Are earnings too low / living costs getting too high??

Psycho Sonny · 12 Mar 2017 at 19:48

stewski said:
Do you have a source for the UK individual median wage, or even a mode UK wage.

Most data I see references average/mean wages, this seem irrelevant to such discussion.

i just googled it and it came up for a household. so I then just halved it for per person. but i'm sure in a lot of households 1 of the partner won't be working for whatever reason. or at least not officially. these figures as so pointless as how many people that are self employed actually show their right wages?

V F said:
Looks nice for dark evenings for the yobs. Especially in Glasgow.

outside of glasgow, houses in glasgow even the rubbish areas aren't anywhere near that cheap

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-65141447.html

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-65042033.html

still cheap mind you

Vonhelmet said:
That's great, that must be among the 4% of houses I can actually buy. My point is that it's not unreasonable to expect that when I earn in excess of the median income of two people that I ought to be somewhere higher than the 4th centile of property buying power.

It's a pity you have a single income household as I imagine that would drastically change your situation

Vonhelmet · 12 Mar 2017 at 19:53

Psycho Sonny said:
It's a pity you have a single income household as I imagine that would drastically change your situation

Ok, I'll give a bit of background. I earn enough that my wife is taking a year out to study. So it's not single income as such. The point remains: why is it that I can earn in the 80somethingth centile for an individual but only have house buying power in the 4th centile? It is absurd that the house market is so vastly inflated and out of step with people's earnings.

stewski · 12 Mar 2017 at 20:08

Psycho Sonny said:
i just googled it and it came up for a household. so I then just halved it for per person. but i'm sure in a lot of households 1 of the partner won't be working for whatever reason. or at least not officially. these figures as so pointless as how many people that are self employed actually show their right wages?

outside of glasgow, houses in glasgow even the rubbish areas aren't anywhere near that cheap

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-65141447.html

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-65042033.html

still cheap mind you

It's a pity you have a single income household as I imagine that would drastically change your situation

From 2008 but the article explains my issue with "average" salary figures.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7581120.stm

At that time £377 per week or around 19.5K would be a far more frequent salary figure than the 24K "average" often given in headlines.

Interestingly picking a random person would likely give a figure between 200 300 per week or something between 10.5k to 15.5K

In my view this isn't likely to be far from current real "average" UK salaries, a fair number of people will find housing and feeding themselves and their family challenging, likely more so going forward.

dowie · 12 Mar 2017 at 20:16

No, the median for full time employees is circa 27k as per previous post. Your article is nearly a decade out of date.

Vonhelmet · 12 Mar 2017 at 20:18

stewski said:
From 2008 but the article explains my issue with "average" salary figures.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7581120.stm

At that time £377 per week or around 19.5K would be a far more frequent salary figure than the 24K "average" often given in headlines.

Interestingly picking a random person would likely give a figure between 200 300 per week or something between 10.5k to 15.5K

In my view this isn't likely to be far from current real "average" UK salaries, a fair number of people will find housing and feeding themselves and their family challenging, likely more so going forward.

It makes far more sense to quote percentile figures for salaries, and the median for the "average". The median for two people is about £24k take home.

Vonhelmet · 12 Mar 2017 at 20:19

dowie said:
No, the median for full time employees is circa 27k as per previous post. Your article is nearly a decade out of date.

Not everyone is full time. Not every couple has two full time people. Median take home for two is about £24k. That is what matters for most discussions of housing costs.

stewski · 12 Mar 2017 at 20:20

dowie said:
No, the median for full time employees is circa 27k as per previous post. Your article is nearly a decade out of date.

Are you disputing the point of the article, the date of which I included in my post.

At the time of the Article the mean (edit for clarity) was 24K, as that very article points out, people like you using the median value are either deliberately or due to a lack of basic understanding, entirely misrepresenting the most common Salary figure.

Vonhelmet · 12 Mar 2017 at 20:21

The article is arguing against the use of the mean, not the median.

stewski · 12 Mar 2017 at 20:23

Vonhelmet said:
The article is arguing against the use of the mean, not the median.

