Rightmove: Buying Window is next 12-18 months

neverdespairgirl

Dan: wrote: »

10 years ago i wouldnt have described 18K as measly.

Not a huge difference, though:

" In 2008, £18,000.00 from 1999 is worth
£23,400.00 using the retail price index.
£25,600.00 using average earnings."

tommy75

edit:double post

tommy75

Cleaver wrote: »

That's true. But they don't though, do they? So, just to make my point again, if I earned £18k and was single, I wouldn't be thinking about buying a house.



They are 'allowed' to anything they please. But if you earn considerably less than the average wage, and you're single, you can't really afford to buy a house. I'm not saying whether that's right, wrong, good or bad... it just is what it is.

In 2000 wasn't the average wage roughly around 18k and the average house price around 60k? Whats the average wage and average house price now again?

Cleaver

tommy75 wrote: »

In 2000 wasn't the average wage roughly around 18k and the average house price around 60k? Whats the average wage and average house price now again?

Think the average house was about £80,000 in 2000. It doesn't really matter though does it? As I said before, I wasn't making a judgement call about whether this is right or wrong, good or bad.

To summerise again, if you earn £18k now, you're single and you don't have access to other funds then it's pretty certain you can't afford to buy a house. Happy to have a separate argument about any moral issues this brings up, but it's just a fact isn't it?

tommy75

Dan: wrote: »

10 years ago i wouldnt have described 18K as measly.

The average wage is only about 7k more than it was 10 years ago. 18k is hardly measly. In the real world most people north of the capital are earning nowhere near 18k a year. 18k is still a good income in this country if it's a stable income. I say stable because most work these days being offered is through agency's as all the major companys such as Tesco, Argo, TNT, Royal Mail & all haulage firms in the UK now only take on Agency staff on short term contracts. I see whats going on in some of these companys and most now have yellow bibs on with agency names such as 'Manpower'. How does anybody get a mortage when your income changes every few months and you are only contracted to companys from 1 week to a year at a time and have workless gaps inbetween if you cannot get work. I know some of the agencys are full to the rafters and not taking on any more workers by the way and we know where that will eventually lead too as living costs rocket.

IveSeenTheLight

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Not a huge difference, though:

" In 2008, £18,000.00 from 1999 is worth
£23,400.00 using the retail price index.
£25,600.00 using average earnings."

In 1999 the Median earnings (All employees) was £14,888
The Mean eanrings (All employees) was £17,702
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE_1999/tab1_7a.xls

In 2008 the Median Earnings (All employees) was £20,811
The Mean Earnings (All employees) was £26,137
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE_2008/tab1_7a.xls

Median increased 39.78%
Mean increased 47.65%

I guess this is showing that wages were greater than inflation and that there is a widening gap of earnings.

IveSeenTheLight

tommy75 wrote: »

18k is hardly measly. In the real world most people north of the capital are earning nowhere near 18k a year. 18k is still a good income in this country if it's a stable income.

You may think so but £18k is 47% below the all employees mean average income of £26,470.

It's 77% below the all employees full time avearage mean income

anyway, here's a link to see your on local regions.
there are many places north of the capital where the averages are way above £18k
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2009/tab8_7a.xls

P.S. My personal VI area (North of the capital) shows a full time male is on average more than double £18k

Cleaver

tommy75 wrote: »

The average wage is only about 7k more than it was 10 years ago. 18k is hardly measly. In the real world most people north of the capital are earning nowhere near 18k a year. 18k is still a good income in this country if it's a stable income. I say stable because most work these days being offered is through agency's as all the major companys such as Tesco, Argo, TNT, Royal Mail & all haulage firms in the UK now only take on Agency staff on short term contracts. I see whats going on in some of these companys and most now have yellow bibs on with agency names such as 'Manpower'. How does anybody get a mortage when your income changes every few months and you are only contracted to companys from 1 week to a year at a time and have workless gaps inbetween if you cannot get work. I know some of the agencys are full to the rafters and not taking on any more workers by the way and we know where that will eventually lead too as living costs rocket.

