£194,400 minimum wage

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I see you still haven't answered my question

Well, they will take home £20,281 if they do not pay into a pension.

An average calculation of yearly living costs on The Money Advice Service is £18,180. https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/paying-your-own-way

Law of averages and all that means some will be paying more, some less, but we can't do anything but work on averages here, otherwise the discussion descends into anarchy.

That leaves £2,101 per year to save per year.

If you want to use another calculation, an average basic living cost for a single person by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is £13,400, but that doesn't include transport.

A couple with two children will need £26,800.

Obviously this all boils down to a lot of pot luck. Live on the doorstep of work? Fantastic, that could save you upwards of 5k per year. It's all far too variable.

But reality shows that there are few jobs on minimum wage that pay 37.5 hours per week. Furthermore, reality doesn't ignore kids, something we, apparently, on this forum, have to ignore in every single affordability discussion there ever is. We really do tend to discuss the very lowest denominator in order to paint a picture.

GreatApe

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well, they will take home £20,281 if they do not pay into a pension.

An average calculation of yearly living costs on The Money Advice Service is £18,180. https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/paying-your-own-way

Law of averages and all that means some will be paying more, some less, but we can't do anything but work on averages here, otherwise the discussion descends into anarchy.

That leaves £2,101 per year to save per year.

Running a car £5,112 <

---

not needed and certainly not that much

Your Link also clearly says 'The figures above represent average yearly household figures. For most young people moving into their first place, these costs will be far less.'

Graham_Devon

GreatApe wrote: »

Running a car £5,112 <

---

not needed and certainly not that much

Your Link also clearly says 'The figures above represent average yearly household figures. For most young people moving into their first place, these costs will be far less.'

How do you know running a car isn't needed? You wouldn't get very far and still turn up for work at 9am in my area of the world without a car. That's why the average includes transportation costs....because no matter how much you might try, you can't really ignore it.

You expect them to work 37.5 hours a week, but don't expect any costs of actually getting to work? (anyway, that's covered in my above post, and as if by magic, there you are straight away assuming everyone lives on the doorstep of their job).

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well, they will take home £20,281 if they do not pay into a pension.

An average calculation of yearly living costs on The Money Advice Service is £18,180. https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/paying-your-own-way

Law of averages and all that means some will be paying more, some less, but we can't do anything but work on averages here, otherwise the discussion descends into anarchy.

That leaves £2,101 per year to save per year.

If you want to use another calculation, an average basic living cost for a single person by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is £13,400, but that doesn't include transport.

A couple with two children will need £26,800.

Obviously this all boils down to a lot of pot luck. Live on the doorstep of work? Fantastic, that could save you upwards of 5k per year. It's all far too variable.

But reality shows that there are few jobs on minimum wage that pay 37.5 hours per week. Furthermore, reality doesn't ignore kids, something we, apparently, on this forum, have to ignore in every single affordability discussion there ever is. We really do tend to discuss the very lowest denominator in order to paint a picture.

The figure I quoted is take home pay.

You can ignore all those basic living costs that are published and work out what they would actually need in the short term, they should be saving before they have children and making lots of sacrifices.

Windofchange

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How do you know running a car isn't needed? You wouldn't get very far and still turn up for work at 9am in my area of the world without a car. That's why the average includes transportation costs....because no matter how much you might try, you can't really ignore it.

You expect them to work 37.5 hours a week, but don't expect any costs of actually getting to work? (anyway, that's covered in my above post, and as if by magic, there you are straight away assuming everyone lives on the doorstep of their job).

It's infuriating isn't it? Let's take out everyone with children, everyone who lives more than 5 minutes from their work, everyone who needs a mobile phone, everyone who is divorced. Oh look, I've proven that everyone on minimum wage can afford a house. Oh and if you want evidence I know of someone aged 21 who owns a three bed house, and here's some numbers I've made up.

I wonder what he'll prove next? 100 millionaires can afford a yacht and 100 cleaners can't?

ukcarper

Windofchange wrote: »

It's infuriating isn't it? Let's take out everyone with children, everyone who lives more than 5 minutes from their work, everyone who needs a mobile phone, everyone who is divorced. Oh look, I've proven that everyone on minimum wage can afford a house. Oh and if you want evidence I know of someone aged 21 who owns a three bed house, and here's some numbers I've made up.

