question sits above the pay comparison, not beside it.
Do the general country rankings help?
Only as a rough sort. Occupations scarce in one country and ordinary in another produce rankings that do not track national wealth at all.