Is this classed as a ‘high earner’?

From a personal perspective - My friends who aren’t in financial services - I generally have no idea what they do other than the obvious eg GPs

but I did a financial course at a London uni college and so all of our cohort and a lot of my school friends in London went into similar industries which are interlinked eg advisory firms who advise other firms which invest cash that other firms give. So it’s not such a black hole as it’s all connected

but this is definitely the bubble in action.

No, I said this is in the public domain for people who are either curious or sceptical about people’s earnings eg accounts, FT and yes glassdoor

I have no desire to check other people’s salaries on glass door - I deal with that stuff for my work and it’s all there in the public domain

Also as per guardian article I shared - £160k wouldn’t even be top 5% of male earners in London

Also yes agreed - assets mean very little given bank of mum and dad, inheritance, overleveraging and different appetites for risk

anyway 65k is a good salary but depending on what op means by “high” - in certain sectors it’s not a high one

If they are work colleagues yes but most people who live near me/ wider circle I only have a vague idea what they do. People guess by looking at assets which doesn’t tell you someone’s salary.

I’m not being silly. I registered surprise about people being so sure about what others earn. I was told I could find out on glass door. Utterly batshit.

No - and you are sounding silly

I work and live in the city - lawyer/consultant - and deal with accounts and figures all the time

but if you don’t then glassdoor can tell you what different industries pay which is what the op wanted

equity partners - each firm has average profits per equity partner - just google it - it’s always in the FT and public knowledge and by ordinary standards is a ridiculous amount of money

our firm advises private equity funds, hedge funds, institutional investors - all based in London with people from analyst to managing director level - those profits and salaries are visible from accounts /in the public domain

I recruit juniors and so know what they get - and they do normally get more than £65k

I hear what recruiters have to tell me about job opportunities for me

its not rocket science. There is a cross section of people in the Uk and also on mumsnet

£65k is a good salary but it’s not necessarily a high one in some quarters

this will depend on where op is

Yes agreed with this

we have siblings up north who are public sector workers and have openly said they earn a fraction of us and honestly their house is larger, they drive nicer cars and go on nicer holidays

their life is their norm

and our life is ours

Honestly this is such a silly response that seems to be repeated time and time again on here - people honestly can’t seem to understand that other people have different experiences

yes - mumsnet has millions of users representing all of the Uk

London is the UK’s financial, legal, political and you name it centre where a huge amount of home grown and other talent and money sits

12 million people live within the M25

and so a large number of those people will be earners (or married to high earners)

even this guardian article basically says the same thing

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/06/london-is-increasingly-home-to-the-top-1-by-income-study-finds

So you reasearch what people in your extended social circle earn on glass door?

I don’t do that you’re right 😂😂😂

Because we work in industries where we know what the average pay is - it’s often in the public domain

look at glass door.Co.uk for example

Not necessarily. They may have bought houses at different times, they may have inheritance or wealthy relatives who have helped them out or have had lucky investments.

You can’t work out what people earn by the house they live in.

I earn close to £100k

I can only afford a small 2 bed house where i live whereas plenty of people from kids school are in small/medium mansions. Presumably because they're earning a lot more than me

The other thing I actually don’t understand is how everyone seems to know what other people they mix with earn.

Remember, this is Mumsnet...

I don’t understand why people think that 200k salaries (or more) are unicorns

They aren’t unicorns and no one is saying they don’t exist. But in the figures for centiles I was looking at 185k puts you in the top 1%. This is including shares/ investments it is overall income.

So rather than non existent it’s unusual to earn that much. That there are pockets of very high paid people is the answer, so some people mistakenly think very high incomes are normal. Conversely are also pockets of low paid people who have literally never met any of the 1%.

Because outside London and outside specific industries they are.

Over £50k high earner. But whether it feels it, depends on where you live and how many dependents and other committments you have.

It’s all relative though - in London £65k was a starting grad salary for certain smaller law firms 15 years ago. Clearly those lawyers work themselves up the ladder to get multiples of that

in London 65k wouldn’t be enough to get you an average house or even an average flat

and a person on 65k would quickly find their wage depleted after childcare

so no it’s not a high salary in london

no point comparing apples to pears- london salaries are different to the rest of the uk because London IS a bubble with foreign investment and the city

and yes of course there are people that earn 200k plus - just google average salaries for a number of banks, law firms partners etc

I don’t understand why people think that 200k salaries (or more) are unicorns

Well, it's £40k more than I've ever earned despite being a graduate and having been in the workforce for over 30 years. HTH.

Yeah I think that's what it is.

I think people think high income should equal wealthy and it quite clearly doesn’t.

Yeah the top 20% stat applied only to Surrey, didn't it? In other words, one of the richest parts of the UK, and even there it is in the top quintile.

I'm curious as to why some posters are so invested in insisting that £65k isn't a high income when the numbers clearly demonstrate that it is.

And let’s not forget these figures don’t just include work. At lower levels they include benefits/ uc. At higher levels they include share schemes and bonuses.

well I’m south London borders of Surrey and £65k isn’t a high earner here, it’s a middle earner

Not on your local council estate it isn’t.

In 2021 65k made you 92nd centile for income as an adult. But 88th percentile was 52k. So the figures massively decrease and quickly from that point. 75th centile was 39k.

So to at least 80% of the population 65k is a much higher income than theirs.

But it's not "nearly 1 in 5" of the whole adult population. Its nearly 1 in 5 people who are full time workers. There are millions of part time workers,pensioners, benefit recipient's, sahp etc. So more likely to be something like 1 in 10 people.

Literally no one has said £65k gets you a luxury lifestyle or a mansion.

And of course everyone knows there are people earning much less than £65k . My point is that I'm frustrated that so many people are so determined to ignore the factual, relative comparison in numbers.

If we normalise the idea that £65k is a middle income it skews the political and economic landscape.