£194,400 minimum wage

Graham_Devon

GreatApe wrote: »

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?

If they want the recognised qualification to do better in life, it's the only way to go.

I'm now fully of the conclusion that you are winding people up. You can't have such bizzare views, totally separated from the reality you live in every day about seemingly every topic.

Enjoy winding people up. Though there are better things to do on the internet.

ukcarper

WengerIn wrote: »

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.

What he is saying is that in many areas where property is cheaper people could afford to buy on minimum wage. In many areas you can get a reasonable two bed property for £120k . A couple both working full time in minimum wage would earn £27.5k a year so would be able to get a big enough mortgage and there is no reason they couldn't save deposit. I don't agree with the majority of GreatApe posts but he is correct on this.

Obviously they are many areas where people earning considerably more than minimum wage can't afford to buy but to say that applies to the whole country is wrong.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If they want the recognised qualification to do better in life, it's the only way to go.

I'm now fully of the conclusion that you are winding people up. You can't have such bizzare views, totally separated from the reality you live in every day about seemingly every topic.

Enjoy winding people up. Though there are better things to do on the internet.

A lot of the younger people I know who are doing well did not go to university, certain jobs need a university eduction but many don't, you can make a good living as a gas safe engineer or qualified electrician to name two.

GreatApe

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If they want the recognised qualification to do better in life, it's the only way to go.

Why not give the kids a choice?
£50k for your education or £50k on a deposit on a house or £50k into a pension?

Take that £50k and compound it at a real return of 5% a year over 70 years (age 18-88) and its worth £1.52 million. For a couple of uneducated folk thats £3 million

How much do you think the university educated couple will earn in their 40 year working lives above and beyond the uneducated couple? More than £3 million extra?

GreatApe

£50,000 cost of education + £40,000 lost post tax income over the 3.5 years while studying + £10,000 return over 3 years on the £50,000 = £100,000

At age 21-22 our uneducated kid had £100,000 while his educated counterpart has £0
At the same age our uneducated kid finds an uneducated partner to marry and our educated kid finds and educated partner to marry.

The uneducated couple has £200,000 and the educated couple £0


How long does it take for the educated couple to catch up if they do at all?
The uneducated couple own their house outright which goes up with inflation while the educated couple need to pay £1k per month in rent out of taxed income

---

As a bare minimum the 47% (2013) of recent graduates that have non graduate jobs should definitly not have gone to university. So that should be clear without doubt some half of the kids do not benefit one bit financially and are worse off

Cakeguts

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If they want the recognised qualification to do better in life, it's the only way to go.

I'm now fully of the conclusion that you are winding people up. You can't have such bizzare views, totally separated from the reality you live in every day about seemingly every topic.

Enjoy winding people up. Though there are better things to do on the internet.

That is fine but many of the recognised qualifications called degrees are not recognised by employers because they don't come from the top 30 or so universities. So a degree in fashion from one university miles from any centres of fashion and based in an area where you are more likely to be a ship engineer or sell tractors is going to lead to a minimum wage job. The fact that this particular university attracts students means that these particular students are too stupid to work out that the degree won't help their career prospects. Why are schools encouraging stupid people to study for degrees? What is a degree worth to an employer when most of the degrees are awarded to stupid people? The vast majority of degrees don't make any difference to the salary. It is only something like 8% of employers who care where a degree came from. That is the 8% of jobs where a degree is going to make a difference to a salary. Tesco doesn't care where your degree is from when it employs you as a shelf stacker.

You can get recognised qualifications from apprenticeships. Skilled trades have recognised qualifications. However doing a course to learn a skilled trade takes more thought about what to study than doing a degree in fashion at a university where there is no chance of you ever getting a job in fashion. A skilled trade pays more than the minimum wage. A degree in fashion from the wrong university won't.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

£50,000 cost of education + £40,000 lost post tax income over the 3.5 years while studying + £10,000 return over 3 years on the £50,000 = £100,000

At age 21-22 our uneducated kid had £100,000 while his educated counterpart has £0
At the same age our uneducated kid finds an uneducated partner to marry and our educated kid finds and educated partner to marry.

The uneducated couple has £200,000 and the educated couple £0


How long does it take for the educated couple to catch up if they do at all?
The uneducated couple own their house outright which goes up with inflation while the educated couple need to pay £1k per month in rent out of taxed income

---

As a bare minimum the 47% (2013) of recent graduates that have non graduate jobs should definitly not have gone to university. So that should be clear without doubt some half of the kids do not benefit one bit financially and are worse off

the 50k however is a loan so cant be used in a return calculation of 5%. student loans typically charge inflation only.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

the 50k however is a loan so cant be used in a return calculation of 5%. student loans typically charge inflation only.

Give the kids that decide not to go a cheque usable for a house or pension for the sum of what it would cost the state had they gone

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

we are talking about young people in 20s or early 30s here. when people have kids its usually in the mid 30s now...

Except I put up a link a few posts back showing that by the age of 30 53% of women had had at least one child. But don't let needing to check anything get in the way of your train of thought, you just carry on.

Windofchange

ukcarper wrote: »

No what I am saying that it is posible in many areas it is posible for two people on minimum wage to buy a house, the fact that they choose not to or can't make effort is not relevant.

And round and round and round we go. Yes, fine, two people on minimum wage with no children, no car, no phone, no social life, no clothes budget and saving at more than the average savings rate can afford a property after a few years. Great. Why is home ownership falling off a cliff amongst the young in this country? We've so far had new cars, Bulgarians, iPhones, holidays and children. I suppose next up is a diet of beans on toast for 5 years?