Grant Shapps, start building homes you ****

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Still says 29k, lol.

I’m looking in gross annual pay Median is £38,795 full time male. Where are you looking.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I’m looking in gross annual pay Median is £38,795 full time male. Where are you looking.

Oh right, fair enough. Just don't see the point of looking at male only. Infact, there is no point.

The average, over all jobs, male and female, IS the average.

Looking at full time only for males only kinda defeats the point of averages.

Its neither showing you household income of a couple, neither is it showing you income of females, and it's only looking at full time jobs, which are currently a problem. May aswell just look at the full picture, and look at everyone, surely?

Cleaver

nightwatchman wrote: »

Ohhh God this forum must be full of rich people……
As hard as I try, I can not find anyone of the people I know that is earning more than £35k.
And the ones I do know that earn that £35k I don’t need the digits of both of my hands to count them.
My best friend (and bestman) is a teacher and his is earning thereabout or less.
I know an accountant that he claims that he earns that figure or a bit more.
My manager also earns that…
So that makes three……

The weekly wage of someone earning £35,000 is £671. According to the ONS (Table 1: All Employees) there are 25% of people who earn £623 or more a week and 20% of people who earn £688 or more a week (and this includes full time, part time, male and female). So I would hazard a decent guess that around 21% of people earn £35,000 or over, or every 1 in 5 people.

Hamish is obviously right, your perception of people's earnings will be shaped by your social circle. But as a rough guide, if you picked 100 working people at random then around 20 of them will be earning £35k or above. So it isn't that uncommon.

In terms of full time males (presumably the 'richest' group) the ONS report that around a third earn £35,000 and over. If I'm going to be honest, I'm a middle class, late twenties male from a decent background and my friend group is mainly made up of professional people, most of whom have gone to uni. As a result, I see salaries of £35,000 and up as pretty common and I would say that at least two thirds of my friends earn this amount or above.

Just as a final note, you mention an accountant who 'claims' that he earns £35k or more. I would personally expect any decent accountant with more than a couple of years experience to be earning £35k or more.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh right, fair enough. Just don't see the point of looking at male only. Infact, there is no point.

The average, over all jobs, male and female, IS the average.

Looking at full time only for males only kinda defeats the point of averages.

Its neither showing you household income of a couple, neither is it showing you income of females, and it's only looking at full time jobs, which are currently a problem. May aswell just look at the full picture, and look at everyone, surely?

I agree employment is a problem but the full time median wage is £34k so it would still only take just over 4x single person’s salary to buy a 2-bed terrace with a 10% deposit.

As I said in post 66 I think houses are more expensive then when I first bought but I think I would be able to buy now if I was in the same position only not such a good house.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just don't see the point of looking at male only. Infact, there is no point.

There is a point.....

It's the figure used by the main indices, and has been since they started.

So if you're trying to compare prices to income over time, it's the only consistent comparison.

For example, the long term average of house prices to income on Halifax is 4 x male (mean) salary. So someone that says the long term average is actually 3 times median male and female would be lying.

ANd the difference between the two is significant.

The current average house price on Halifax is 4.5 times male (mean) salary. But it would be more like 6 times median all people salary.

So if you're interested in accuracy in a comparison of house prices over time, using the right stat is a good place to start. Of course, if you're only interested in arguing semantics, or spreading propaganda, then muddling up the stats is probably the way forward....;)

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There is a point.....

It's the figure used by the main indices, and has been since they started.

So if you're trying to compare prices to income over time, it's the only consistent comparison.

For example, the long term average of house prices to income on Halifax is 4 x male (mean) salary. So someone that says the long term average is actually 3 times median male and female would be lying.

ANd the difference between the two is significant.

The current average house price on Halifax is 4.5 times male (mean) salary. But it would be more like 6 times median all people salary.

So if you're interested in accuracy in a comparison of house prices over time, using the right stat is a good place to start. Of course, if you're only interested in arguing semantics, or spreading propaganda, then muddling up the stats is probably the way forward....;)

Yadda yadda yadda.

May well be the data used by Halifax.

But in the real world, that link shows what people earn. There is no way of really getting around that.

You will stick to what suits you, and I'm not going to sit here trying to tell you you are wrong. But, what I will say, is that denying to actually look at any other figures allows your judgement on the issue to be clouded. You may well be quite happy with that, and be quite happy to sit there in denial. That's up to you. All I'm doing is offering up facts, putting the case forward, saying this is the governments statistics on what people earn, and this is house prices. Take it or leave it.

I think it's quite clear you wish to leave it, and would rather sit there in denial. That's cool. Everyones different.

Facts though, are on a plate for you. There is no "right stat". Every statistic should be looked at, and I'd say the wider the database, the better the statistics presented. You'll deny that, and continue down the road of "no I'm right, these are the stats I wish to look at and continue pumping out in every thread regardless of what's presented to me".

It's called, the elephant in the room. And you Hamish, you really hate that elephant.

Matt1977

Totally agree that more homes need to be built, especially affordable rented homes. Have Schapps not noticed the homelessness problem?

However, I suspect that this is a low priority in Parliament as MPs' BTL portfolios might suffer if such affordable rented homes are built in the same areas, allegedly. Selfish ******s.

ILW

Matt1977 wrote: »

Totally agree that more homes need to be built, especially affordable rented homes. Have Schapps not noticed the homelessness problem?

However, I suspect that this is a low priority in Parliament as MPs' BTL portfolios might suffer if such affordable rented homes are built in the same areas, allegedly. Selfish ******s.

I do have to say that I do not "see" a homelessness problem, with the exception of alcies and druggies on the street.

robin_banks

ILW wrote: »

I do have to say that I do not "see" a homelessness problem, with the exception of alcies and druggies on the street.

And you know these are homeless ?.

Sibley

Foxy, just accept it fella.
You have been dealt a bad hand in life.

You ain't going to own a nice house with that massive chip on your shoulder. Instead of wasting time on here you could be flipping burgers earning your deposit.