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

baileysbattlebus

The women working business - I worked full time from our youngest starting school - she is 27 now, and I'm 54, I didn't need to work to help keep a roof over our heads - but if we wanted nice holidays, nice clothes and nice cars - the money had to come from somewhere. And the bonus was a nice pension at 50. Not planned for so very nice.

It would be interesting to see how many women work the same reasons I did.

carolt

Some do - I can think of one or two.

But probably the majority work because they'd not afford the basics, without.

There are some women who prefer to work even though it's not essential to, once they have kids; the number who'd prefer to work full-time, though, I suspect is very few. Many recent surveys have highlighted the very high proportion of mothers who would rather be stay-at-home-mothers, if financial necessity did not force them to work away from their children.

Which brings me back to my earlier point - all statistics bear out that the number of women with children who work is very far from 100% - even just counting part-time work. The younger the children are, the less likely the mother is to be involved in paid work. And that work is unlikely to be paid at anything like the rate that male-full-time workers get, sadly.

So the reality is that couples on 2 full time wages - with no childcare costs - make up really a very tiny - and insignificant - proportion of the population. It's the reason why average household income does not = double average single income.

By a long way.

Bloo_Loo

nicko33 wrote: »

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."

most self employed are not wealthy, they are plumbers, heating engineers, electricians and so on....except maybe BTL Landlords and their wealth is largely countered by their borrowings.

It is not tax efficient to remain off PAYE above quite a small salary.

Thrugelmir

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

As these stats relate to 2008, and we're already well into 2009. I'm not sure that they hold much relevance in view of the rapidly changing employment conditions in this country. Until we have a period of stability the picture is murky to say the least.

If you are a low wage working in London your chances of ever buying a property are zero. Though earning the same wage in Stoke In Trent is a different matter.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ad9898 wrote: »

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.

The realities of life are simple. Not everyone can afford to buy a house.

The median wage is defined in this article as being the point where half of people make more, and half less.

For full time employees, that is 25K.

However, given that somewhere around 30% of people live in council/social housing, and also given the fact that these are the lowest paid in society..... What is the median wage when the bottom 30% of earners are removed?????? As this is all that is relevant to house prices.

The lowest paid 30% of society have never been able to afford a home. Home ownership has never exceeded 70% of people.

JonnyBravo

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.

Agree with all the post bar the last bit.

Virtually none? I'm afraid I disagree.

eg the two women in my team who have just returned from maternity leave both use their grandparents as unpaid childcare.... not full time so yes they have some childcare costs, but not horrendous.
How many families get a house and probably a few years of pay rises etc before needing to pay for childcare?

Of course as soon as they're at school childcare costs drop significantly and this is for a large proportion of their lives at home. Then they become old enough to leave alone.
All mitigating factors.


So in short... yes childcare is expensive and yes lots of people pay it.

Do I agree that (by logical conclusion of your statement) "virtually everyone" with children is paying horrendous childcare costs.

No.

lostinrates

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The realities of life are simple. Not everyone can afford to buy a house.

The median wage is defined in this article as being the point where half of people make more, and half less.

For full time employees, that is 25K.

However, given that somewhere around 30% of people live in council/social housing, and also given the fact that these are the lowest paid in society..... What is the median wage when the bottom 30% of earners are removed?????? As this is all that is relevant to house prices.

The lowest paid 30% of society have never been able to afford a home. Home ownership has never exceeded 70% of people.

I get and agree with most of that.

This 30% of peole in social housing pay or have paid for them rents though: some of which is taken my private landlords: surely the yield on these let properties (which credibly is impacted by houseprices) is therefore relevant to the arguement?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The realities of life are simple. Not everyone can afford to buy a house.

The median wage is defined in this article as being the point where half of people make more, and half less.

For full time employees, that is 25K.

However, given that somewhere around 30% of people live in council/social housing, and also given the fact that these are the lowest paid in society..... What is the median wage when the bottom 30% of earners are removed?????? As this is all that is relevant to house prices.

The lowest paid 30% of society have never been able to afford a home. Home ownership has never exceeded 70% of people.

What your asking for here, is the average income of homeowners.

That's something different, and something which will always be out of sinc with the average wage. But you can't just dismiss the lowest paid as being in council / social housing and then say the lowest 30% of wage earners don't count.

I would argue though, that your 30% is not accurate. A lot of those in social / council homes are actually on benefits of some sort, whether that means they live on them, or get their rent paid with them. Not ALL before I get flamed . The very fact they are paying the going rates of houses as they rise and fall, through rent, means you cannot disregard them.

PasturesNew

I might remind some of you that what women do/don't do is irrelevant to some of us ... some of us never married, never had kids and had to go out to work to pay the bills.

No luxury of choice!

carolt

Nothing like 30% live in council/social housing, Hamish.

Did you just make that figure up?

If 70% own and 30% live in council/social housing, where does that leave all those millions who post on here, who rent privately?