Earning the National Living Wage? Then you can’t afford a starter home in 98% of LAs

paddyrg

So the people earning (by definition) the minimum legal amount are unable to afford to buy one of the most expensive assets in the country. How scandalous. If only there was a way to occupy a home without owning a share of it.

And let's face it, pay people more and prices rise and settle at a higher number with same inequity - worse in fact as you now exclude even more people. I really hope this isn't news to anyone here.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Because only full time working men need homes...

Things have changed quite drastically in the employment scene (and family scene) over the past 20 years or so. I think it's probably about time some consideration should be taken for those changes.

One way to do that would be to use the average wage of everyone. No good talking about full time male wages in an era of supposed equality. It's also no good talking of full time male wages when many households don't bring a full time male wage in.

So you are trying to argue a 17 year old working 5 hours a week delivering newspapers for £30 a week should be included in what is and is not affordable?

For the poor who do not work or who work poorly paid job there is the social sector which makes up nearly 5 million units. If everyone is to buy then what will we do with the social stock. bulldoze it?

Also if you look at the average terrace vs the average wage you find its very affordable for a full time worker (man or woman).

If you earn less than the average, well guess what, you will have to buy the half of the terrace homes which are priced under the average terrace price, and guess what, you will likely have to opt for the cheaper parts of town

cells

Wake_up_call wrote: »

Except the average man doesn't earn £37,500 at all.

Early last year the High Pay Centre calculated the national average is £26,500 and in many parts of the North and Scotland it is much lower than that.

ONS figures show the average being around £25,500.

Forget your average working class jobs for a second and consider that most teachers, nurses and police officers do not earn anywhere near £37,500.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/nowcasting-household-income-in-the-uk/2014-15/stb-nowcasting---2015.html

What you want to look at is table 7.7a which shows you wages across the towns and regions

For male full time workers
Median £29,934
Mean £37,123

However this is also too low a figure to use as it assumes all full time males should be able to buy a home. But that would mean no full time males at all in the social stock. If you knock away the lowest 10th or 20th percentile (and accept some people will have to be in the social stock which makes up ~18% of all homes) that pushes up the average further


Anyway mean full time male wage

England £37,879
North East £33,136
North West £33,037
Y&H £31,874
E-Midlands £32,389
W-Midlands £33,251
East £35,509
London £53,517
South East £39,029
South West £33,314
Wales £30,245
Scotland £35,154
NI £31,018

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Are you now saying that you should be able to buy a house on part time earnings.

For the umpteenth time - if I was saying that I would have simply said it.

Simply looking at full time, across the spectrum, not just male would be a start.

In reply to cells strawman.... pathetic.

cells

Regional variation

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

For the umpteenth time - if I was saying that I would have simply said it.

Simply looking at full time, across the spectrum, not just male would be a start.

In reply to cells strawman.... pathetic.

You are the pathetic one, pleding for info until it matches you confirmation bias when you could just put in a bit of effort and obtain it yourself

Anyway For full time working women in the UK

Median £24,202
Mean £28,388

For male full time workers in the UK
Median £29,934
Mean £37,123


Combine the two in a couple and you get

Median = £54,136
Mean = £65,511

Compare that to the average terrace in towns across the country. In some places like stoke-on-tent the average terrace is just £45,000. And to pre-empt your crying that everyone in stoke is surely paid in penuts the average full time working woman in stoke gets (£20,775 median and £23,662 mean) while a full time man gets (£25,111 median and £28,384 mean). That means a couple working full time in stoke can buy the average terrace in stoke for 1 x wage which is I hope you can agree very cheap and affordable and the people of stoke are not alone. Lots of towns and cities across the country are also very affordable.




Maybe that is why the tories did better than the left expected. A lot of the country is paid rather decent wages rather than the narrative that a large percentage of the country is on food stamps working zero hours for sports direct

antrobus

danothy wrote: »

Actually no, I haven't, I was in fact referencing the October 2015 Bulletin (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_417237.pdf) and the associated "Good News Ahoy!" thread (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5341231) in which I asserted that the 19% of new employment that wasn't full time was in fact entirely zero hour contracts, ....

Correct. You made that assertion purely on the basis of your own prejudice. No referencing at all was involved. As below;

danothy wrote: »

I know there's nothing in the stats about the 19% of new employment that isn't full time, but we all know that things are utterly terrible, so it must be zero hour contracts. They'd have said they weren't otherwise. It's obvious. And utterly terrible.

danothy wrote: »

...and as a corollary, that such a proportion of zero hour contracts holds for all employment. ....

And now you know that is wrong, because the ONS states that 2.4% of the total UK workforce of 31 million are on ZHC.

danothy wrote: »

..On that basis, it's alarming that it's jumped from 2.4% overall in 2014 to 19% by October 2015..

Well it would be if that happened but it didn't.

The ONS produces biannual estimates of ZHC. That 2.4% figure is for April June 2015. If that figure was indeed 19% by October 2015, that would mean that some 5 million workers would have to have been forced to accept ZHC over the previous three months.

Don't you think that at least one of those 5 million would have noticed and complained about it?

danothy wrote: »

.. I would agree with this if it wasn't for the fact that people on zero hour contracts have zero earnings due to working zero hours. They don't call them zero hour contracts for no reason.

There are, according to the last ONS release 744,000 workers on ZHC. What evidence do you have on how many of them actually have zero earnings?

danothy

antrobus wrote: »

Correct. You made that assertion purely on the basis of your own prejudice.

Wrong again, it was made purely on the basis of other people's prejudices.

antrobus wrote: »

The ONS produces biannual estimates of ZHC. That 2.4% figure is for April June 2015. If that figure was indeed 19% by October 2015, that would mean that some 5 million workers would have to have been forced to accept ZHC over the previous three months.

Don't you think that at least one of those 5 million would have noticed and complained about it?

And complain to who? The state controlled media? You're living in a fantasy if you think people on zero hour contracts have any rights to be heard or if they work any hours.

antrobus wrote: »

There are, according to the last ONS release 744,000 workers on ZHC. What evidence do you have on how many of them actually have zero earnings?

The evidence is in the name of the contract. They are called zero hour contracts because people on them work zero hours, and hence have zero earnings. Remember, you can't spell "rationalize" without the letters from "zero".