What is happening to starting salaries in this country?!

[user8636283901]

My starting salary in 2009 - so mid-GFC - was £30,000.

That was 16 years ago! And in one of the worlds worst global recessions since the Great Depression of the '30s.

I was casually looking at starting salaries in similar fields to mine and it seems like they're barely moved, all the while the cost of living is miles ahead of where it was 16 years ago.

Why are wages so low in this country?! Why haven't they moved up?!

And this is only going to get worse when the employment rights bill is enacted and businesses are wary of employing people as it's going to be much harder to sack them or change their contracts.
Massive own goal there Labour.

Our graduates start on £35k plus bonus, and my latest one lives in Mile End. Is that Zone 1? Or 2?

Love that for your graduates! But this is not common.

Yes that’s what I found too! Like “we are looking for successful managers with proven leadership track record” etc and offering minimum wage!!

My dd is about to start a grad job, 35k, not London. Over 1000 applicants in 2 days so they closed it & this was for 5 roles. It’s awful out there atm & this was for a finance job. The interview also had six stages.

Mile End is zone 2 but a bit rough around the edges hence affordable.

I disagree with PP that £35k grad salary in London is uncommon. It most certainly isn’t. Even the Big4 who notoriously underpay their grads for how hard they work them are now paying that. (Though they should of course be paying them more… HOWEVER Accountancy is an outlier, as was discussed upthread because the relatively low pay reflects the fact that you’re a trainee for 3 years and get all your exams and college tuition paid for, and then there is high earning potential after qualification.)

35k as a grad salary on a grad scheme may not be uncommon but many jobs which wouldn't have traditionally been graduate jobs - but are entry level jobs saying they want a graduate - pay much less.

Yes agree completely - all roads lead back to the sale of council houses and crucially no replacement.
Makes me weep 😢

I started out in a creative job in London in 2010 straight after uni on 16k. I cleared about £1000 per month, lived in shared house (no lounge) for £500 per month all in, £36 for a monthly travel pass, phone £25 per month. I left that career in 2020 in 60k to be a SAHM. Now I'm trying to get back to full time work and the salaries are 55-60k, a few places pay more but for central London it's not enough to live on, wages are stagnant. I'm overseas though now in Switzerland and wages are much higher, cost of living is high but to be honest now it doesn't feel much different to London, tax is lower here too. My advice to any young person in the UK is to move abroad for a while, save up some money, live a better life and come back later if you want to. It's impossible to build any kind of wealth in the UK now as a young person unless you receive help from family or inheritance.

Mile End is in Zone 2 and is not the nicest. (I lived in Pimlico for comparison).
I wasn't on a grad scheme in finance/consultancy/law - it was an entry level admin role as I said and I had an arts degree. If you're talking about like for like try and find entry level admin roles for arts grads paying £36k today.

Head of population is less relevant for housing. For housing it’s growth in number of households: because several people can live in one household/home. Not everyone needs a separate home to themselves.

Household population has also grown. By around 4m households since mid-90s. That’s mainly because there’s been a growth in single-person/couple households, e.g. older people living for longer; divorcees; people who never have families. A particular problem is lone people or couples under-occupying a family-sized home (e.g. one person in a three-bedroom house), which then doesn’t become available to a family. So another has to be built for newly-forming families. Lots of people don’t downsize when their household shrinks, especially home owners. Understandable: it’s their home. But it does create a need to build more family homes.

If your point is net immigration, immigrants add less to household growth as they tend to live in larger households, e.g. single sharers who may even share bedrooms. Most recent immigrants are young and share, like most young people. Or will live in families (e.g. 4 people to one household/home, often crowded into a one-bedroom flat). So while they add to the per capita population, not so much to the household population.

I didn't mention immigration...and yes I totally understand that obviously a difference of 11 million is not down entirely to immigration nor does it mean we need exactly 11 million extra properties. But obviously as a general trend, more people equals more demand for housing. Right to buy was a disaster but the homes still exist and still have people living in them. They just eventually get sold to a different demographic. Private landlords wouldn't be able to charge such ridiculous rents if the demand wasn't there.

I wish there was a 😵 reaction! That's ridiculous!

Unfortunately I think the job situation is only destined to get worse. In previous downtimes, you generally know that eventually things will improve. However, as AI takes over more and more it is going to become increasingly competitive and difficult to find employment. I have no idea why people aren't kicking up a fuss and panicking about this. We are sleepwalking into mass unemployment

A particular problem is lone people or couples under-occupying a family-sized home (e.g. one person in a three-bedroom house), which then doesn’t become available to a family. So another has to be built for newly-forming families. Lots of people don’t downsize when their household shrinks, especially home owners. Understandable: it’s their home. But it does create a need to build more family homes.

This is an often overlooked point when discussing the housing market

"Almost 30% of all householders who own or rent their home are aged 65 or over – an increase of 20% since 2010. Some 80% of these older householders own their own homes outright. Most importantly, these older owner occupiers live in relatively large homes (on average nearly 110 square metres with 67% having two or more spare bedrooms). Yet over half of them live alone."

That would be because no one wants to leave their familiar surroundings, friends, services and areas often lack smaller houses with gardens. Or even just flats. Plucking people out of their setting at that stage of life can be detrimental to their wellbeing. And at that point, it's often worse than for younger person having to move.

Unfortunately planners just never thought of that properly really. And that's not just case for uk. My GM abroad occupies big house by herself now. Well part, part is used by others to stay when visiting. She can't find anything around with garden and garden is her activity (physically and mentally). She would die in few years in a flat far away.

Jobs at my level in 2017 were about 35-36k.

I'm at same level in 2025 and on 42k.

So has kept up really in my field.

I agree. AI is going to decimate jobs in a lot of fun things (arts, translation, programming, writing, research and even some medical jobs). It might work out ok if everyone could work 15 hrs a week instead of 35, for the same money, while the robots did the rest, but that won't happen. A few people will be fully-employed on good money and many people will struggle.

Why on earth are so many companies reluctant to advertise salaries? It's a waste of everyone's time.

Its because they know the salary is shit, and they're hoping they can get a candidate 'invested' in how wonderful they are so they'll accept a lowball offer (more likely any candidate accepting would be desperate to get off the interview treadmill)
Such a false economy, I worked in HR for a company that did this and got two candidates to final stage for an experience, managerial post. The first choice accepted the offer but kept interviewing and pulled out just before the first day. They then offered the second choice who took the role but buggered off 6 months later, presumably to a higher paying job. So for what was quite a nice job really, regional manager for a charity chain, they went through a lot of people just due to salary

It might work out ok if everyone could work 15 hrs a week instead of 35, for the same money, while the robots did the rest, but that won't happen. A few people will be fully-employed on good money and many people will struggle

Indeed...it won't be used in such a way that it improves the working life of the masses...it will be used to maximise profits and that's all.

But the few people on good money won't be enough to prop the economy up - businesses need everyone to spend their money. So we will just go into a recession. And I don't know how we'd get out of it.

@WishItWasAlwaysFriday I wasn't making a judgement on why older people don't want to leave their home. Those figures are to show we don't have enough suitable housing.

Yes, I agree.

my first PA role in 2003 paid £22500, 22 yrs later i’m pretty much the same role my salary has only gone up by £10k. In 1998 my salary was only £12500 but I was able to get a mortgage and buy a flat with a 5% deposit