What would you call an average wage?

I can understand why people opt not to have children.


If you're in this situation and have two children one person won't be able to work for some time. My wife really needs to return to work but with two kids under 4 , that's going to be expensive for child care, might have to wait until they are at least 5/6. Really need to be careful not to have any more kids!
3 is when nursery gets cheap due to 30 free hours. I'd say they benefit more than when they are around adults all the time, also let's them try new things that they wouldn't necessarily try at home such as different foods and activities. Fwiw, my household income is 83k, and my wife went back to work at 9 months after each child was born and she's had no regrets. We live near Hull and I'd say we're comfortable, but maybe that just due to us spending more than others, it's very hard not to live to your means.
 
Maybe without children but someone has to make a career sacrifice to bring up kids unless you just want to dump them on grandparents?

Two kids, both decent wages, I just went part time/consultancy and did childcare for a few years when wife went back to work untill they went to school. I don't give a flying f about my career, software dev. :cry:
 
Leaving your children in care for the vast majority of their childhood is also bad in my opinion but that is a completely different discussion but that was my point to bring up your own children one needs to make sacrifice in wage. You can both have it but at the detriment of your child's up bringing.

Absolutely agree. If you can make ends meet and live comfortably then it's a sacrifice worth making for children's best interest. Since our daughter was born my wife has been doing 3 days a week on average and I'm a contractor but generally work 4 days a week. Grandparents still work too so dumping on them isn't fair but they have her a couple of days a week generally and my wife is usually home by 4.30pm. I would hate to be like a couple we know, they have 3 children, all aged below 6 and both work all hours God sends. They have nanny who is with them everyday from waking and giving breakfast to picking them up from nursery/childcare until they get in around 7pm most days. They really don't need the money (household income is probably about 250 to 300k ish) and living in Stoke! Just comes down to greed. Like your point earlier I wonder if household income is more accurate indicator or average income in this regard.
 
I know people who are on 45-50k and some on even more and they moan they've never got any money. At the end of the day we all have difference circumstances and situations.

My partner and I live very comfortably, we don't have children and we pretty much buy everything / anything we want and that's on "below average" wages
 
I would hate to be like a couple we know, they have 3 children, all aged below 6 and both work all hours God sends. They have nanny who is with them everyday from waking and giving breakfast to picking them up from nursery/childcare until they get in around 7pm most days. They really don't need the money (household income is probably about 250 to 300k ish) and living in Stoke! Just comes down to greed. Like your point earlier I wonder if household income is more accurate indicator or average income in this regard.

I dont know them so take this with a pinch of salt but how do you know its down to greed? Could they not be saving to provide their kids with a private education, put money away for a uni fund or money towards a house when they come of age etc.?
 
I dont know them so take this with a pinch of salt but how do you know its down to greed? Could they not be saving to provide their kids with a private education, put money away for a uni fund or money towards a house when they come of age etc.?

Greed isn't the only driver. I mean they might be doing it out fear, only a psychologist would know.
 
Perhaps they are particularly driven ?

You would have thought that both of them would be in pretty senior roles to earn £250k to £300k between them, so would likely not want to give that up in a hurry.
 
It's all relative.

If you take the wage across the country and just get the average, the higher salaries will skew it one way. Then if you take big cities into consideration, like London which has a weighting often added it skews it again.

Whilst we don't struggle as a family, and we earn apparently way above the average. Yet we're not eating caviar and foie gras every night. We cover the bills, put a little aside to save, and have a couple of foreign holidays away (2 kids) - but that's because we're an international family with places to stay when we do go abroad which saves a packet. I don't feel "cash rich", for big purchases I do have to put money aside for a few months.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in

I had a look at this and this is the summary:

How to understand the graph : A picture of the United Kingdom income distribution is shown below, with all incomes expressed in terms of the equivalent amount for a household of your type. Each bar corresponds to an income band of about £14, and to maintain a reasonable scale, it has been necessary to truncate the distribution at incomes above around £1540 per week. Around 9%, or 6.1 million individuals, have incomes higher than this, after adjusting for the size and composition of their households. Your position in the distribution is shown by the red bar. When we assess the distributional implications of tax and social security changes, we often divide the population into ten equally sized groups, called decile groups. The first decile group contains the poorest 10% of the population, the second decile group contains the next poorest 10% and so on. In the below graph, the alternatively shaded sections represent the different decile groups. As you can see, you are in the 10th decile group.

