To think that £15000 is NOT an attractive salary?

(97 Posts)
INeedSomeSun Thu 25-Apr-13 13:49:11

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

CockyFox Thu 25-Apr-13 13:52:12

Its all DH earns. We survive it isn't very attractive if you are qualified for something but is better than JSA and more than NMW.

KellyElly Thu 25-Apr-13 13:52:23

No, it isn't attractive at all.

Can you claim jobseekers if your dh is working? (genuine question, I didn't think you could)

NinaHeart Thu 25-Apr-13 13:53:27

I take your point, but a salary is not advertised with regard to how the successful appicant will spend it. It's purely to do with the level of expertise/experience required for that position, bearing in mind market forces.

You'd think I was being unreasonable is I said "£15,000 won't pay for the petrol in my Ferrari or my seven holidays abroad every year".

Salary is to to do with the job, and that only.

DesperatelySeekingSedatives Thu 25-Apr-13 13:55:45

So you'd have a combined income of approx £41000 then? As well as around £134.80 a month in CB. And you can't claim jobseekers surely as you're DH works?! Things must have changed in the year since my DP was claiming jobseekers.

£15000 pa isnt so bad depending on who you ask. I've never earned as much as that myself so I'd be thrilled grin

nicelyneurotic Thu 25-Apr-13 13:58:10

No, it's not. What are your skills? Can you do some freelance work from home or retrain?

livinginwonderland Thu 25-Apr-13 13:58:32

I'd be happy with £15,000!

pickledginger Thu 25-Apr-13 14:00:19

You can claim JSA based on having paid in.

ssd Thu 25-Apr-13 14:00:53

so would I!!

op surely you split childcare with your dh, or are you expected to pay it all

your op slightly makes me stabby

cantspel Thu 25-Apr-13 14:01:20

Depends what the job is.
If it is a for a nurse then it is not but for a basic admin job then it is.

Thurlow Thu 25-Apr-13 14:01:53

I thought that read £150,000!! grin

It's not great if you've been used to having more of an income and having money left over after childcare costs etc. Personally, I know that amount for me would have me thinking twice. But if you take a long time out, would you be able to get back in to your profession?

cantspel Thu 25-Apr-13 14:03:57

You are entilted to claim 6 month contribution jsa (if you have ppaid enough NI in your previous job) but it is called job seekers allowance for a reason and you should be looking for a job whilst claiming it.

You child care costs are a family expense so would come out of a total income of £43K.

kim147 Thu 25-Apr-13 14:04:12

It's not if you have to survive by yourself and pay rent etc and travel costs. If you've got more income from someone else, that helps.

It's only a bit less than I earnt last year - which is why I have a lot of debt.

poshfrock Thu 25-Apr-13 14:04:58

There are/were two types of JSA - contribution based and income based. You can claim contribution based provided you have paid sufficient NIC regardless of whether your other half is earning but you only get it for 6 months. The income based one will take account of your OH's earnings. I claimed the contribution based one back in 2003 - it was about £55 per week. DH was still in full-time work. Of course it's probably all changed since then.

pickledginger Thu 25-Apr-13 14:05:14

If you've been off with your youngest you need to check if you've made enough contributions over the last 2 years to qualify for contribution based JSA.

ssd Thu 25-Apr-13 14:06:30

anyone know what the amounts are these days?

pickledginger Thu 25-Apr-13 14:08:06

Contribution based is £71.70 a week if you're 25 or over. £56.80 if you're 16 to 24. Which hardly seems fair.

MrsWembley Thu 25-Apr-13 14:08:11

Yes, I agree with those who've said it depends how you spend it! It's not for the employer to judge that. And yes, surely in a partnership, bills are spilt? Is it your DH who's saying it's not worth you going back to work?

And half the reason for going back should surely be to gain experience and all that - something to put on your CV, no? The other half should be your own sake, to use your brain/body in the best way. If you think staying at home is best for you and your family, then stay at home. If you think going back to work is better, then go back to work.

Yes, stabby is a good description of how I feel too.

cantspel Thu 25-Apr-13 14:08:52

over 25 get £71.70

OTTMummA Thu 25-Apr-13 14:08:59

Well it depends who you are and what you consider to be a good salary.

But in this climate beggars can't be choosers.

pickledginger Thu 25-Apr-13 14:13:37

You wouldn't get non contribution based JSA because of your DH's income. Also, you have to be 'available for work'. So you couldn't say you can't attend interviews because you're a SAHM because that would mean you're not looking for work. And I don't know when 'Workfare' kicks in. Working 35 hours a week + for £71.70 definitely wouldn't be an attractive salary.

flowery Thu 25-Apr-13 14:13:46

Whether it's attractive depends on the job and the local going rate for that job.

