to believe the Mumsnet High Earners?

[LigPatin]

Every time there's a thread about earnings, there's always multiple posters who claim that most people on the thread must be inflating or plain lying about their salaries.

Whilst I recognise that people lie, especially on anonymous forums, I find it quite sad that people prefer to dismiss these posts as lies rather than take inspiration/education from them (or just not care).

I come from a poor background - we never had enough money to the point that food and electricity use was rationed. We weren't on the streets, but that was a looming possibility. We lived (mostly) within the midlands.

I fell into nannying as a career (having dreamed of being a primary school teacher) and my first job was in Kensington. The housekeeper had been gossiping about the rent on the house we worked in - it was £3k a WEEK. This was 2012-ish. I remember wondering how on Earth anyone could afford paying £200k+ a year on rent alone, when - in my mind - earning just £50k was amazingly rich.

I remember walking through Kensington and Knightsbridge and Chelsea and seeing thousands and thousands and thousands of these houses, all huge and grand and all presumably commanding similar rent or sale value than the one I worked in. They were all clearly lived in and used.

Perhaps it was arrogance, or naivety, but I figured that if there were enough people who could afford to pay £1k, £2k, £5k+ a week on rent (or buy million pound houses), then there must be a lot of money out there to be earned, and I couldn't see any reason as to why I couldn't find a way to get a share of that money.

That's sort of how I feel about these earning threads - hundreds of people are posting about their high salaries and instead of scoffing that they must be sad-sacks who hang out on Mumsnet to lie about their lifestyles - I think it's inspiring and encouraging to see so many women out there making amazing money and securing their futures.

FWIW - I was 21 back in Kensington, amazed at the £3k a week rent. I'm coming up to 30 now and my average yearly income is about £120k. I remind myself every day of how lucky I am, and how 21 year old me would have been incredulous. Though I'm, of course, absolutely nowhere near being able to rent a £3k a week house

I find it quite sad that people prefer to dismiss these posts as lies rather than take inspiration/education from them (or just not care).

Oh dear, don't waste your sadness on me, love! I'm afraid I'm not in the least bit inspired by you, nor by the pursuit of wealth as a measure of success - I have far bigger fish to fry, and too much happiness in my life to waste my time worrying about how to get rich 😂

@justasking111

US salaries for life science professionals are definitely higher. But even in Europe, SVPs etc could easily earn £200-300k plus bonus, equity etc. And lots of females and less alpha environment. Many of these worked from home even before the pandemic, males/females.

Many moons ago - 12 years ago, I did work longer hours - but not excessive - 50-55 hours per week (+ mostly worked through lunch, my own choice), WFH 1-2 days per week, travelled regularly but only rarely overnight, and was on a basic then of £80k plus commission took me to £200-250k.

But had kids in the meantime but these salaries are possible but too many people only consider the traditional routes. Perhaps there is more education needed at school/uni level? E.g. many of those who started out with science degrees end up doing sales and marketing roles in pharma/biotech - so can suit a range of personalities.

ohpulltheotherone, happy to help explain. I fell into big finance by accident, via a publishing job and became more interested in the industry than the magazines. I went to NYC and Wall St when I married and returned to the City when my first marriage went tits-up. I took a 50% pay cut in returning to London, but the City was about to see a series of changes (known as Big Bang) that had happened already in the US, so I was well-placed to move up fast. I have a very ordinary degree from a good university.

Ever heard of places like Norland?
The average Norland Nanny earns nothing approaching £120k.

[quote littlepattilou]@Insert1x20p Hmmm, of course there are (female) high earners, who earn £100K plus, but they're as rare as rocking horse shit. And a VERY small minority on here earn that.

Any career that pays £100K+ a year, would permit very little spare time/leisure time. And as if women with a high flying career, that pays £100K+ a year, would be chatting shit on mumsnet, in the precious few hours per week they get to themselves...

They wouldn't have time, and they WOULDN'T be on here posting weird, braggy bullshit threads at 11.00 a.m on a weekday, they would be at WORK.

When you challenge them with this though, they ALWAYS say 'it's my day off.' PMSL! How convenient!

