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.

JustMarriedBecca

Where do you live in London!? You could be rolling in it if you moved out a zone.

London transport is brilliant. You could commute

Of course £100k is not the middle.

The problem is the media spins a story that second homes/skiing/ private school/expensive cars are "normal" for people on "good" salaries and therefore people expect to be able to afford these luxuries once they reach the imagined holy grail salary.

As extreme as this article is it does highlight the issue that people would rather struggle and get into debt than make any sacrifices in their lifestyle. It seems the "keeping up with the joneses" mentality is being taken way to far by some

A couple with two DC (one under 14 and one over 14) and an income of £100k are richer than 95% of the UK population according to this;

www.theguardian.com/society/datablog/interactive/2012/jun/22/how-wealthy-you-compared?guni=Graphic:in%20body%20link

That isn't any kind of middle rogan

I think the problem is expectation versus reality.

People see the headline figure of 100k and think this should translate into a certain lifestyle.

If the 100k job came after years of training and costs heavily in time and stress, this augments the feeling.

So lots of traditional middle class families cannot give to their children what they themselves had; private school, SAHP, home in London.

And it stings them.

I would love to swap lives with this "squeezed middle" for a week. They have not a fucking clue.

They could live in different parts of London without silly commutes on £100k. There are plenty of choices.

One thing to bear in mind is that median earnings in London are 27% higher than elsewhere so what makes up the 'middle' is relative. A 'middle' salary in Northern Ireland, where median salary is 11% below the average, is going to be vastly different from the 'middle' in London.

I'm not saying the DM people aren't fools, and on a household income of around £100K we are comfortable but not living the life of luxury some might assume. Housing in London is mad, but we were lucky enough to buy before it got completely out of control. We will never be able to afford the sorts of homes many of our friends have, simply because we got into the property ladder in 2008 rather than 2002. That said, the mortgage payments on our place are about £700 a month less than it would rent for now. People do struggle on what seem like high incomes simply because they are relatively young and housing is now essentially unaffordable.

I'm disinclined to up sticks and move somewhere cheaper, partly because this is where our jobs are but mostly because this is where our lives are. And when kids are small and there is no family around to provide support, the support networks you build for yourselves are worth a hell of a lot more than a larger garden or more bedrooms.

Of course their are choice available to them.

But they're in the mindset that life should be a certain way.

You see it here on MN all the time. Posters think that simply being middle class will ensure their DC's future.

It is as if the last twenty years have passed them by!

I can see it being squeezed also.

Our 1 bed costs £26000 in rent. Really a 2/3 bed needed so higher costs for average family. So. £30/35k a year

X2 nursery fees for under 5s in London. At £80/90 a day. That's £160/180 a day for two. Not much change from £2000 a week. Hence many have nannies as cheaper but around £35k a year

Commute fees x2 even if centralist - £60 a week. £240 a month. Approx £3000 a year

So that's £75k gone on living in a 3 bed ex council flat with no garden etc, childcare, and getting to work

If earn £100k gross, then £75k net is already too much. That's without bills, food etc

We are not far short of this figure and don't have children in private school. I would reckon we'd need income of about 150 - 200K to send the kids to private school. I can see if you have made the commitment to send kids to private school then just pulling them out would be heartbreaking. OK it's not a life or death situation but I can understand where that person is coming from.

£26k a year on rent?! Where on earth are you living? You could live somewhere further out, in London and be 20-30 mins on the train away. Which is about normal for most people (I have worked in central London for 12 years and those who live in zone1/2 have always been looked at like because of the cost)

"On a household income of around £100K we are comfortable but not living the life of luxury some might assume."

This brings us back to the definition of "comfortable" though. I feel "comfortable" if I get to the end of the month without having to choose between food and petrol. This usually doesn't happen, and we spend a week living on beans and eggs,waiting til payday to fill the fridge.

A "luxury" to people like me is going out for a coffee, or to the cinema, or to a museum. We never eat out, never go on holiday, never buy new clothes (we wait for birthdays/Christmas and ask family for clothing as gifts).

But I would assume that these things and more - perhaps the odd holiday, even in the UK, or monthly meals out - are "normal" for those feeling squeezed on 100k. They would cope on far less, most of us have no choice but to do so.

Also, savings. Someone upthread said they are "squeezed" on £140k but save £500 a month. This is a luxury, as it gives so much security. The car goes wrong - no bother, there's savings to pay for it. If our car goes wrong, we have a crisis on our hands. As Jarvis Cocker said, being a Common Person is living your life with "no feeling of control." There's no financial cushion.

And fwiw, we're much better off than most. I earn too much to qualify for tax credits, for example. But mumsnet is a parallel universe sometimes, and this is one of those occasions.

I think that's misleading though, because it takes no account of outgoings.

According to that, with 2dc our net household income makes us 'richer' than 68% of the UK.

After having spent the last 6 years paying up to £1000 a month on childcare before even starting on anything else, I certainly don't feel that we're nearly in the top 30% of earners. We struggle some months just like everyone else. Someone with the same income as us but getting free childcare from relatives or with older dc would be much better off that us for instance. Far too general IMO.

These silly London rents aren't necessary, they're a choice. If you can't afford that choice, then you can't afford it.

Most people live in suburbia or further out and commute in. What is this new fashion for thinking this isn't viable?

Fuck them. How dare they moan. They choose to send their kids to private school in London, they chose to live in London. They are not the squeezed middle but an elite few and they sound pathetic to the majority of people who live outside of London.

They don't live in London.

Who doesn't TheWord?

Mrsjoss has it absolutely right.

We do commute. Dh has a 45 min commute to work. I have 20min. Dh leaves at 5.30am and home 8pm .We can't move further out.

I'm bit complaining btw, we earn a bit more so affordable. I'm explaining how quickly a family with two working parents spend £70k (£100k gross). High rent for small accomadation, high childcare costs if x2 under school age. Add commute costs/ food/ utility bills and they are over budget/ just about getting by which is what squeezed is.

The first couple.

Poster said how dare they moan when they choose to live in London and pay school fees.

I was just pointing out they live in the Cotswolds, no?

I mean in not complaining

I live in the South East. We are proper poor- nowhere near the squeezed middle.

It's pretty terrifying to see though how far money doesn't go round here tho. We have friends and relatives who couldn't begin to afford to buy even one bed flats on professional incomes with no children.