Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think £100k pa is NOT 'the squeezed middle'?

999 replies

ArsenicFaceCream · 05/10/2014 01:16

Link

The article is very confidently attributing the definition to Danny Dorling, but did he really name this figure?!

These women are fools.

OP posts:
Lweji · 05/10/2014 20:18

"I used to earn 80k in London, and I felt poor coming back to my tiny one bed flat each day in a semi decent area."

Are you insane?

Probably.
Poor would be going back to your tiny high rise one bed flat and wondering if you had enough cash to turn up the heat.

CrotchMaven · 05/10/2014 20:27

Tying this in with the other thread about jobs in London, it seems that the problem lies (as was discussed earlier) in expectations, but also in the discounting of many of the positives about living there. I don't just mean the exciting stuff to do, but also the availability of jobs, the possibility of career progression, the prestige of the type of work on offer (calibre of clients, complexity of work) etc etc. Those are things that have a value, even if they don't provide the lifestyle that some expect to be derived from them.

There is also the problem, as already mentioned, of comparing current conditions with those of our parents. Whilst a lot of them don't realise it, they were part of a unique golden age. Economic circumstances meant that many of them had stable jobs, a favourable property market and generous final salary pensions. There is pretty much nobody in their position these days working in the kind of jobs they did, and if there are, they are a retiring breed.

Housing costs are the main issue, of course. It's not true to say that there is no social housing being built. There is, and it kept going through the recession. The demand is large, though, so individuals may not see it as being accessible. A rise in interest rates would ensure a huge correction, but no politician would want to oversee that baby. Anecdotally, I live in an area outside London with relatively high house prices and I know that there has been a large amount of sunk discretionary spending financed from equity on the back of rising house prices. So, don't look to the Jones'. They are in the shit come any correction.

thecatinjapan is right, though. This is spin.

VermillionPorcupine · 05/10/2014 20:41

PlasticPinkFlamingo

Although I know rents are high, I just find it astounding what some people are willing to pay. This is the type of house you could get for that money in my area:

www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-46434034.html

handcream · 05/10/2014 20:43

Just chipping in here. My DH and I earn about 200k, we do send our children to private schools, we both work, we have Plan B and C. We have made good decisions and been lucky.

If something went wrong it might surprise some that the first thing to go wouldn't be the school fees. It would be the house as we have a reasonable amount of equity.

But there is often a view on MN that if you can afford private you can afford anything, skiing hols, regular spa days, luxury brands, expensive restaurants etc. it really isn't true.

CrotchMaven · 05/10/2014 20:43

I knew there was something else...

I think that there is an expectations gap which is derived from the age of "settling down".

My folks married at 21 & 26. Their first home was a cottage with no central heating and they over stretched to buy that such that they went out at the weekend getting driftwood for the stove. My dad was a trainee professional. Trainee professionals doing anything like that these days?

Dad revised for his professional exams at night whilst walking me around with a nappy on his shoulder because I had colic. Most of the trainees I know and have ever met are miles away from that being an option. In fact, I think they would believe themselves odd if it were the case.

What I see now is a lot of 20 somethings playing, partying and travelling, with an expectation that the whole 30s settling down thing starts from when they decide to do it. Maybe there were economic times where that were possible, but it can't have been for long, can it? Hence, the expectation that they should be able to afford the house that is fit for the family they have decided to have, rather than that they have actually planned for (an expensive shoebox).

It's quite fascinating.

PlasticPinkFlamingo · 05/10/2014 20:45

dreaming fair enough. Living within our means is important to us as well.

But if I was earning circa £100k and my options were renting a 2 bed flat in those areas I'd be pissed off.

Being born a little too late or not buying property early enough makes a massive, massive difference to quality of life in London / expensive South East.

If our household was on £100k, with our current housing situation, we'd be having loads of lovely holidays as we'd have shedloads of disposable income. But our mortgage is about half what it would cost to rent our current place so that would suck up a lot of the extra cash.

UserNameUnderConstruction · 05/10/2014 20:46

Under 150k is poor? Are you for real? Are you trying hard to be a goady fucker? Have you recently taken Ketamine?

Give your head a wobble.

As for the 1million not being rich post. There are no words......

Pastperfect · 05/10/2014 20:46

superwife marmite. - if you really don't feel wealthy then can I suggest you get some help - either you are severely lacking in self esteem or your DH is spending large sums of money about which you are unaware

ArsenicFaceCream · 05/10/2014 20:48

UserName stop it, i'm trying to embibe Grin

OP posts:
Lweji · 05/10/2014 20:49

But there is often a view on MN that if you can afford private you can afford anything, skiing hols, regular spa days, luxury brands, expensive restaurants etc. it really isn't true.

No, but private schooling itself is a luxury and certainly not an essential.
You may need to chose between private schooling and other luxuries, but you are still well off if you can choose to go private.
Not rich as such, but definitely not struggling, and more than just comfortable.

PlasticPinkFlamingo · 05/10/2014 20:49

VermillionPorcupine that is a very nice house. Shame about the commute...

My in laws live in a northern city and I often look at the huge detached houses we could get there if we flogged our mid terrace house here. Needless to say my MIL was horrified when she first saw our house.

plinkyplonks · 05/10/2014 20:51

Hubbie and I on 80k pa. Definitely couldn't afford to put any children through private school on that wage. Between our rent and basic outgoings, we don't have much left over each month. We've been on 28k pa combined in our early careers and arguably had a better quality of living where we were (lower cost of living) however, still wouldn't have been able to afford to pay for private school. It's all relative to where you live, your outgoings i.e. existing debt accumulated through studying and moving costs to get the job your in, how you spend your expendable income etc.

ArsenicFaceCream · 05/10/2014 20:53

Vermillion a lot of people wouldn't be able to find work there.

There are compromise solutions though.

OP posts:
handcream · 05/10/2014 20:55

Leek I - I have never said we weren't comfortable. Living In The ?E, having two salaries, staying in our house for a number of yrs, not going out too much and having endless takeaways which are blooming expensive, has done it for us.

I was trying to say that the school fees wouldn't be the first thing to go. It's that important to us.

Moid1 · 05/10/2014 20:57

Yep we are choosing between private school fees and eating out lots and expensive holidays. We can't afford both on £160k, with a largish mortgage. But we are rich and I don t pretend to be anything else than that. I don't expect to be able to buy everything we want.

Viviennemary · 05/10/2014 20:59

I do know a few people who have sent their DC's to private school that aren't very well off or rich. They're not poor or hard up in any way. Usually they have one child or two at most at private school and probably make other cut backs.. I know others where the grandparents have paid. So it isn't a measure of wealth but certainly not an indication of being strapped for cash.

Pilgit · 05/10/2014 21:01

I agree. It is ridiculous! Our income is about that and whilst we can't spend willy nilly (mortgage, nursery fees, paying off debts from maternity leave) we don't have worries about it and I would not say we are squeezed. We live in the SE and don't buy into the private school luxury holiday thing. People are not entitled to private schools, holidays, flashy cars etc. We work hard and I happen to have a job that gets a good salary. We live within our means and enjoy the luxuries we have. To call people like us the squeezed middle is insulting to those that actually are making hard decisions and feeling squeezed.

PartyMatron · 05/10/2014 21:02

The major issue is houseprices. A person on 24K a year who inherited a house may well have substantially more disposable income than a person earning 150K buying a family house near London (or even out of London + double train fare + live in nanny to allow both parents to work long enough hours).

VermillionPorcupine · 05/10/2014 21:05

Yes I know Arsenic, but just one example.

That type of house to buy would probably be around £600-£700k.

For those that own a £2m shoebox in Central London, I often think you could buy a much bigger and nicer house a few hours away, outright, then live off the £1,300,000 'spare change' you got Grin

ArsenicFaceCream · 05/10/2014 21:11

That's ok if you got on the ladder fast enough to own a two million pound shoe box in the first place, I suppose. Not a feasible plan for the rest of us.

OP posts:
PartyMatron · 05/10/2014 21:16

Suppose 100k single earner. After tax roughly 4-5K per month take home. Repayments on a roughly 300K mortgage (which is not flash within commuting distance of London) would be in the region of 2K. 1K on commuting. Which leaves you about 2K per month on bills, consumables, debts, pensions, university fees and such like. Which puts you in the same bracket as about 30K earning without housing costs.

Double earning that or being a single parent would then add childcare costs - £500 per week gross would be a reasonable estimate for something for pre-schoolers that is comprehensive enough to allow for both parents to be at their desks 8.30-6.00pm (which is a short day for that kind of salary) - which does not leave surplus for weekly massages, fancy schooling and a shoe-collecting hobby.

The DM article was purposely inflammatory.

PartyMatron · 05/10/2014 21:21

Vermillion the problem with buying a bigger, nicer, cheaper place further out is that it can trigger an avalanche of hidden costs along the lines of train tickets/needing to run a car/station parking/more childcare/having to taxi or hotel if you miss the last train home/ commuter munchies/ needing to hire a cleaner to claw back time lost to commuting & so on.

ArsenicFaceCream · 05/10/2014 21:24

£1k PER MONTH on commuting Party?? How? Where?

OP posts:
BuggersMuddle · 05/10/2014 21:25

I think CrotchMaven makes a very good point regarding London. It's certainly not the case in every expensive location, but there are benefits to living in a large metropolitan centre with a vibrant cultural life.

There are of the career opportunities, the entertainment, the ease of access to experiences for yourself and your DC (provided, granted, that you can afford), good transport links to other places at home and abroad. I live in Edinburgh and have worked in London. I'd say I get the best of both worlds of course (reasonably cosmopolitan city, lower prices), but undoubtedly London has its benefits.

Yes, I have a better standard of living in Edinburgh on £100k combined than I would in London and a shorter commute. I could have an even better 'home lifestyle' if wiling to take on a substantial commute, but I everything's a trade off. Then again, my friends who have managed to get a decent income back home (high unemployment are in the west coast) have a better lifestyle than me on a much lower combined income. Sadly not much call for my specialism - even less so DP's - back home.

MrsDmitriTippensKrushnic · 05/10/2014 21:26

I hate this idea that everyone in London has chosen to live in London. For some of us it's where we grew up, it's where we were educated and it's where we got our first jobs and put down roots that aren't easy to uproot. DH and I cling to our jobs because the threats of redundancy(for DH) and flexible working hours (for me) mean our long service has more value than any new job we could get. We have a council property so can't move anyway unless we go into private renting and we're not that daft! We live in an incredibly expensive city we can't afford to move out of and I bet there are plenty of other people in the same situation.

I don't have a problem with people who earn more than me (that would be all my family and all my friends - BIL and SIL earn around £120k, DSis earns about £65k) I do have issues who live outside their means and then despite earning 3/4/5 times our income think they have any right to plead poverty. Even we don't do that - we don't have a lot but we're not destitute.

Swipe left for the next trending thread