Occupation-level wage data of comparable quality to the US survey exists for a small number of countries — the UK, Canada, Australia and several EU members through the European survey of earnings. Elsewhere what is published is usually an average wage, sometimes broken down by sector, and nothing at occupation level. A confident occupational figure for a country outside that group has almost always been derived from something weaker.
The tiers of availability
Occupation and area, published in full. The United States is the outlier here, publishing 830 occupations by state and metropolitan area annually. Nothing else is at that resolution.
Occupation-level, national. The UK publishes an annual survey of hours and earnings with occupational detail and percentiles. Canada, Australia and several EU members publish comparable material, though on different cycles and with different occupational classifications.
Sector-level only. A larger group publishes average earnings by economic activity rather than by occupation. Useful for direction, not for “what does my job pay”.
An average, and little else. The largest group. An average wage, sometimes a minimum wage, and no occupational breakdown at all.
Why the classifications do not line up
Countries use different occupational classification systems, and even where an international standard exists, national systems map onto it loosely. So an apparently matching occupation in two countries can cover different work, and comparisons across classifications carry an error nobody quotes.
This is one reason cross-country occupational comparisons should be read as approximate even when both sides have good data.
What to do where nothing is published
The same thing as when a US occupation has no figure: bracket it. Sector averages, minimum wage where it exists, and any published data from the nearest comparable economy give a range rather than a point.
Trade unions and professional associations frequently publish more than governments do in exactly these places, and collective agreements — where they exist — are sometimes published in full and are the most reliable thing available.
The sources that look official and are not
A great deal of international salary information comes from relocation-services and recruitment firms with a commercial interest and no published method. It is not worthless, and it should not be read as equivalent to a national statistical release, which is how it usually appears once it has been cited a few times.
The practical test
Ask whether the source names the national survey it came from. Where a country publishes one, a good source cites it. Where it does not, a source claiming occupational precision is telling you something it cannot know.
Common questions
Which countries publish occupation-level wage data?
A small group u2014 the UK, Canada, Australia and several EU members through the European survey of earnings. The US publishes at higher resolution than any of them.
Why can I not find a figure for my job in most countries?
Because most publish an average wage, sometimes by sector, and nothing at occupation level. It is a genuine gap rather than a failure to search.
Are cross-country occupational comparisons reliable?
Approximate at best. Countries use different classification systems and even the international standard is mapped onto loosely, so apparently matching occupations can cover different work.
What should I use where nothing is published?
Sector averages, minimum wage, and data from the nearest comparable economy, treated as a range. Unions and professional associations often publish more than governments in exactly those places.
How do I judge an international salary source?
Ask whether it names the national survey it came from. Where a country publishes one, a good source cites it; where it does not, occupational precision is being claimed rather than known.