sherlock
Well-known member
Not everyone.
What do you consider a good salary?
- Thread starter alvez_49
- Start date
Not everyone.
Like any topic that you expect people to discuss on the internet, anonymously, then it runs away with itself because you failed by not defining the main part of the discussion. If you don't define "decent" then everyone else has to define what they think decent is and the only way they can do that is with examples from their own situation.
You gave an opinion of what you thought decent was but you didn't explain how or why you arrived at that number. If you had said decent was a 4 bed house, 2 cars, 2 holidays abroad per year etc then you might have had a sensible discussion but throwing out a number more than double the average salary and beyond the reaches of most people was only going to go one way.
It's like the usual "Is X World class? discussions. Everyone has their own personal definition of what world class means so there is no yes/no answer.
Scrote
Well-known member
It's largely a centrist place. There are only half a dozen vocal lefties who regularly get involved in political discussions. There's a few more who tend to lurk but the board is VERY centrist with a larger right wing contingent than overt left.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
If someone did a proper analysis, I reckon a large proportion of the board don’t actually ever want to discuss politics, and are probably apolitical (at least in terms of discussing it on here) rather than centrist. I do contribute myself sometimes however.
ThatFragranceGuy
Well-known member
I think it's natural that if you ask people what is a decent salary, they will use their own circumstance as context. It doesn't matter if people tell you their salary, you don't know them.
Scrote
Well-known member
I'd agree with the first bit.
Of those that do discuss politics the centrists are in the majority. Probably followed by the right-wing although there are a few trolls who take a right-wing line without any real conviction (in my opinion).
atypical_boro
Well-known member
I guess it all depends on your perception of right/left/centrist. I find that the lines are pretty blurred nowadays anyway.
Redwurzel
Well-known member
I have changed my opinion of the board over the years. I used to think it was mainly younger than it actually was and used to think it was fans working in basic blue collar jobs at ICI and British Steel type businesses or worked on the rigs.
Now I tend to think 55 year old manager/higher supervisor type in the public sector or large private employer, many away from the Teesside area. This probably leads to Cente/Left liberal views. Hence I would say over 60% of the board were remain in 2016, compared with only 34% of Teesside voters in 2016.
Around Half of the board, I expect to be graduates, much more than I used to think and more than the general population.
Now I tend to think 55 year old manager/higher supervisor type in the public sector or large private employer, many away from the Teesside area. This probably leads to Cente/Left liberal views. Hence I would say over 60% of the board were remain in 2016, compared with only 34% of Teesside voters in 2016.
Around Half of the board, I expect to be graduates, much more than I used to think and more than the general population.
Andy_W
Well-known member
The definition of "good", for most, will depend on who, what or where you're comparing to I suppose, but for me I think of it more like what that can actually get you, a good salary should get you good freedom/ choices I think.
The mode of UK salaries is about 23k I think, with the mean at 30k and the mean for full-time more like 35-40k I think.
40k gets you in the 75th percentile, so most might think that's good compared to others and they would be right to think that.
But, and it's a big but, 40k likely won't get a single person a good house (to own), good car, good food, good social life, good disposable income, good holidays, good savings etc, not to what would be considered a "good" standard, for the UK anyway.
It's a bit skewed by location too, but even up here, where housing isn't as much as other places, it's still very far from being cheap.
So, 40k is what, £2,500 a month after tax?
£1000 rent/ mortgage - 160k over 25 years, 160k isn't an "average house", av price is 300k
£400 bills (energy, council tax, internet TV etc)
£300 car payment - 20k car, as a PCP over 4 years (this won't pay the car off though)
£200 fuel
£200 food
£200 social
£200 clothes/ stuff
£0 savings
£0 holidays
Is that above "good"? For most places in the UK that likely means renting someplace well below the value of the average UK house price, and doing that for long time (or forever)
You would probably need another 2k in hand per month, to buy the average-priced house, a better car, and have enough left over to do more nice things, holidays and importantly have some left for savings or you're working until you're 70 (that's not good).
The mode of UK salaries is about 23k I think, with the mean at 30k and the mean for full-time more like 35-40k I think.
40k gets you in the 75th percentile, so most might think that's good compared to others and they would be right to think that.
But, and it's a big but, 40k likely won't get a single person a good house (to own), good car, good food, good social life, good disposable income, good holidays, good savings etc, not to what would be considered a "good" standard, for the UK anyway.
It's a bit skewed by location too, but even up here, where housing isn't as much as other places, it's still very far from being cheap.
