£194,400 minimum wage

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Younger people today make many sacrifices....just they are probably different challenges to when you grew up hence you probably don't understand the sacrifices, therefore due to your own failings, refuse to realise them.

Uni fee's are just one example. Moving away to secure jobs another. Job security is another and so on and so on.

We all deal with what we are handed. Just because a young person has a mobile phone, it doesn't mean they are spending money for the hell of it.

Yes they do face different challenges but that doesn't alter the fact that if you live in an area where you can get a reasonable property for £120k and are both working full time you can buy if you make the effort to save deposit.

What are the changes that impact on people's ability to buy.

steampowered

GreatApe wrote: »

All university should be paid by the kids themselves upfront no loans. Yes the numbers would crash 70% and that's exactly what's needed. The kids that don't go will have 3-4 years of addition paid employment which in most cases will mean they are better off

Absolute nonsense. Unless you want the UK to become a third world country which is unable to compete with top-tier countries, we need to have a better educated society in which people are encouraged to get well educated - not worse educated.

The idea that kids should pay up front for university is ridiculous. Kids have no means of affording that. Either university has to be paid for by the government; paid for by parents; or paid for by debt. There are no other options.

The figures I found on a quick google search suggests that graduates earn £500,000 more during their lives than non-graduates (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/11744118/Graduates-earn-500000-more-than-non-graduates.html), so I think you are wrong to suggest that an extra 3-4 years of work balances that out. Especially when that 3-4 years would probably be spent in an apprenticeship earning peanuts. I appreciate the figure may be higher for science graduates but less for arts graduates, but I suspect it is still pretty high in both cases.

economic

steampowered wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Unless you want the UK to become a third world country which is unable to compete with top-tier countries, we need to have a better educated society in which people are encouraged to get well educated - not worse educated.

The idea that kids should pay up front for university is ridiculous. Kids have no means of affording that. Either university has to be paid for by the government; paid for by parents; or paid for by debt. There are no other options.

The figures I found on a quick google search suggests that graduates earn £500,000 more during their lives than non-graduates (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/11744118/Graduates-earn-500000-more-than-non-graduates.html), so I think you are wrong to suggest that an extra 3-4 years of work balances that out. Especially when that 3-4 years would probably be spent in an apprenticeship earning peanuts. I appreciate the figure may be higher for science graduates but less for arts graduates, but I suspect it is still pretty high in both cases.

agree that degrees should be funded by either families or debt. however not all degrees are the same. there are a lot of degrees whereby you are much better off not having been to as the career prospects are dire.

Cakeguts

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Younger people today make many sacrifices....just they are probably different challenges to when you grew up hence you probably don't understand the sacrifices, therefore due to your own failings, refuse to realise them.

Uni fee's are just one example. Moving away to secure jobs another. Job security is another and so on and so on.

We all deal with what we are handed. Just because a young person has a mobile phone, it doesn't mean they are spending money for the hell of it.

People on minimum wage do not have to pay back their university fees so you can take that out of the discussion.

The places to blame for young people going to university to study are the schools. They use the number of people going to university as part of their advertising to attract new parents. I have seen this kind of advertising on a school gate not far from where I live. The teachers tell all students doing A levels to apply for university. What they don't do is to tell them that there are only about 30 universities that offer degrees that will make a difference to their careers and salaries. Schools should be banned from advertising how many of their students have got university places. Teachers should not be telling all students to go to university just because they are studying for A levels.

WengerIn

GreatApe wrote: »

If the woman is not working the man needs to get a median paying job rather than a minimum paying job.

Once the kid is 4-5 and in school the mother can work 9am-3pm x5 days = 30h a week

Also if the mother stops working this couple with two kids gets about £9k a year in benefits so they are almost in the same financial boat as before. The trick is to save their 5%-10% deposit buy the £100k house and then have the kids which is what the young couple I know did last year.

And once again we are talking about the worse case min wage jibs 90% earn more than that

So now we're saying that a couple earning the minimum wage can afford to buy a house if they:

1. Manage to save at 3x the average savings rate in the UK for many years
2. Don't have kids
3. Aren't on the minimum wage

You're losing grip on your argument.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

yes very true. i agree at 17 kids dont have a clue about debt. but banning student loans is not the answer as students who want to study worthwhile degree but cant afford it will be disadvantaged. so i think what makes more sense is education in school about personal finance and student loans. then its upto the kid to make the decision and suffer any consqeuences that may result in taking on student debt.