And of course it's easier to find a job from being in a job, if you will be looking in 6 months for a new one.

And if you claim JSA presumably you will be expected to apply for and accept if offered jobs like this one anyway, wouldn't you?

redrubyshoes Thu 25-Apr-13 14:14:26

I have also just been made redundant after five years and am job seeking frantically and have also signed on with some agencies. I am getting calls to take temp jobs at least an hours drive or more away for £6.50 an hour.

Over two hours driving for £6.50 an hour with petrol, tax and NI deducted is a soul destroying experience, one of companys wanted a graduate fluent in French and German for that!

15K is very little with petrol, tax, NI and the added two hour childcare costs.

I agree with OP.

Anyway back to job hunting!

LazyMonkeyButler Thu 25-Apr-13 14:15:03

Can you still get help with childcare costs if you are both working? Or is that something else that has stopped now? sad

Like others have said, it really depends what job the £15,000 is for. For a relatively low level job that would be considered attractive here, but for something more skilled probably not.

Also, why does the whole £11k childcare bill have to come from your salary? Could you not split it 50/50 with your DH? I know that would still mean the same income/outgoing as a family but it would leave you with more £ in YOUR account on payday, which might help psychologically if not practically!

angelos02 Thu 25-Apr-13 14:18:56

It is all I earn but I live 15 mins walk from work, no childcare & DH earns about £50k so it is fine with me.

Laquila Thu 25-Apr-13 14:19:19

NinaHeart has summed up my thoughts exactly. It's kind of a difficult question to answer when we don't know what you experience/qualifications/skills are. It's probably an attractive salary to a someone with none of the above - not so much to a heart surgeon.

INeedSomeSun Thu 25-Apr-13 14:21:42

I will qualify for contributions based JSA.
Yes I am being grabby to some extent, but it doesn't make sense for me to work if I can get the same on JSA than I would get by working. That is the reality of it.
I do want to work and will continue to look, but they will have to be at least £18000 for it to be worth it. There don't seem to be many jobs paying that around here.
We do think of our salary as joint, but DHs salary just covers the expenses tbh. Everything else, so that would include childcare, would come from mine.
After 6 months I will have to take whatever I can get really. My DD will actually turn 2 by that time and will be able to go to playgroup for 3 hours a day, which is cheaper than nursery. Thinking that I could get a CM to pick her up from there. Its all so confusing.

polishthisturd Thu 25-Apr-13 14:22:39


kim147 Thu 25-Apr-13 14:24:04

I see a lot of jobs requiring high level skills and degree plus education which don't pay much for the experience needed. I saw one for people helping people in job centres with employability skills and ther maths / literacy. £17,000 - full time. That's not a lot.

Basic Skills training for adults- teaching qualification plus experience. £18,000

It seems employers want a lot but won't pay a lot.

angelos02 Thu 25-Apr-13 14:24:16

I have a degree, experience etc but due to redundancy, I've had to take a massive drop in salary. I'm not going to just sit on me arse at home though.

YohedYoshoulderYonisandYotoes Thu 25-Apr-13 14:29:11

Oh dear, there are a lot of misconceptions here!

1. The more 'attractively' a salary is described, the more they are trying to sell you the position
2. The more 'ambitious' the person asked for is, the lower the salary ('ambitious' means 'are you stupid enough to believe that if you slog your guts out you might get more at an unspecified time in the future no matter what the indications are (the 'foxton' approach))
3. It is VERY rare that employers look at the market and make a fair assessment of the salary needed to attract the right candidate. normally its costs-and-hope driven (together with telling you a crap salary is 'market rate' or even 'generous' when it is as low as £11,000 a year)
4. Which is why so many employers have half-assed unengaged workers who don't give a shit.
5. But bad businesses will always blame the employee, the market, universities anything apart from the simple maslow-based sensibleness of paying a decent wage.

It is NOT an 'attractive wage' unless it is part time, or the work is mindnumbingly simple or its next door or something..

INeedSomeSun Thu 25-Apr-13 14:30:41

To clarify me and DH have one joint account so we are paying for everything together.
If the job is good with prospects then that would be fair enough. Most are just customer service jobs that are crap. I don't think I would have a problem fetting one of those after 6 months - I do have ay least 15 years experience, I have worked non-stop since I was 21 (apart from mat leave)
Crappy cust service seems to be the only thing available! Oh and cleaner & leaflet distributor....

catsmother Thu 25-Apr-13 14:31:26

Yes, it's subjective - dependent on job, skills asked for, local climate etc etc. You can't really say it's not attractive to you per se because you have this that or the other expense.