So, 40k is what, £2,500 a month after tax?
£1000 rent/ mortgage - 160k over 25 years, 160k isn't an "average house", av price is 300k
£400 bills (energy, council tax, internet TV etc)
£300 car payment - 20k car, as a PCP over 4 years (this won't pay the car off though)
£200 fuel
£200 food
£200 social
£200 clothes/ stuff
£0 savings
£0 holidays
Is that above "good"? For most places in the UK that likely means renting someplace well below the value of the average UK house price, and doing that for long time (or forever)
You would probably need another 2k in hand per month, to buy the average-priced house, a better car, and have enough left over to do more nice things, holidays and importantly have some left for savings or you're working until you're 70 (that's not good).
Glover_elbow
Well-known member
So 4.5k per month after tax. Which must be at around 70k annually before. There's not many on that
Which is exactly what I stated at the beginning of the thread!
The point myself and Andy are really making is 'This is proper SNAFU' unless you're a boomer / early Gen X.
Not that I'd expect this board which is 80% said people to put two and two together and make it to 4.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Yeah, not many at all, about 7%
A "good" salary should get you a good house, nice things, earlier retirement etc, but it just doesn't (or it won't for younger folk now), it sucks. Salaries are just not moving to where the costs of "good" things are, largely due to housing prices being screwed.
The flip side is that someone on an average salary here, is probably in a very good situation compared to the average person in the rest of the world. This isn't an excuse to take the **** out of people in the UK mind, which we do.
festa5
Well-known member
Yeah, not many at all, about 7%
A "good" salary should get you a good house, nice things, earlier retirement etc, but it just doesn't (or it won't for younger folk now), it sucks. Salaries are just not moving to where the costs of "good" things are, largely due to housing prices being screwed.
The flip side is that someone on an average salary here, is probably in a very good situation compared to the average person in the rest of the world. This isn't an excuse to take the **** out of people in the UK mind, which we do.
Higher than 7% if you take combined household income into account though (which maybe should be the question?).
But of course even then you need two people earning a combined wage above mean. But that doesn't take into account childcare costs either (which like everything else are spiralling out of control).
So you either need to be on a very, very good wage (top 7%) or already own your own property outright (or bought it years ago) or in a long term relationship with someone else who has a decent career/job.
But preferably no kids though.
And if you do that, you might have a decent income.
No wonder the younger generation are seriously fecked off.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Yeah, household income is important, there will be plenty on a decent wage where they effectively cover the other half to not work and look after the kids, so they're effectively on a much lower average, it's not much of a gain when they need money for kids, two cars, more food, more bills, more stuff etc. Same as there will be others where one person has a good wage and the other is on minimum wage, it won't sum up to a good average.
it's a screwed-up system where people have to be coupled up to actually be able to get a decent house.
We need to get the planning laws relaxed, so they're not designed to prop up house prices, they're actually designed to get them back down to a reasonable level. Or just give the yong folk who are screwed some land, and a loan and say "build what you like".
sherlock
Well-known member
You need just over £77k to get a take home of £4.5k per month and that’s just accounting for tax and national insurance. You’d meed £84k plus as a single earner to take home £4.5k a month if paying into a pension as well.
Last edited:
Support Your Local Team
Active member
Our kids are 11 and 8 and both still in primary school. I know lots of couples who manage with zero childcare costs simply because their kids are of school age.
Support Your Local Team
Active member
So a thread was started with a very, very open and vague question on a very, very complex topic and you expected it to be answered by people without any explanation or real-life experience or context given?
And when they did, you expected everybody else to then not counter-question or debate opinions or offer real-life examples of context?
And all of this because you individually wouldn't discuss specific details (and presumably therefore think nobody else ever should) and because they choose they will they are "ignorant"?
I am genuinely baffled as to what sort of answers you wanted everybody to give and what sort of discussion you expected such responses to generate?
festa5
Well-known member
Well of course.
But younger people are more likely to have younger kids and therefore incur those costs (at a time of life where they're also probably not as well paid too).
Not to mention the fact that kids are not exactly cheap when they get older. Loads of extra costs.
And unless you happen to be a teacher yourself you'll still have 13 weeks or so school holidays to cover no?
It was just an example of extra financial pressures.
I wrote the thread in two minutes. I would have thought people could read
'What is a decent wage these days'
And figure out to just answer the question
I didn't write 'I earn 100k is that a good wage these days compared to what you guys earn?'
