Average UK full-time wage

Emmzi

I don't want to participate as you'd see my name and my band. I concur with those who suggest your research methodology is flawed.

SarEl

Emmzi wrote: »

I don't want to participate as you'd see my name and my band. I concur with those who suggest your research methodology is flawed.

I agree with everything anyone has said except the OP - and by the way OP, it takes a lot more that £50k+ to be a "ridiculously high earner". An awful, awful lot more. So much more to be ridiculously nowhere near £50k! I do not wish to offend people her who may be on low incomes or unemployed - but a great many "not rich" people earn in the region of £50 - £70k. They are better off - not high earners! My legal PA (who is not based in London - but is remarkably skilled and useful!) earns nearly that and will earn that within the next couple of years. She is a PA! You are making too many assumptions about what people actually get paid in this country, and assuming that most working people get paid low wages - something that is far from true.

LadyMissA

£20k-£29,999k

I think £50k is a great salary. I'd be rich if I was on that

SarEl

LadyMissA wrote: »

I think £50k is a great salary

It depends on your perspective - if you are unemployed it would be wouldn't it? But that does not mean that a personal opinion is a statistically relevant statement. In the greater world £50k is is a far from uncommon salary - therefore assuming that anyone over that is "ridiculously high" earner for a statistically vaild piece of research is silly. Which is what the OP claims to be conducting.

LadyMissA

£20k-£29,999k

SarEl wrote: »

It depends on your perspective - if you are unemployed it would be wouldn't it? But that does not mean that a personal opinion is a statistically relevant statement. In the greater world £50k is is a far from uncommon salary - therefore assuming that anyone over that is "ridiculously high" earner for a statistically vaild piece of research. Which is what the OP claims to be conducting.

And WHEN I was working I could never dream of earning that much - such a shame but a fact. I see 50-70k as a high earner. I don't know anyone in that salary bracket.

SarEl

LadyMissA wrote: »

And WHEN I was working I could never dream of earning that much - such a shame but a fact. I see 50-70k as a high earner. I don't know anyone in that salary bracket.

Just because you don't know anyone in that wage bracket is not evidence that it is an uncommon wage. I know lots of people in that wage bracket, but that isn't evidence of anything other than the fact that lots of people do earn that much.

LadyMissA

£20k-£29,999k

SarEl wrote: »

Just because you don't know anyone in that wage bracket is not evidence that it is an uncommon wage. I know lots of people in that wage bracket, but that isn't evidence of anything other than the fact that lots of people do earn that much.

and lots earn below 25k or even lower - that is a fact too.

SarEl

LadyMissA wrote: »

and a lot earning below 25k or even lower - that is a fact too.

I did not say there weren't. I said that it is statistical evidence of nothing - which is what this thread is about! According to the HMRC in the tax year ending April 2010 859,000 employees (so not including people who obtain their income by other means) earned £50 - 70k. That is an awful lot of people. 6 million earned £20 - £30 k and a further 4 million+ between £30 and £50. That makes some 11 million people earning between £20 and £70k - that is an awful lot of people.

And so what? I understand that low wages are a major problem - but equally it is unrealistic to expect that someone with three GCSE's is going to get a well paid job (unless they are very exceptional or a member of the royal family). There will always be differentials in salaries. And costs will go up according to those differntials. So if the NMW was £20k a year - people would still be poor because they would pay more for the things they need to buy.

RadoJo

Also, conducting such a survey on a moneysaving site is going to skew the results considerably as you aren't getting a representative cross section of society. It is reasonable to suppose that the majority of people on this site are likely to be at the lower end of the earning scale, purely on the basis that they are using this site.

LadyMissA

£20k-£29,999k

SarEl wrote: »

I did not say there weren't. I said that it is statistical evidence of nothing - which is what this thread is about! According to the HMRC in the tax year ending April 2010 859,000 employees (so not including people who obtain their income by other means) earned £50 - 70k. That is an awful lot of people. 6 million earned £20 - £30 k and a further 4 million+ between £30 and £50. That makes some 11 million people earning between £20 and £70k - that is an awful lot of people.

And so what? I understand that low wages are a major problem - but equally it is unrealistic to expect that someone with three GCSE's is going to get a well paid job (unless they are very exceptional or a member of the royal family). There will always be differentials in salaries. And costs will go up according to those differntials. So if the NMW was £20k a year - people would still be poor because they would pay more for the things they need to buy.

Qualifications do not really come into it if you are in a low paid industry or the company you work for doesn't pay the going rate regardless of qualifications.