What really pisses me off however is that so many companies persist in describing low salaries as "attractive" when they're asking for the sort of skills, experience and qualifications which they'd never get, for example, from an 18 year old straight from school. Asking for stuff which would have taken several years to acquire - meaning that applicants are likely to be mid 20s at least, and therefore NOT "entry level" people. In those cases I think it's quite insulting to suggest applicants would find the salary attractive ..... but of course it's an employer's market right now and they know that they can more or less offer peanuts and some poor soul who has no other choice will take it. What I've also noticed is that the sort of jobs which were being advertised at c.£15k 15 years ago - e.g. call centre, general admin, bank clerk - are still being advertised at the same rate - despite the fact that as we all know the cost of living has rocketted in that time. So definitely not "attractive" - and unless employers are banking on only employing very young staff who still live with parents then clearly £15k probably isn't going to be very "attractive" to the vast majority of adult workers unless they're lucky enough to have a well paid partner and they are literally just looking for a "bit extra". For those who have to pay all the normal costs of living it's definitely not - and you then go back to the notion of a genuine living wage don't you .....

Alibabaandthe40nappies Thu 25-Apr-13 14:32:38


ssd in what way does the OP make you stabby? £15000 is significantly below average wage, and the OP has obviously been earning more than that in her current role.

StrangeGlue Thu 25-Apr-13 14:35:36

You can of course claim jsa if your partner works but you do need to demonstrate you are seeking work.

£15,000 as an attractive salary... Well that depends what you're doing for that, the hours, other benefits in the package. If you do v little and get free accommodation then yeah it'd be attractive. If you have to work a 60 hour week and manage a team of 25 then no it wouldn't be.

angelos02 Thu 25-Apr-13 14:36:45

YY 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.

OTTMummA Thu 25-Apr-13 14:40:21

I can see why it makes you feel stabby, because I have been in the position of, well it isn't worth me working for X when I would get the same sitting on my arse all day.
But,,, I can't do that, I just can not justify it to myself, so I would take the first suitable job that paid, and discuss the progression of salary and skills in the interview.
Or take the job and keep looking for a better position, the longer you are out of a job the harder it is to get back into employment.

These times are hard, and if you are whining about 15k not being enough when it is seemingly only 3k from what you would accept then you are not really wanting a job are you?
Its a long term plan you have to think about, not what you can get right now,, it doesn't work like that anymore.

Vickibee Thu 25-Apr-13 14:42:29

OP I earn £15000 and take home £1082 pcm, which is OK but I only work 25 hours pw
What salary is your current job, is it a lot more? and you will have redundancy to live off for a bit

angelos02 Thu 25-Apr-13 14:43:38

It is a sad fact that due to so many people going for every job, employers can pay a lot less than they would in bouyant economy.

lljkk Thu 25-Apr-13 14:44:15

If you go on JSA you'll have to document job hunting, it's not a jolly ime.

Agree the term attractive is silly.

mumblechum1 Thu 25-Apr-13 14:44:23

£15k for full time sounds outrageously low, and certainly not attractive!

My first salary in full time work was 15k. It was an attractive salary then, 15 years ago when I was a new graduate, and I had no children and no childcare costs. Life was good, as dh earned 27k then and our only commitment was a 1 bed flat and our travel cards!

15 k is not an attractive salary when you have a family and childcare costs to consider.

BlackeyedSusan Thu 25-Apr-13 14:51:41

I agree with catsmother however, it is a job that fills the gap in a cv.

I lived on something equivalent in my 20's. i lived with my parents, paying a fair amount for board, but NO RENT, on the proviso that I saved for a deposit on a house. and be restrained with the amount of money I spent on luxuries

Mintyy Thu 25-Apr-13 14:56:28

I don't think it is an attractive salary at all! I was earning £15,750 in 1989 and I earned an extremely average salary at the time. I know its different in London but I'm truly shocked that anyone can try and pass that off as an attractive salary shock.

mummytime Thu 25-Apr-13 15:58:33

I think you'd probably do better on JSA, and use the time to look for the jobs which aren't advertised. Update your CV. Join LinkedIn and network like mad. Write to anyone you would like to work for. Update your skills if possible/necessary, and so on.

toboldlygo Thu 25-Apr-13 16:00:57

It's not especially attractive but an improvement on most of the admin/customer service type jobs around here which are typically minimum wage or near enough, no more than 12-13k. And yes, some of these seem to have very great expectations for that salary. It's because they can get it - graduates, people with 10+ years experience, foreign languages, qualifications well above those required for the role are all going for the same jobs as school leavers would typically have done because there is sod all else.