In conclusion, Your income is so high that you lie beyond the far right hand side of the chart.

Having 2 children, a mortgage and bills does clock up a lot monthly. I took a significant pay cut (I won't be crass and state the amount) last year for a more enjoyable role - I am less stressed (although I hold a more senior role), but it's taken a while to adapt my outgoings and behaviours.

My point is ultimately, you can make do on a lot less than you think you can, you just have to change your behaviours. Kids cost a lot and willynilly spending has to stop.
 
Leaving your children in care for the vast majority of their childhood is also bad in my opinion but that is a completely different discussion but that was my point to bring up your own children one needs to make sacrifice in wage. You can both have it but at the detriment of your child's up bringing.

I totally disagree with your initial statement, especially in regards to early years. Getting children into nursery at an early age is vital for their development and one of the biggest early divisions in society is those than can afford nursery prior to the state subsidised hours.

With the best will in the world an average parent can't commit the time, nor has the expertise in child development to maximise the potential development of children. Having had experience in the sector for over 10 years, it is amazing to see the difference in development levels between kids who have been in nursery from the start (pre 1 yr old) and those who just turn up at 3 for the 15 hrs, there is no comparison.
 
Absolutely agree. If you can make ends meet and live comfortably then it's a sacrifice worth making for children's best interest. Since our daughter was born my wife has been doing 3 days a week on average and I'm a contractor but generally work 4 days a week. Grandparents still work too so dumping on them isn't fair but they have her a couple of days a week generally and my wife is usually home by 4.30pm. I would hate to be like a couple we know, they have 3 children, all aged below 6 and both work all hours God sends. They have nanny who is with them everyday from waking and giving breakfast to picking them up from nursery/childcare until they get in around 7pm most days. They really don't need the money (household income is probably about 250 to 300k ish) and living in Stoke! Just comes down to greed. Like your point earlier I wonder if household income is more accurate indicator or average income in this regard.
You come across as a bit salty if your conclusion is that they must be greedy. Odds are they are in a job that they are passionate about, and likely hold the keys to the future direction of an organisation that several may depend on (i.e. senior decision makers). Or they're in critical sales roles, e.g. fronting for an organisation that if they don't have 1 or 2 big sales a year, they go bump.

In terms of not needing the money, renumeration at that level isn't decided by you. It is decided by what the company feels your worth with a view to stopping you losing interest and shooting off elsewhere. Or your taking the lion's share of risk like a Group CFO.
 
I totally disagree with your initial statement, especially in regards to early years. Getting children into nursery at an early age is vital for their development and one of the biggest early divisions in society is those than can afford nursery prior to the state subsidised hours.

With the best will in the world an average parent can't commit the time, nor has the expertise in child development to maximise the potential development of children. Having had experience in the sector for over 10 years, it is amazing to see the difference in development levels between kids who have been in nursery from the start (pre 1 yr old) and those who just turn up at 3 for the 15 hrs, there is no comparison.

I would echo this, our youngest's development has absolutely gone through the roof since she went back to nursery and she's an August baby so one of the youngest but even though she's not 3 yet you can have a proper, albeit daft conversation with her.

We are lucky, I earn enough so the missus can work part time, so it's best of both worlds really.
 
Leaving your children in care for the vast majority of their childhood is also bad in my opinion but that is a completely different discussion but that was my point to bring up your own children one needs to make sacrifice in wage. You can both have it but at the detriment of your child's up bringing.
I used to think this..then I had a kid. Nursery and in particular pre-school was hugely beneficial for my child. Sure its not all plain sailing, but the benefits (social interaction, proper teaching) far outweighed the minor negatives.
 
It's all relative.

If you take the wage across the country and just get the average, the higher salaries will skew it one way. Then if you take big cities into consideration, like London which has a weighting often added it skews it again.

I think London needs to be removed from U.K. average X statistics all together as the cost of living there has long outgrown all but the most generous London weighting allowances. For example, my last Zone 1 <> Zone 5 Oyster card monthly ticket was £220, so just travelling to work was costing me over £2,500 a year.