Apologies, agreed.

Though it also points out the massive difference between even a median figure and the most likely salary of a random person.

stewski · 12 Mar 2017 at 20:43

Vonhelmet said:
Not everyone is full time. Not every couple has two full time people. Median take home for two is about £24k. That is what matters for most discussions of housing costs.

Selective presentation of a salary figure not even drawn from all those who will be seeking housing, that is likely at massive odds to the most frequent/probable salary is part of the reason I'm sceptical of many commentator's bias.

dowie · 12 Mar 2017 at 20:50

stewski said:
Are you disputing the point of the article, the date of which I included in my post.

At the time of the Article the mean (edit for clarity) was 24K, as that very article points out, people like you using the median value are either deliberately or due to a lack of basic understanding, entirely misrepresenting the most common Salary figure.

WTF? How am I misleading by using the median?

dowie · 12 Mar 2017 at 20:53

stewski said:
Though it also points out the massive difference between even a median figure and the most likely salary of a random person.

A random person could be semi-retired, a university student doing bar work, a mum who works part time etc..

I think what most people are interested in comparing in this thread is people who work full time - the median salary for full time workers is 27k - that is probably the most relevant figure to quote. Or perhaps the median for graduates if most people on here have degrees.

stewski · 12 Mar 2017 at 20:57

dowie said:
WTF? How am I misleading by using the median?

The above doesn't even address the question you quoted.

Is it even the median of all people who require housing?

From the article, there are ridiculous variances between mean median and mode, on top you have presented a median based on a subset not relevant to housing and ignore the household subset which gives a massively lower figure. Sometimes bias is clear to see.

dowie · 12 Mar 2017 at 21:00

I'm well aware that there are differences between mean, median and mode thanks, I also went to school and took GCSE level maths

I'm quoting figures perhaps more relevant to the people posting on OCUK and have already highlighted some issues with looking at anyone and everyone who earns some form of wage.

stewski · 12 Mar 2017 at 21:01

dowie said:
A random person could be semi-retired, a university student doing bar work, a mum who works part time etc..

I think what most people are interested in comparing in this thread is people who work full time - the median salary for full time workers is 27k - that is probably the most relevant figure to quote. Or perhaps the median for graduates if most people on here have degrees.

I can't work out if you are deliberately trying to avoid giving any value to the most frequent value of salary as opposed to specific subset's that fit an agenda. Though it likely explains your reaction to the article in general.

dowie · 12 Mar 2017 at 21:07

stewski said:
I can't work out if you are deliberately trying to avoid giving any value to the most frequent value of salary as opposed to specific subset's that fit an agenda. Though it likely explains your reaction to the article in general.

I'm not quite sure what your point is?

Do you think the income of a retired person who tops up their pension at B&Q is relevant? Do you think a student who works part time at a bar is relevant?

stewski · 12 Mar 2017 at 21:23

dowie said:
I'm not quite sure what your point is?

Do you think the income of a retired person who tops up their pension at B&Q is relevant? Do you think a student who works part time at a bar is relevant?

Throwing in a couple of anecdotal descriptions you believe represent the difference between the all workers salary data set and full time salary data set, whilst interesting, doesn't explain ignoring household income data,
In a discussion on common salary versus housing costs?

The idea that Philip Greens Salary is relevant but those not in full time work but on Salary are not relevant, to a discussion on housing versus income, seems perverse.

dowie · 12 Mar 2017 at 21:33

What does Philip Green have to do with anything?

The OP specifically started the thread talking a couple each earning the average wage buying a home.

Vonhelmet · 12 Mar 2017 at 21:37

Philip Green's salary is not relevant, which is why any sensible person would quote the median rather than the mean... and the figures being thrown about in this thread are median figures.

stewski · 12 Mar 2017 at 21:55

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_Equivalised_Income_Distribution.png

A picture paints a thousand words.
All three average measures are important, the idea that 27k per individual in a 2 person household is a good representation however is laughable.

By the way Philip Green's salary is on those graphs along with our notional BnQ workers.