The house 'earnings' award goes to ....

ukcarper

westernpromise wrote: »

Perhaps it's the circles I mix in, but anyone on less than £50k a year 5 years out of university has picked the wrong career path if earning a decent wage was their goal. I have people of 26, 27 under me who are on £70k. I have 24-year-olds on packages worth £50k. Some of them deserve a bit more, frankly.

I can only surmise that someone with a degree, who's working in London, and who is not making £50k a year by the time they're 30, simply doesn't want to. In the same way, anyone in London who's not working is not working because they've chosen not to work. They are identical choices. If you're on less than £50k at 30 it has to be because you've chosen a line of work that rewards you in some way other than the money.

That's fine but don't forget what a great time you had in your 20s when you're 40 and still trying live on kiddy money.

I suspect it is the circles in which you move. The figures I posted are from ONS 2016 ASHE and are for full time workers.

westernpromise

So here's a survey of what you could get paid doing compliance in the City in 2014.

https://www.morganmckinley.co.uk/article/compliance-2014-salary-survey

Note the salaries for analysts with 0 to 2 years' experience: £25k to £55k.

ukcarper

westernpromise wrote: »

So here's a survey of what you could get paid doing compliance in the City in 2014.

https://www.morganmckinley.co.uk/article/compliance-2014-salary-survey

Note the salaries for analysts with 0 to 2 years' experience: £25k to £55k.

I don't dispute you can earn good money in London 20% of full time workers earn £54k or more but 60% earn less than £42k

westernpromise

Sure, but my contention is that those earning less than £42k must in many cases have constructively chosen to do so. Which is fine; maybe they like that they don't work for evil banksters. But if so, that feeling of virtue is a form of non-cash compensation.

ukcarper

westernpromise wrote: »

Sure, but my contention is that those earning less than £42k must in many cases have constructively chosen to do so. Which is fine; maybe they like that they don't work for evil banksters. But if so, that feeling of virtue is a form of non-cash compensation.

Not everyone can work for banks if they did how many would be able to and if there was a surplus would earnings not fall.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make with this? There are plenty of sites that break down house prices by borough if you want to exclude certain things? Are you going to take bankers out of average earnings? How about those who inherit millions? Pilots? Surgeons? What purpose would removing the 5 most expensive boroughs in London along with the 5 top earning professions serve?

What's the point about Hackney? You've lost me.

I don't think I ever had you to lose you

Some things in life are purchased with wealth not with income and London property or a lot of London property is now on the list of wealthy people to own. Just like you wouldn't look at million dollar paintings and try to draw some theory to average earnings you wouldn't do that to property in Kensington which you accept. Well why are we drawing the line at Kensington? Why not one of the other dozen boroughs where a nice house costs over a million pounds?

You need to think of some portion of London as a market of wealth not income so any income affordability rules do not apply. You need to look at wealth affordability for that segment.

And guess what has happened to wealth over the last decade. Well the stock market is up the bond market has been on a huge bull run not to mention the sum of bonds owned by investors has vastly increased. Even sports music film stars are now far more wealthy than ever before. And the household savings rate is still positive. All this wealth disproportionately impacts London as the wealthy nationally and globally don't know about the charms of stoke on Trent so go and buy in London town.

Its no surprise that London is expensive. The surprise is that London was so cheap in the 90s and for much of the 2000s

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

Sure, but my contention is that those earning less than £42k must in many cases have constructively chosen to do so. Which is fine; maybe they like that they don't work for evil banksters. But if so, that feeling of virtue is a form of non-cash compensation.

You make it sound as if its a deck of cards and you can pick anything you want. If that were the case would you not be a lot richer a lot more attractive and a lot more powerful and a lot happier than you are?

Everything in our lives is heavily influenced by chance and prior factors. You seem to dismiss this. You didn't choose your DNA or your personality or your good points or your bad points. You don't even choose the thoughts that come into your head. Even any conscious efforts you make to improve your lot aren't themselves void of any other influences.

Given the same circumstances same experiences same biology same factors you would make the same decisions as the people you probably think are just being lazy.


Having said all that I would not advocate more distribution than we currently have.

padington

GreatApe wrote: »

You make it sound as if its a deck of cards and you can pick anything you want. If that were the case would you not be a lot richer a lot more attractive and a lot more powerful and a lot happier than you are?

Everything in our lives is heavily influenced by chance and prior factors. You seem to dismiss this. You didn't choose your DNA or your personality or your good points or your bad points. You don't even choose the thoughts that come into your head. Even any conscious efforts you make to improve your lot aren't themselves void of any other influences.

Given the same circumstances same experiences same biology same factors you would make the same decisions as the people you probably think are just being lazy.


Having said all that I would not advocate more distribution than we currently have.

Great post !