You dont need to pay for information and education in this day and age

Here you go, for free, better than all but the top 2 universities in the uk

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/audio-video-courses/

GreatApe

steampowered wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Unless you want the UK to become a third world country which is unable to compete with top-tier countries, we need to have a better educated society in which people are encouraged to get well educated - not worse educated.

why do you expect children aged 18-22 to only be able to be educated in a building sitting in a room with two hundred others listening to a non interactive lecture as the way to go?

The idea that kids should pay up front for university is ridiculous. Kids have no means of affording that. Either university has to be paid for by the government; paid for by parents; or paid for by debt. There are no other options.

They should not be paying for 'university' but for an education something that is free now. Not only is it free it is better than 99% of teachers ever were or ever could be.

Also the element of university that was useful in the past, the ability to gather with people with similar interests who will all push each other forward is also redundant you can now meet and discuss with such people with the same interests online.

There are countless forums for mathematics physics electronics aviation the list is endless.

The figures I found on a quick google search suggests that graduates earn £500,000 more during their lives than non-graduates (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/11744118/Graduates-earn-500000-more-than-non-graduates.html), so I think you are wrong to suggest that an extra 3-4 years of work balances that out.

The figures are BS the people who go did not do better in life because of the university they did better because they had a head start and often their income would be greatly boosted by other factors like inheritances. Someone who has £100 million and sends his son to university and then that £100 million moves down the line, his son will have an income of £5 million annually from the inheritance should that £5 million income count towards the universities doing?

Its like our dear royal family who get crap grades and go to good universities. Like Prince Charles just two A-levels (history B, French C), 2:2 degree in history, Cambridge. Maybe Cambridge should trumpet the mean net worth of their 2:2 degree in history graduates?

Especially when that 3-4 years would probably be spent in an apprenticeship earning peanuts. I appreciate the figure may be higher for science graduates but less for arts graduates, but I suspect it is still pretty high in both cases.

Its close to nil advantage

This is what I would have, let the state give the kids £50k to study at university for free or they can take that £50k and use it as a deposit on a house.

Lets see where they are in 10 years time

ukcarper

WengerIn wrote: »

So now we're saying that a couple earning the minimum wage can afford to buy a house if they:

1. Manage to save at 3x the average savings rate in the UK for many years
2. Don't have kids
3. Aren't on the minimum wage

You're losing grip on your argument.

Two people in early twenties both working full time take home £25k more if older and in areas where you can buy for £130k would need a £13k deposit are you saying they couldn't save that in a couple of years. Average savings rates are meaningless when talking about saving for a home.

GreatApe

Cakeguts wrote: »

People on minimum wage do not have to pay back their university fees so you can take that out of the discussion.

The places to blame for young people going to university to study are the schools. They use the number of people going to university as part of their advertising to attract new parents. I have seen this kind of advertising on a school gate not far from where I live. The teachers tell all students doing A levels to apply for university. What they don't do is to tell them that there are only about 30 universities that offer degrees that will make a difference to their careers and salaries. Schools should be banned from advertising how many of their students have got university places. Teachers should not be telling all students to go to university just because they are studying for A levels.

Sometimes I see adverts like '92% of our graduates have a job within 6 months!' and think to myself that just proves your graduates are twice as likely to be unemployed (8%) as the general public (4.somehting%) !

Misleading advertising if you ask me. If adults can claim PPI being mis sold I reckon 80% of the kids who went to university have a better claim for compensation.

WengerIn

ukcarper wrote: »

Two people in early twenties both working full time take home £25k more if older and in areas where you can buy for £130k would need a £13k deposit are you saying they couldn't save that in a couple of years. Average savings rates are meaningless when talking about saving for a home.

No I'm saying the OP's argument is rubbish, a nonsense.

People on the minimum wage don't buy houses because they can't get together the deposit and the bank won't lend them the multiples they require. I get quite annoyed by this silly idea that house prices are cheap because Sophistry.