To think that £15000 is NOT an attractive salary?(97 Posts)
I am being made redundant and feel like I should be looking for another job. I have been looking, but most are quite low paid and the ones for around £15000 are advertised as offering an 'attractive salary'.
It might be for some people, but not for people with childcare costs! Full time nursery for my 1 year old would be around £9000 and its around £2000 for my DS to attend before/after school club plus extra for school holidays.
So after all expenses, like travel costs etc, I will come out no better, if not worse than claiming job seekers!
AIBU in thinking that I might as well enjoy 6 months on job seekers with my kids & then get whatever job after that? The situation just seems nuts
We don't qualify for anything else as my DH earns over £26000
It's not an unusual salary, and I wouldn't mind it myself. But "attractive" usually means standing out in a good way, not "normal".
To those who say "share childcare costs with DH" - I don't think it works that way ESP if you pool resources because when considering childcare costs the relevant factor is the salary of the lowest paid of the couple.... Obviously different if you don't pool resources and your DH is spending loads of money and you have none but this doesn't seem to be the complaint here....
You are right TheFallenNinja, which makes is disingenuous of employers to pretend that their 'least amount we can get away with' salary is in anyway 'attractive'.
They could just leave the adjective out of the sentence.
Of course, a most salaries aren't designed to be attractive, they are designed to be the lowest possible amount an employer needs to pay to get a particular task done. The lower the salary, the lower the skill set, the more applicants, the lower the salary can go.
Also are you sure you wouldn't get any help with childcare costs through the tax credit system ?
If you claim JSA they can insist you go on back to work courses, do lots of job applications etc, quite a lot of requirements to meet and they seem to be getting stricter. Also it may be harder to get a job after a period of being unemployed.
My salary in 2000 was £5300 and only went over £15k once I graduated.
It's a low wage, even in the north, particularly if you are on your own.
It's not an attractive salary, it's a low salary. I started as a graduate in 1995 on £16500 but if you need a job and that's the one you find then its better than nothing.
Sorry MrsMelons - some people make it a feminist issue when it isn't one so I get frustrated.
A friend of mine went back to work for negative net income but it was the right choice for her family at the time because (a) they could just about afford the household-income-drop and (b) it was an opportunity that wasn't going to come up again.
I just think that situation is very uncommon, particularly since many families have tightened their belts as far as they can already.
My starting salary in my first proper job was £15K, and that was 21 years ago.
No it isn't an attractive salary, more of a 'needs must' salary.
Horry sorry yes i understand that but sometimes you have to do this to get back into work and eventually it pays off when you can move up in your job and start to earn more etc.
I think its all down to personal preference, I know some people who would rather be out at work and take home very very little and others who would only work for a certain about of money extra.
Neither way is right or wrong IMO just whatever works for you but the point is £15k is an attractive salary for some. A lot of people I know work in childcare for between £6.30-7 PH which would be a lot less than £15k PA.
Yanbu. Go on job seekers. No point working for fuck all.
Do you not get any tax credits or child benefit Tuppence? If not, might be worth checking whether you could.
MrsMelons - because typically you are comparing DH's take-home salary plus applicable benefits/credits against DH's salary plus DW's salary minus childcare costs plus benefits/credits. In other words his salary is a constant - the financial effect is usually all against her potential income.
Obviously it isn't the only consideration, but for many families the net financial benefit of the second wage is pence, or even negative. That also takes into account say commuting costs, and lost earnings for the odd bout of chickenpox or similar where childcare is paid for but not useable - any costs which are only incurred because all available parents are out of the house working.
Most people who are not qualified to do anything would be happy with £15k TBH but it doesn't add up to much when you are paying for full time childcare (although not sure why everyone seems to calculate the childcare costs from the mothers salary - surely both sets of wages go together, all outgoings calculated then you have whatever left?)
15000 is my salary, and what dd and I live on. I don't have a dh's salary to combine that with, and I pay rent, bills etc from that...
I think you have to be earning 2 x NMW for a 35 hour week between you to qualify for UC without conditionality stuff. That was in some of the proposals anyway, not sure if it's still there now.
Whether 15k is attractive depends entirely on the role. If it's a job for which NMW is the norm then yes, clearly it's very attractive. If it's the sort of thing that would've paid 20k a few years back, not so much. And I'm another one who gets pissed off by lack of salary information in job adverts.
Sorry if this is off topic but if your husband is working full time why will you have to do mandatory work interviews when UC comes in?
catsmother If I was single, there is no way I could afford to live on £15,000 & I'd make an effort to get a properly paid job. As it is, it is a lovely little easy job and due to DH's salary, it is my 'fun' money.
Amazing. I am SAHM whose DH earns just under £16500 before tax. Tax credits and CB bump this up to just over £18500. When Universal Credit comes in we will lose the tax credits as DS is over one. As it is important to us that I remain as a SAHM, I will not be attending the mandatory work-based interviews. We run a car and pay a small mortgage, but then, we are Oop North. My husband is a graduate and it took three years for his current position to come along. Until then he was earning £12000 working in the service industry. Im not without a brain myself, though my job before DS was necessarily a menial one.
£15000 is either adequate or poor, depending on whereabouts you are. I do agree with posters who say that employers are at liberty to offer what they like and somebody will take it.
it also depends where you are in UK, in South East it would be a poor salary but in S Yorks where we live it would be the norm and liveable as rents etc are lower
Has OP actually been offered a job paying £15000, I thought she had just been assuming she would easily get a job paying this. I didn't realise it was that easy to get a 'crap' customer service job paying £15000. The thing is those rather general service and admin jobs with no specific skills, just experience are often the hardest to get as so many people apply for them.
I certainly found this when applying for those sort of jobs which I easily had experience for, and lower pay than I had been getting, that I wasn't even getting a reply. The jobs that I did get interviews for and eventually did get one was very specific to what I have experience in, though at a lower salary.
I'd take the 15k job then look elsewhere. 6 months on JSA
Is only £1900, 6 months on a 15k job is £7500 minus tax. It would
Just make for less of a shortfall.
I'd rather be on 15k working than on jsa. If you don't write anything down in the booklet they can stop the jsa money for 4 weeks. If you forget the booklet they refuse to pay you until you come in again and show the booklet. If you haven't met the t&c they can stop jsa for 6 months, then years. Be picky if you want to start with but I ended up leaving a career I'm great at for one I've never done before all for the sake of money. I'm a single parent and use a childminder so I'll be struggling to get used to paying an extra bill but I'll actually be better off working because of the sector its in. They also try and put you on their own courses, which may mean you need to travel or find childcare.
Along a similar vein, I get very frustrated at job ads which simply state "Salary: attractive". What the heck is that supposed to mean ? - and begs the question, why, if it's so attractive is it not printed for all to see ?
On occasion I've called employers to try and ascertain what, at least, the salary range is, and some of them have been downright evasive, bordering on rude and insist salary would be discussed at interview. Given the propensity of so many employers to pay peanuts because they have the upper hand ATM you are then left with the tricky dilemma of having to sacrifice maybe a day off and/or travel expenses to attend an interview, after spending up to a couple of hours completing an online application, for a position which simply may not pay enough for your personal needs. Obviously, you have a reasonable idea of what most jobs might pay - but if you're counting every last £ then even a small decrease to what you'd reasonably expect to be paid could make it impossible for you to consider that particular job. It really pees me off when employers won't disclose this kind of information - jeez, most of us work to live, not the other way round, and it's pretty arrogant and dismissive to assume applicants wouldn't want to know this before applying!
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.