More average salary stats to argue over.....

Graham_Devon

There will always be career types, be it male or female.

But most, I would think, are going out to work not because they want to, but because it's the only way to get by these days if you are not on benefits.

Especially for the younger generations for whom one wage of even 45k would see a struggle to buy a reasonable property AND keep the family in many, if not most areas of the country. It's ok once you have a house and maybe some equity behind you, but STARTING out as a family, would be a struggle even on those figures what with the need for deposits, the kids needs, the car, tax, rent, work life plus house prices generally being still 4x the 45k wage.

What I'm trying to say is, I would think, for those with children and both working, the majority will find it more of a means to an end, rather than a joy to go out to work instead of raising the family.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I'd never thought of this before. Obviously there's no point in sending girl children to school to learn to read and write, so the country could save a fortune by slashing its education budget by 50%. Once all the current female employees have been sacked and sent back to their rightful role in the kitchen, their positions can be filled by all the male unemployed, and any pensions they were looking forward to can be fed back into the system to help plug that gap. Simple really when you think about it.

ad9898_3

Still, it would have been better for society if the banks hadn't encouraged the ridiculous lending they had done with this flakey 'affordability calculator' they used. A simple cap on LTI's and a capital gains tax of 90% on second homes/BTL's would help the whole of society (after all it's about the yield isn't it ? and doing tenants a service ?), granted some people would be sacrificed (highly leveraged BTL'rs etc), but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

With 21 million properties in the UK, many migrants going back their country of origin to flee the recession, even the fabled 'shortage' would be shown not to exist.

lostinrates

Although I think the working women argument needs to be handled gently I do think its relevant. Not that I'm sying others of my sex should/shouldn't work: its not my place too. DH and I both had working mothers and feel we missed out to some degree as a result. Luckily the arrnagements put in place for us satisfactorily met our needs: however I do think that combined with other social changes (e.g. lack of independance of children/less playing alone/outside) we risk greater social ill than low house prices.

Women have, of course, always worked in some situations: taking in washing to ''managing a household'' or teaching, and this, or not working always involves some comprimise.

It is inevitable this will increase average income: its also likely it will (or ''should'' depending on how widespread entitlement to free/discount childcare/out of school provision) increase outgoings: creating costs that hithertoo might not have been there, or would have been significantly lower.

IveSeenTheLight

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Have fun boys and girls!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8151355.stm


"The Office for National Statistics' Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) provides some of the most reliable figures.
According to ASHE, "mean" gross annual earnings across all employees jobs in 2008 came to £26,020. You may think that's rather a high "average" salary. If you look just at the figures for full time employees, that figure rises to £31,323.
Another way of measuring it is "median" gross annual earnings. According to ASHE, this was the more modest figure of £20,801, across all employees jobs. If you are earning that sum a year, you are "Mr or Mrs Mid-Point" - precisely half the surveyed working population earns less than you and half more. For just full-time employees, the median is £25,123."


Should be a good 80 or so posts by this time tomorrow (70 of them flaming someone else ) and I'm sure that ISTL and Graham still won't see eye to eye by the end.


:T

I dont think anyone can argue against the ONS figures.

Some people just don't understand how you can't compare median wages with mean house prices

Some people don't understand that in order to compare long term stats, you have to maintain the definition the stats are set by

the_ash_and_the_oak

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Times have changed though haven't they, long term average means nowt when society sends a greater proportion of women out to work rather than sitting at home raising kiddies and wearing a pinny, and property ownership is so much more "the thing to do".

also worth pointing out that long term ave also not as applicable because flats and apartments make up a larger percentage of housing stock than in past

carolt

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Times have changed though haven't they, long term average means nowt when society sends a greater proportion of women out to work rather than sitting at home raising kiddies and wearing a pinny, and property ownership is so much more "the thing to do".

Two points - firstly, although women work, in the early years of having children, most of that money is taken up in childcare costs which are phenomenally high - many full-time working women I know have next to nothing left over once the childcare bill is paid, but either need to work psychologically, or fear being locked out of careers later if they have a large gap.

Secondly, although women work, the vast majority do so part-time and/or in lower-paying jobs.

It's well-known that working mothers face far lower earnings once they've had kids. Some of that is down to deciding to opt out of the rat race and focus on family; a lot of that is the inability to find suitable part-time work that fits around children.

I should know - I took a massive pay cut to fit around my children. Not complaining - my choice - but from all my acquaintances, I'd say I'm pretty typical.

The number of families with children on 2 full-time wages without horrendous childcare costs? Virtually none.

nicko33

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I dont think anyone can argue against the ONS figures.

Just remember that it is a statistic from a sample of a particular part of the population

"The ASHE is a sample of 1% of people who pay tax via PAYE. It doesn't include the self-employed - businessmen, contractors etc - who make up the ranks of the really wealthy."

ad9898_3

carolt wrote: »

Two points - firstly, although women work, in the early years of having children, most of that money is taken up in childcare costs which are phenomenally high - many full-time working women I know have next to nothing left over once the childcare bill is paid, but either need to work psychologically, or fear being locked out of careers later if they have a large gap.

Secondly, although women work, the vast majority do so part-time and/or in lower-paying jobs.

It's well-known that working mothers face far lower earnings once they've had kids. Some of that is down to deciding to opt out of the rat race and focus on family; a lot of that is the inability to find suitable part-time work that fits around children.

I should know - I took a massive pay cut to fit around my children. Not complaining - my choice - but from all my acquaintances, I'd say I'm pretty typical.

The number of families with children on 2 full-time wages without horrendous childcare costs? Virtually none.

A very good post, directly from the realities of life. It counters very nicely the utterly useless tripe about the only people who deserve an 'average house' are a couple both earning 30k a year.

baileysbattlebus

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

also worth pointing out that long term ave also not as applicable because flats and apartments make up a larger percentage of housing stock than in past

You're not wrong there:

DCLG (Dept Communities and Local Gov't) figures show that in 2006 the number of one and two bed flats completed as a percentage of all properties built was 45%, up from just 17% in 1996

Nearly half of all new build in 2006 were flats - and in Reading it was probably a lot more than that - in Reading it seems like every availabe piece of land has had a block of flats built on it . Hundreds must have been built over the last few years.