I know because I'm doing one of them. 12k pa despite a degree, relevant experience in big name companies and excellent references. I've just interviewed for another 12k job but in a field I'd prefer to work in and with better hours (currently working nights) - they had over 100 applicants in three days. I applied for a job last week that is almost exactly what I am doing at the moment, only for the NHS with accompanying better salary, pension etc. - there were over 300 applicants for two posts and I didn't even get to interview.

Yes, I will take some salt for my chip...

Vickibee Thu 25-Apr-13 16:02:52

NMW is a good thing in some ways but it is often seen as employers as a wage that they can pay for all jobs, there is no differentiation in that respect.
£15k is above NMW about £7.50 per hour but still not a lot for someone skilled.
I also have a degree and lots of experience and chose part time to fit in with school hours but could potentially earn more.

Wishiwasanheiress Thu 25-Apr-13 16:08:33

Of course u can claim jsa if dh works. It just depends on the salary and if u can do it via your payments n last two years. It's not a true benefit but support.

There's two types: band a goes in educated, has worked, can get work which go via nat ins payments for last two years.

Band 2, all others which is from gov which is the side daily mail gets her up about.

Still jsa either way.

Thisvehicleisreversing Thu 25-Apr-13 16:15:27


Vickibee Thu 25-Apr-13 16:20:59

The job centre give you so long to seek your perfect role, and then expect you to apply for all that is suitable. they make allowances for having young children and don't expect you to work full time. At least this was the case for me in 2008
Better to take a bit of time IMO and find a job that's right for you unless you are really in need of the £

needaholidaynow Thu 25-Apr-13 16:21:54

I earn way less than 15k, so that amount sounds like a very attractive salary to me.

Mintyy Thu 25-Apr-13 16:22:22

Can you claim JSA (if you are genuinely looking for a job) no matter what your dh earns?

Vickibee Thu 25-Apr-13 16:23:53

yes contribution based JSA but only for 26 weeks

angelos02 Thu 25-Apr-13 16:23:58

toboldlygo I could've written your post. 4 years ago I was earning about 10k more than I am now. Can I pinch some of your salt?!

needaholidaynow Thu 25-Apr-13 16:24:05

Only contributions based Mintyy

badguider Thu 25-Apr-13 16:25:15

£15k would not be 'attractive' to me with a higher degree relevant to my profession and 14ish years' experience.
But it's what I started on as a graduate from my masters degree.

I guess the question is how it compares NMW and how the requirements of the candidates compare to NMW jobs.

pickledginger Thu 25-Apr-13 16:25:54

Only contribution based JSA Mintyy. If you've paid in enough in the previous 2 years in NI you get contribution based JSA. If you haven't you're only entitled to the other type which does take your partner's income into account.

TheMNeffect Thu 25-Apr-13 16:28:54

Thanks op, I was feeling quite pleased that I have just started a job I love for £15000 pa but now I realise it is a shit job with a shit wage sad.

But good luck in your job search for something that pays a truly attractive salary smile.

QuiteOldGal Thu 25-Apr-13 16:51:39

I think companies can just get away with paying less and less. I was made redundant from a job paying about 20k with good benefits and all I managed to get was a job paying about 15k with no benefits, but even this is better than a lot of jobs where they only pay minimum wage, and the job itself isn't so bad and fairly near home.

The thing is a lot of companies can take on workfare people for free and I've seen science graduate jobs being advertised at £6.50 an hour.

If you can get a job paying 15k I would probably take it and then see if something better come along (like I'm doing with no luck}.

Callycat Thu 25-Apr-13 17:05:49

Agree with kim. It isn't great, and as quiteoldgal says, I've also seen scientific research jobs requiring a postgraduate degree and years of experience offering this sort of wage. Many companies are pushing the lid way down on what they're paying highly skilled people.

£15k is a good salary down in Cornwall, not many jobs around offering that much

lljkk Thu 25-Apr-13 17:27:42

NMW is £12 gross (FT, I think?), so £15k is about 25% more, ie £8-ish/hour.
It's about typical for non-degree jobs with some (a little) skills/experience, I find.

ohbuggerhelp Thu 25-Apr-13 17:33:39

It's all relative. I wouldn't work for that , no. But I don't have to so it's irrelevant.