I wonder what he'll prove next? 100 millionaires can afford a yacht and 100 cleaners can't?

So are you agreeing that a childless couple both earning minimum wage can afford to buy in some areas. I think they could which makes property affordable in those areas don't you.

I live in south east and where I live you would need a combined income of £60k.

Windofchange

ukcarper wrote: »

So are you agreeing that a childless couple both earning minimum wage can afford to buy in some areas. I think they could which makes property affordable in those areas don't you.

I live in south east and where I live you would need a combined income of £60k.

Yup, I've conceded this point already on another part of this thread. It makes it affordable to that couple who are in the minority. It's like taking 100 people, 10 of whom are millionaires and saying look, everyone can buy a yacht.

The point I made whilst conceding this was that the latest stats show that 82% of women by the age of 45 have children, and even if you go down to the age of 30 then 53% I think it was have children. What point on affordability are you proving by looking at 18% of a population? Would it not make a more sensible discussion to look at your average person who would appear by all counts to have some children!!!

This is the point. What Great Ape does is take something, strip out enough things until he gets to the point he is trying to prove, and then presents it as the norm.

ukcarper

Windofchange wrote: »

Yup, I've conceded this point already on another part of this thread. It makes it affordable to that couple who are in the minority. It's like taking 100 people, 10 of whom are millionaires and saying look, everyone can buy a yacht.

The point I made whilst conceding this was that the latest stats show that 82% of women by the age of 45 have children, and even if you go down to the age of 30 then 53% I think it was have children. What point on affordability are you proving by looking at 18% of a population? Would it not make a more sensible discussion to look at your average person who would appear by all counts to have some children!!!

This is the point. What Great Ape does is take something, strip out enough things until he gets to the point he is trying to prove, and then presents it as the norm.

Don't you think it is reasonable to save a deposit before you have children. If I had children before I had save a deposit I would not have been able to buy.

The minimum wage is the same across the country so if you live in an area where prices are low you stand a much better chance of buying than someone who doesn't in fact you stand more chance of buying in some areas than people earning twice the minimum wage in more expensive areas.

Windofchange

ukcarper wrote: »

Don't you think it is reasonable to save a deposit before you have children. If I had children before I had save a deposit I would not have been able to buy.

The minimum wage is the same across the country so if you live in an area where prices are low you stand a much better chance of buying than someone who doesn't in fact you stand more chance of buying in some areas than people earning twice the minimum wage in more expensive areas.

And here lies the issue. What I do or don't think has no bearing on reality. I could agree with you, I could disagree with you. Do we have any figures to show how many people save a deposit before having children? I very much doubt it. So then it just descends into an I think this, I assume that sort of mess.

I might extrapolate that in poorer parts of the country where countless people are on minimum wage we might see more !!!!less adults, more squandering of money, more crime, more drugs and booze, more people living off the social and not interested in ever owning their own home. That is why the area is cheap.

You did life your way. Others will do it theirs, and you only have to watch Jeremy Kyle to see the sort of family planning that goes into some people's thought processes...

ukcarper

Windofchange wrote: »

And here lies the issue. What I do or don't think has no bearing on reality. I could agree with you, I could disagree with you. Do we have any figures to show how many people save a deposit before having children? I very much doubt it. So then it just descends into an I think this, I assume that sort of mess.

I might extrapolate that in poorer parts of the country where countless people are on minimum wage we might see more !!!!less adults, more squandering of money, more crime, more drugs and booze, more people living off the social and not interested in ever owning their own home. That is why the area is cheap.

You did life your way. Others will do it theirs, and you only have to watch Jeremy Kyle to see the sort of family planning that goes into some people's thought processes...

I think that's the problem people keep saying how easy things were in the past but if people just got married rented and had children they would not have been able to save just as now.

I accept there is a problem with prices in relation to earnings in many areas but what I don't accept is that if you earn enough to get mortgae its not posible to save.

I dont see what Jeremy Kyle has to do with this discussion if you are going to behave like the people on his show you should not expect to buy a house.