There’s also the “Where did my pay rise go again?” fun of a salary increase pushing you just over the line into the next PAYE band.

You can be earning way over the average salary in London, live very modestly and still have little in the way of disposable income at month’s end. It’s also dirty, noisy and an increasingly dangerous place to raise children in. We lived in a very quiet, almost village like area of NW London with Epping Forrest 300 metres from our front door and we watched all the inner city problems gradually expand out towards us over the 20 years we lived there.
 
I totally disagree with your initial statement, especially in regards to early years. Getting children into nursery at an early age is vital for their development and one of the biggest early divisions in society is those than can afford nursery prior to the state subsidised hours.

With the best will in the world an average parent can't commit the time, nor has the expertise in child development to maximise the potential development of children. Having had experience in the sector for over 10 years, it is amazing to see the difference in development levels between kids who have been in nursery from the start (pre 1 yr old) and those who just turn up at 3 for the 15 hrs, there is no comparison.

Completely agree. Both of ours went to childcare as soon as they could only 2-3 days a week - but it did them a world of good socialising with other kids. It was good for us too, we made new friends (via parents) but also gave us some quality time back!

As a result both our kids are bilingual (mainly because of me but they did French classes which is why we really liked it), they have friends and they know how to share and interact with other children.

Completely agree with you about the development as well, it's like they go on some sort of matrix-like learning it's amazing. Our eldest was on the purple level books by the age of 4 - that's not just down to us, but thanks to the childminder being passionate and committed to the development of the children in their care.

I think London needs to be removed from U.K. average X statistics all together as the cost of living there has long outgrown all but the most generous London weighting allowances. For example, my last Zone 1 <> Zone 5 Oyster card monthly ticket was £220, so just travelling to work was costing me over £2,500 a year.

There’s also the “Where did my pay rise go again?” fun of a salary increase pushing you just over the line into the next PAYE band.

You can be earning way over the average salary in London, live very modestly and still have little in the way of disposable income at month’s end. It’s also dirty, noisy and an increasingly dangerous place to raise children in. We lived in a very quiet, almost village like area of NW London with Epping Forrest 300 metres from our front door and we watched all the inner city problems gradually expand out towards us over the 20 years we lived there.

I live in the countryside, and used to commute to london... hello £5-6k annual travelcard! Goodbye any semblance of pay rise! That said, our house would be worth millions in London, it's probably not even worth 500k where we are, but it has a massive garden and is detached. It needs a LOT of work, but it's good enough. And that's the issue with life, despite earning a decent wage, just "redoing the house" is a commitment that takes years to save up for unless you release equity from the house.

Interestingly when I was living in London, I was on a public sector salary, but life wasn't so bad as my expectations were low! :D I guess with pay-rises you get used to a different standard of life, and you just have to balance it. I still struggle - i.e. sometimes I will impulsively buy something when I don't really need it - it's fine when you can afford it, but even if it is affordable doesn't make it sensible.

I think people struggle to transition from the impulsivity to long-termism. I don't think either is a sensible strategy, but more of a blend between both - I can honestly say I do struggle with it sometimes!
 
I think London needs to be removed from U.K. average X statistics all together as the cost of living there has long outgrown all but the most generous London weighting allowances. For example, my last Zone 1 <> Zone 5 Oyster card monthly ticket was £220, so just travelling to work was costing me over £2,500 a year.

Before covid my 1-6 season ticket was £219 a month, you are either lying or getting robbed!
 
Before covid my 1-6 season ticket was £219 a month, you are either lying or getting robbed!
He's not that far out though is he, it's around £2,400 PA for a 1-5 now, if he had to catch a bus at even just one end or drive to a station it would take him over £2,500
 
I totally disagree with your initial statement, especially in regards to early years. Getting children into nursery at an early age is vital for their development and one of the biggest early divisions in society is those than can afford nursery prior to the state subsidised hours.

With the best will in the world an average parent can't commit the time, nor has the expertise in child development to maximise the potential development of children. Having had experience in the sector for over 10 years, it is amazing to see the difference in development levels between kids who have been in nursery from the start (pre 1 yr old) and those who just turn up at 3 for the 15 hrs, there is no comparison.

Spot on, the cost is high but the data shows it's absolutely worthwhile.
 
Back
Top Bottom