Some posters must think we all are as dumb as pudding! Many women on here are too long in the tooth to believe the sort of tall stories like the one the OP has come out with.

Bet this thread doesn't last long.

And anyone who is thinking of saying 'you sound jealous pattilou,' just jog on. I am not jealous of people who make shit up because they're bored. Nor am I jealous of anyone who earns £100K+ a year. No one I KNOW has anything I want. So stuff that old 'you sound jealous' chestnut where the sun don't shine! [/quote]
A very sheltered life if you think £100k is rare and allows no leisure time! Ridiculous.

@GreyhoundG1rl

Ever heard of places like Norland? The average Norland Nanny earns nothing approaching £120k.

and you know that because...?

I love the amount of posters who have to come on these threads to explain how THEY don't care, are not jealous but look down at anyone earning too much and high earners are just liars anyway 😂

[quote BastionsOfLowerMiddleClasses]@ClarkeGriffin
Fair enough, if you were doing it as some sort of a warning.

Your post made me think you're in that 10% category.[/quote]
Nah it's like a bloody trigger to me. I see it almost every day and it winds me up because its my job to protect people from themselves basically, but it's so hard to do that.

Sorry derailing the thread a bit.

There are of course tens of thousand of people earning “high salaries”. Someone is paying for the million plus houses; the £20k a year school fees and staying in £500 a night hotels. It’s naive to assume these people don’t exits and don’t post on MN in the middle of the day.

I can only speak for myself, but I report into the US. I speak to my manager infrequently. He has no idea what my average week looks like let alone day.

I have lots of “down time” in the day because I don’t work a 9-5 job and I’m always on MN because my bloody phone is always in my hand!

ClarkeGriffin I couldnt read it at all.. tbh I didn't get the point of the posting!!?? Were they just showing their job title?

@samG76

The thing is, though, that there aren't loads of people on £107K in inner London - it my experience it is a few on much higher salaries and lots on much less. At DS1's school gate (state school, inner london) there was a lot of banter (and sympathy) when it transpired that a couple made less than £250K between them.

One out of every ten men who work in inner London does actually earn £107k at least - that is what the 90th percentile means

Here are the figures for inner London:-

Percentile Men Women

90th....£107,000....£78,400
80th......£79,700....£59,700
70th......£65,200....£50,200
60th......£54,900....£43,800
50th......£47,500....£38,700
40th......£40,600....£34,100
30th......£35,100....£29,900
20th......£29,900....£25,900
10th......£24,400....£21,400

The ONS classify inner London as being anyone who works in the following boroughs:-

Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea, Westminster, Camden, Islington, Haringey, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets, City of London, Lewisham, Southwark, Lambeth and Wandsworth

So what do you do for a living OP? I’m not sure what point you’re making so I can’t vote 🤷🏻‍♀️

I agree, there was a bit of a "wait, why am I not doing that?" moment that led to a high-earning position. I'm always posting on those threads as one of the "unbelieved".

I was an entry-level project manager in charge of hiring freelance writers and creatives for projects at a design firm. I saw just how much more those writers earned, and some of them weren't very good at all. My undergrad degree is in English, so I can generally string a sentence together, and I started looking for writing opportunities -- first at the firm, then I eventually was accepted into a few writer pools for agencies.

I freelanced as a writer, with an unstable but decent income, for several years before deciding I wanted to move up to being an editor. I landed an editorial job which lasted 7 glorious years -- in that job I became skilled at remote work (we were a remote team in the days when remote teams were not the norm) and gained my first experience managing a team of writers.

Then came social media. The company I worked for as an editor had a heavy social media presence so I cross-trained, learning how the platforms worked for businesses and starting to understand that drawing a direct line between revenue and my efforts were going to impact my salary. When I left the editorial position it was for a digital marketing executive role, focusing on social media and content. That was when I decided I wanted an MBA, to better understand and leverage the business side of marketing. You need a good grasp of attribution models and analytics to understand strategic development the "why" and I worked on improving that.

When we moved too far away for me to continue in that role, I moved up a rung to a digital marketing manager role, again managing a team of freelancers, managing a larger budget, and working for a global brand. That lasted about a year before I was headhunted into the Head of Marketing role I'm in now, which I've been in for about four years.