If the average wage has ‘only’ risen £7k from £18k to £24k in ten years then that’s a rise of about 40%. A rise of around 4% a year doesn’t sound too bad to me.

You say that £18k is a ‘good wage’, but only if you aren’t particularly bright and ambitious, or were a bit lacking in qualifications and / or experience. I guess it’s a decent wage for an unskilled or uneducated person, but then if I had ambitions to buy a house I would want to be a skilled and / or educated person. Is that a bit of a snobby approach? Dunno, but I think it’s true.

Just as an example, the Payroll Clerks at our company are on around £18k. All very lovely and hard working people, but don’t think any of them have many qualifications past secondary school and none of them ever really apply for other jobs at our company. The spec for that role asks for people with decent GCSEs, some office experience and a decent computer ability. We do sometimes take grads in to these roles, but any graduate that does join the Payroll team with any type of ambition tends to then apply for a assistant management accounts type roles and then will generally train to become an accountant, thus earning a lot more than £18k pretty soon after. We are in the poor, grim North of the country by the way.


Also, you say 'major' companies and then list companies that tend to employ mainly unskilled workers. Not really a decent benchmark when we're talking about averages.


As ISTL points out, the basic facts are that the majority of people earn more than £18k and the vast majority of people with ambitions to buy a house will certainly earn more than £18k.

tommy75

Cleaver wrote: »

If the average wage has ‘only’ risen £7k from £18k to £24k in ten years then that’s a rise of about 40%. A rise of around 4% a year doesn’t sound too bad to me.

You say that £18k is a ‘good wage’, but only if you aren’t particularly bright and ambitious, or were a bit lacking in qualifications and / or experience. I guess it’s a decent wage for an unskilled or uneducated person, but then if I had ambitions to buy a house I would want to be a skilled and / or educated person. Is that a bit of a snobby approach? Dunno, but I think it’s true.

Just as an example, the Payroll Clerks at our company are on around £18k. All very lovely and hard working people, but don’t think any of them have many qualifications past secondary school and none of them ever really apply for other jobs at our company. The spec for that role asks for people with decent GCSEs, some office experience and a decent computer ability. We do sometimes take grads in to these roles, but any graduate that does join the Payroll team with any type of ambition tends to then apply for a assistant management accounts type roles and then will generally train to become an accountant, thus earning a lot more than £18k pretty soon after. We are in the poor, grim North of the country by the way.


Also, you say 'major' companies and then list companies that tend to employ mainly unskilled workers. Not really a decent benchmark when we're talking about averages.


As ISTL points out, the basic facts are that the majority of people earn more than £18k and the vast majority of people with ambitions to buy a house will certainly earn more than £18k.

Just no cleaver. Unskilled people need homes for their families aswell.
If you didn't do that well at school or are unlucky in life for whatever reason, you don't deserve a home? The reason I mentioned Royal Mail, BT and Tesco etc and described them as 'major companies' is because they employ massive amounts of the UK workforce. Were are talking 200000 plus for some of these companies who pay a certain wage structure. Although there are skilled positions within these companies, the majority are unskilled worker and these make up the majority. I mentioned agencies also because the face of the UK economy has changed dramatically in the last 10 years and full time positions in these companies no longer exist. These people have a right to be able to afford a home without getting into unafordable debt or simply not having the size of deposit now needed to buy a home. If you are a skilled worker then yes you should get a bigger nicer house in a better area but that shouldn't stop the majority of the working population from getting a basic necessity.

treliac

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

P.S. My personal VI area (North of the capital) shows a full time male is on average more than double £18k

Cleaver wrote: »

As ISTL points out, the basic facts are that the majority of people earn more than £18k.

You may both be right but I doubt it personally. For the bulk of unqualified, unskilled workers (shop, factory, clerical etc.) I think that in excess of £18k would be something they could only dream of earning.

I live in the allegedly wealthy south-east but, from what I know about local folk, I'm sure that only a minority earn the £25k average or above. You just have to look at job ads. Average pay, as defined, is raised by those earning vastly in excess of that figure.

The reason that many working families get by is because both parents are working their socks off.