Cloverer Thu 25-Apr-13 17:34:01

I don't think it's attractive for anyone for any job to be honest, it's only just the living wage.

sweetkitty Thu 25-Apr-13 17:48:09

16 years ago I started a graduate job at 11K in a very poorly paid industry, I think the technicians were on 8.5K at that time. Saw a similar role advertised recently for 12K 16 years later.

It's not just childcare it's the running around that goes with it, covering the school holidays, illnesses etc.

I do agree that childcare should be split 50.50 between a couples salaries, loads of people say to me "I suppose it's not worth your whole working" I have 4 DC so childcare v expensive but why is it assumed to always come off the woman's salary?

I don't know how the government expect single parents to cope on 12K a year paying out for childcare, rent or mortgage, travel, food, council tax, bills etc this is why there needs to be a living wage

ExRatty Thu 25-Apr-13 17:49:24

£15k is fine if it covers what you need and a bit more
It isn't if it doesn't

I wouldn't say it's attractive but factors are different for each person

If your take-home is no greater than your childcare and commuting costs, then regardless of whose money pays for what, someone is working some hours for nothing. Which is fine if you need to do so to stay or get on a career ladder, or reclaim your sanity, but not if you think the point of working is to increase your actual income.

looselegs Thu 25-Apr-13 21:30:46

DH has been out of week for 3.5 years...
......15000 looks extremely attractive to us.....

jamdonut Thu 25-Apr-13 22:26:29

£15,000 is roughly a TA 's reality roughly £9,500 when you take into account it being term-time only, and just a couple of hours away from being full-time!!. This is another job where they want the world for as little as they can get away with. I love my job...but I feel massively underappreciated by management. The biggest plus is I get school holidays so don't need child care.

LayMizzRarb Fri 26-Apr-13 00:49:43

I am intrigued to know what career you have been working at prior to your maternity leave.

Vicky2011 Fri 26-Apr-13 04:13:23

I don't think childcare costs are always assumed to come out of the woman's salary, they are assumed to come out of the lower earner's salary. Because if by the lower earner working, the household is only bringing in a very small amount once childcare is covered then many couples will decide they would rather have one of them be a SAHP. Equally others will decide it is worth the investment in the lower earner's career / pension to take the hit of the childcare costs. I can't know this but strongly suspect that most families where both parents work full time, do so because they have similar incomes so they cannot afford to lose either earner.

As to the £15K, we simply don't have enough info to make a judgement, it depends totally on what the job involves and where it is based. I would agree though with the sentiment that employers seem to be increasingly wanting people who are under 30 with 20 year's experience to work for peanuts at the moment.

catsmother Fri 26-Apr-13 05:28:15

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!

rainbowslollipops Fri 26-Apr-13 05:42:12

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.

TheFallenNinja Fri 26-Apr-13 06:27:25

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.

QuiteOldGal Fri 26-Apr-13 06:57:24

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.

Vickibee Fri 26-Apr-13 07:03:00

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

Nimthenamechanger Fri 26-Apr-13 09:15:16

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.

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?

Chunderella Fri 26-Apr-13 11:47:23

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.

Tuppence2 Fri 26-Apr-13 11:50:13

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...

MrsMelons Fri 26-Apr-13 12:09:54

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?)

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.

Chunderella Fri 26-Apr-13 13:30:00

Do you not get any tax credits or child benefit Tuppence? If not, might be worth checking whether you could.

propertyNIGHTmareBEFOREXMAS Fri 26-Apr-13 14:03:55

Yanbu. Go on job seekers. No point working for fuck all.

MrsMelons Fri 26-Apr-13 16:18:15

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.

piprabbit Fri 26-Apr-13 16:25:20

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.

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.

Kitchencupboards Fri 26-Apr-13 16:57:10

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.

expatinscotland Fri 26-Apr-13 17:14:04

It's a low wage, even in the north, particularly if you are on your own.

My salary in 2000 was £5300 grin and only went over £15k once I graduated.

Babyroobs Fri 26-Apr-13 17:58:55

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.

Babyroobs Fri 26-Apr-13 18:01:25

Also are you sure you wouldn't get any help with childcare costs through the tax credit system ?

TheFallenNinja Fri 26-Apr-13 18:09:27

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.

piprabbit Fri 26-Apr-13 18:41:43

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.

foreverondiet Sat 27-Apr-13 21:24:04

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....

thermalsinapril Sat 27-Apr-13 21:41:54

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".

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now