We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

Families need £36,800 to live acceptably, study says

124

Comments

  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    patchwork_cat wrote: »
    Has anyone spotted whether they have a pet?

    It might be eating the oven cleaner!
  • ukcarper
    ukcarper Posts: 17,337 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 10 July 2012 at 7:34PM
    Graham_Devon wrote: »
    You'd have to use median.

    Mean is pointless in respect to the original point.

    But if you leave out childcare you could reduce that figure to just above median.
  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ukcarper wrote: »
    But if you leave out childcare you could reduce that figure to just above median.

    Well yes. If you leave out kids, you could reduce the figure.

    Which is why they have.
  • ukcarper
    ukcarper Posts: 17,337 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Graham_Devon wrote: »
    Well yes. If you leave out kids, you could reduce the figure.

    Which is why they have.

    I didn’t say leave kids out just childcare if only one person was working you wouldn’t need pay for care.
  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ukcarper wrote: »
    I didn’t say leave kids out just childcare if only one person was working you wouldn’t need pay for care.

    If only one person was workign its unlikely they would achieve the 37k figure.

    A commentator regarding the research stated this themselves. For reference, they USED the median figure, not the mean.
  • ukcarper
    ukcarper Posts: 17,337 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 10 July 2012 at 8:13PM
    Graham_Devon wrote: »
    If only one person was workign its unlikely they would achieve the 37k figure.

    A commentator regarding the research stated this themselves. For reference, they USED the median figure, not the mean.

    The median full time male wage is £28.4k which as I said is £800 less that the £36.8k figure less childcare costs so they wouldn’t need to earn £36.8k.

    £800 a year is £15 a week which you could easily earn with out the need for child care.
  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ukcarper wrote: »
    The median full time male wage is £28.4k which as I said is £800 less that the £36.8k figure less childcare costs so they wouldn’t need to earn £36.8k.

    Oh I see what you mean....if one of them is on the absolute average, they could give up childcare (reducing the costs) and have one parent stay at home.

    I guess that's correct. How relative it is though is another discussion I guess, as you'd have to be earning exactly average for that to work.
  • ukcarper
    ukcarper Posts: 17,337 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Graham_Devon wrote: »
    Oh I see what you mean....if one of them is on the absolute average, they could give up childcare (reducing the costs) and have one parent stay at home.

    I guess that's correct. How relative it is though is another discussion I guess, as you'd have to be earning exactly average for that to work.

    The point is these reports are meaningless.
  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    I agree.

    As meaningless as the affordability report much has been made of.
  • pqrdef
    pqrdef Posts: 4,552 Forumite
    chewmylegoff wrote: »
    My view is that this survey is attempting to answer the second question by asking the first.
    What's wrong with that? Where's the logic in supposing that other people can have an acceptable standard of living on less money than you would need yourself?

    If you ask the second question, you won't get a sensible answer to it. What you'll get is some version of "Frankly I couldn't give a toss whether benefit claimants have an acceptable standard of living or not."
    "It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.5K Life & Family
  • 261.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture