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

[ArsenicFaceCream]

Link

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

These women are fools.

As others have said, the vast majority of professionals work very long hours and have challenging roles.

I have nothing against teachers. They do a valuable role. My PIL were both teachers, My DSis is a teacher, her DH is a teacher. But time after time teachers come on and say life is so hard as though they are a special category. They're not. Try having two partners in law or accountancy firms with the crazy hours expected there. Is that not hard? DH worked 7.45 to 2am yesterday stopping for about an hour and a half in the late afternoon to do the school run and get the kids home before starting work again immediately he set foot in the door. Two doctors? Wherever there are two working parents there will be difficulties. Where one parent doesn't work there are different difficulties. Life is hard full stop. You need to find the balance that works for your own family.

I was the one who said "mid level teachers". I meant middle management. My point of reference was my own DSis and her husband who earn circa £100k between them. They are not head teachers. They have two small children and are certainly not living a life of luxury. My friend who is a head earns over £100k and is in a large secondary school. Single and so has a much better standard of living than my Dsis.

This wasn't supposed to be a debate about teacher's salaries it was merely put forward to give an example of the fact that it isn't only families where both parents are doctors, bankers, lawyers or accountants where the family income is in the £100k region. And whilst £100k clearly isn't a meagre family income it doesn't result in the riches and jewels some seem to think it does.

Clearly doesn't change the fact that the women in those articles are muppets.

I don't think that teachers claim to work harder than anyone else but they do - particularly on MN - claim to work as hard as other salaried professionals and I simply don't think that is true as a rule - although there'slots has posted that she never works any overtime, but I believe that is the exception.

The only people I can think of who have minimal work to do outside of their hours are my friends who are pilots - but even then there are delays, re rosters, studying

There are a heck of a lot of teachers on MN that's all i know

Yes and a seemingly high number of lawyers.

Plus the title of the thread is wrong, the article is referring to 'upper middle' not middle.

You generally don't get people on mumsnet saying that lawyers think they work harder than everyone else though and have it easy.

I didn't read below, but there do seem to be concentrations of careers. Maybe people post more on it if they're in a group.

But anyway, just musing. OT really.

I'm one of those who has stuck up for the teachers on this thread. I don't think any career should be shielded from criticism but I do think that there's more nonsense spouted about teaching than other careers. Not sure why that is. Maybe because everyone's been at school, lots of people have children in school and also because whatever we say, we've got the "endless holidays" (during which we will often have to carry on paying for childcare, but never mind!) so it's easy for us to seem ungrateful. However:

atticus you're right that it is achievable, but it takes a LONG time to get there. Most people don't get to the highest salaries for a good 15-20 years. Once again the UPS points are not part of the normal salary scale, and you do need to be in some kind of management position to access the higher ones. Many people stay on L6 for years and years. I started teaching at 25, earning £22K. That's the age where most of us will be trying to save for things like house deposits and the like. Fast-forward 5 years and I'm earning nowhere near the top salary, but this is still going to be an expensive time in my life as we're about to have a baby and we're likely to move to a different area (I know, still our choice...). It'll be nice to earn more money as a teacher when I'm in my forties, and no doubt teenagers are expensive too, but none of this helps me now. (I wish to reiterate at this point that I am happy with the choices I have made and I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me, I'm just tired of other people getting things wrong!)

DontDrink 10 years experience, in London - it completely depends on what you want to do. A lot of people would be on UPS1 by then, so about £42K (£35K in Surrey where I live - not a cheap area by any means!). Someone with 10 years experience might have a post of responsibility such as Head of Department or Head of Year, which at my school you would get on average £4.5K for - possibly more in London. Heads of large departments (Science, Humanities, English, Maths) get more (about £9K). I think our SENCO earns about the same as these people. Being a HoD, HoY or SENCO adds a HUGE amount to your workload so they earn every penny of it.

In practice, people who tend to have these posts are:

• women without children, or with children in secondary school or older
• men

Yes I know, obviously a woman with small children who wishes to have more money or is especially career-driven could do one of these roles (if they are available - once again there's not tonnes of them!) and I'm sure some do. Most of us choose to put our career progression on hold for a while though, regardless of whether the outside world thinks this is right or not...

PastPerfect I'm ready to accept that teachers don't work harder than other salaried professionals. I think it's a condensed job - we do 52 weeks' work in 40. However, to say that "as a rule", we don't work as hard as other salaried professionals is utter rubbish.

One piece of anecdotal evidence:

In the past few years, I've been a PGCE mentor for trainee teachers. As the credit crunch hit lots of people with great intentions decided to retrain as teachers, thinking they could do it (probably remembering how easy teachers seemed to have it when they were at school). I'm in MFL so anyone who speaks a different language thinks they can teach it. Anyway...

In the past 5 years I've mentored an ex-lawyer, and ex-banker and someone who worked in TV. All of them used to long hours (but for more pay!). They were not at all prepared for the intensity of teaching, the "joy" of behaviour management, the amount of work behind the scenes and the way in which everything you do is scrutinised and judged by management, parents and the population at large. They all said it was a thoroughly eye-opening experience. All of them finished their PGCE, but only one of them is still teaching (part-time, in a selective private school...).

Teaching has a VERY low retention rate. Probably isn't because you don't have to work hard.

Plus the title of the thread is wrong, the article is referring to 'upper middle' not middle.

zill the 95th percentile is not any flavour of 'middle' is it?

Of all the threads on mn where teachers and their hours etc are mentioned teachers get accused that they think they work harder than everyone else. Find me a thread or post that says that. What you do see is teachers correcting assumptions by others about what their job involves. No other job seems to be analysed and commented on

Brilliantly well put-I completely agree.

Apparently the book this is all based on (by Dorling) is called "Inequality and the 1%", which is a more useful descriptor, for my money (excuse the pun).

www.abreakingnews.com/world/squeezed-upper-middle-find-it-hard-to-maintain-private-education-and-huge-properties-despite-six-figure-salaries-h230336.html

All this middle/upper middle nonsense is a smokescreen to obscure privelege.

It also really annoys me when people say that their mum/dad/aunty/great grandma taught thirty years ago so they know exactly what it's like.

Really?

Has the job not really changed then? Was there a recruitment crisis in teaching in the 1970s with 50% of the teachers leaving within the first 3 years? Erm, no. I wonder if it's different now then?

Median wage.... median across what population...? So if I earn £0 and DH earns £50K are we median @ 25K average or fat catting? If I earn £10K a year - hanging on for Grandpa Eccelstones Inheritance of £1m am I a low earner?

Unfortunately - in London - I think 100K family income is the price-tag of a middling middle class lifestyle. I think people who claim to manage to keep themselves in cappuccinos and piano lessons on less are just discounting some hidden cash-equivalent advantages (e.g. windfalls on selling houses, grandparents picking up some child related expenses, living near family for free childcare, key-worker flat).

Putting this out there is not being snobby or insensitive. It is a public service broadcast for people who may be just starting out in London - and risking either disappointment or financial difficulties if they have an unrealistic expectation of what 40K/60K/80K/100K gets you as a family in London.

Well we need to ensure that the women ruby mentions do not put their careers on hold and instead force their men to do so or just cope with things being hard which is what those of us on the thread who have ended up earning more have chosen to endure.

Anyway I am happy to say I am happy and have no moans about my life, income or work. I suspect part of the reason for that is that I prefer to effect change if I am not happy with something rather than just think about how awful something is and perhaps tell others it is difficult. (It would be a great pity if this thread became about who hard life is as a teacher. Yes we all know it is a great long veil of tears but it is also hard if you're a cleaner or a banker)

The UK population Matron. You've heard of the UK?

"Unfortunately - in London - I think 100K family income is the price-tag of a middling middle class lifestyle"
If you think that's the middle, what proportion of the London population do you think bring in more than that?

In my family we have:

3 DC
a DH 100K
Me on £0
DM on 20K pa
DMIL on 8k PA plus pension plus regular money from DH
DF on a pension
DSIL on £0, but well supported by her DH who is a foreign citizen who works abroad, living rent free with MIL.

Are we top 1% with a 100K earner or median?

Greengrow people need to be realistic about what lifestyle is purchased by what income and what percentile of the population that puts them in.

We are all being exhorted to 'lean in', but, by definition, it is a minority of women (people) who will be able to reach the top 5%/1% of incomes, six week maternity leave or otherwise.

Are we top 1% with a 100K earner or median?

There was a calculator upthread Matron, but two adult, 2 child h/hold on £100k is approx top 5%.

I think its 200k for a couple to be in the top 1%, that prob just puts you in the bottom of the top.

The Danny Dorling book is next on my reading list, I've watched a few of his interviews on youtube and found them interesting ?

Greengrow

At no point have any of us teachers said that our job is awful, or a "long veil of tears" (honestly?!). We have merely pointed out that it is more difficult than the majority of the population thinks. As many others have said, there are very few careers that are as harshly judged as teaching. I would never claim to know what a lawyer, doctor, accountant, banker etc. does in every moment of their working life so I don't talk about it. I wish others could afford me the same courtesy.

I think your definition of feminism is antiquated. As I've said I think feminism is about the freedom to choose. If I put my career on hold I'll have CHOSEN to do that. I could "force" my husband to do it instead but why would I? To prove a point? To be a better feminist? You've said yourself that you don't enjoy staying at home with the kids - that's completely fine for you, but doesn't mean that everyone wants the same thing. As for "just coping with things being hard" - again, why? It's not about being work-shy, but maybe I think my family's and my own quality of life will be better if I don't work like a horse for a few years? I don't need expensive holidays or lots of stuff, it's not what makes me happy.

Final point: this isn't directed at you, as I don't know you and your children, but as a teacher you do get to see first-hand the effects of people having chosen to "just cope when things are hard" in order to afford a more expensive lifestyle (I am NOT talking about people who work long hours to make ends meet). It's not always pretty, and to me it's been an incentive to work less if I can afford it, not more.

Income does not even have to be that 'high' to get into the 1% bracket - somewhere around £150k. A lot of people have got there through effort rather than privilege.

Eh?

Of course a lot of (most?) privilege is earnt. Usually by very hard work.

It's still privilege.

Life is what you make of it - guaranteed though that sitting around on your arse moaning about 'your lot' is not going to get you very far.

True. I can't see anyone proposing that as a modus vivendi though.

(Not sure if this personal attack or what passes for economic theory in your head or...)

It is alarming isn't it it, that a truly comfortable lifestyle with luxuries is only accessible to a tiny minority? Can you not see the implications of that for those further down the income scale? For suture generations (generation rent)? For essential NMW workers?

Our economy is clearly dysfunctional, if academics are writing books about how the top 1% feel impoverished and 'squeezed'.