The next step I'm planning is C-suite. This one requires time, a portfolio of results with numbers attached, and the continuous refining of skills (keeping up with marketing trends and market conditions.) I don't think I will be able to do it at the current company and I love this company, so I'm quite content to sit here and let the experience amass. I'll eventually take this step, but probably not while I have a toddler!

That is how I got here from my "wait, why am I not doing this?" moment.

for those asking how to get there - I think being aware of such opportunities/ career paths when you're young is so helpful. then tailoring your subjects at A levels and university so that you can get into those roles. Nowadays it isn't just law or finance - eg the poster above talking about pharma sales and science professionals - that is new to me! a lot of people with scientific degrees (not medicine but say chemistry) might not know about such opportunities and may only go into academia, which can pay well but doesn't pay as much as the £200k figures being mentioned above.

and please again, it's been said above - just because you are a high earner doesn't mean you didn't work hard to get there and similarly if you are not a higher earner, doesn't mean you don't work hard either!

@MrPickles73

ClarkeGriffin I couldnt read it at all.. tbh I didn't get the point of the posting!!?? Were they just showing their job title?

Just their job title, but thanks to the likes of Facebook etc these days where people do post a lot of info about themselves, it's honestly so easy to do recon on people. It's why scammers can now send you emails with your own password and home address in them, telling you to give them money or they'll beat you up or expose photos/videos they don't have. It's scary these days.

OP's point about the houses is naive and misguided. People living in those giant mansions in Kensington haven't worked for them, in the vast majority of cases. This is the kind of enormous wealth which is passed down through generations. When I was with my ex-partner, we were on about £140K a year combined and in London that means a modest 3-bed semi in about zone 3 if you're lucky. And even this is doing a lot better than the vast majority of people.

Anyone who thinks you live in a Kensington or Chelsea townhouse through 'working hard' is seriously deluded. That's the kind of wealth that's either inherited or down to very unusual circumstances like someone having founded and sold a very successful company, not from working in a normal PAYE job.

@wesowereonabreak

and you know that because...?

I'm not the person you replied to but, they would probably say they know that because that it is Norland themselves that actually say on their website:-

www.norland.ac.uk/salaries-fees/

I agree that there are some pointless money threads “how much do you spend on X” when circumstances are so variable for example, but there are also some fantastically helpful threads.

I first learnt about sign on bonuses on MN and have twice managed to negotiate one. I had no idea they were a real thing before that. I always pass that info on on recruitment threads because many women are generally not great at getting what they deserve financially.

Many people are encouraged into careers by parents, teachers, peers, that essentially top out at 40k/50k (except in extreme instances). My parents were very keen on me being a school teacher and would always talk up people they knew her were teachers, when I was youngish and teaching abroad after university. I did train as a secondary teacher, but never went into it properly, instead continuing with ESL from which I now (a decade and half on) earn six figures with a fraction of a normal teachers workload. The thing is many “common” people (for want of a better descriptor - IE state educated, not from the top 5% of salary households) are taught to pursue interesting careers in things they think they quite like. The elite are taught pursue high paid careers in things they’re good at. It’s a much better choice, overall. Being good at something, and being well paid for it, is the best route to long term job satisfaction.

I do find it astounding the number of people looking to knock people on high salaries or say they must all be lying and couldn't possibly MN whilst doing these roles....

Whilst the OP was a bit crass many of the subsequent posts have proved the point somewhat. We should be helping people who may be aspiring to higher earnings (many don't and that's fine) and how this can be achieved and what it ACTUALLY means in terms of selling your soul or work-life balance.

I don't have all the answers to this latter point but would be great if we could debate this and work out how this can be managed rather than shouted down as liars

Op you seem to have forgotten to tell us what you actually do now - as even the Royal family don't pay that much for a nanny - so it's really, really, really hard to feel either inspired or encouraged by you.

Perhaps you got confused and what you really meant to do was to try to make others feel inadequate with your blatant stealth brag?

@wesowereonabreak

Oops sorry! I was talking to the wrong person.

You are quite right that salaries are a lot lower than that other person claimed.

The link to the Norland website gives details of the actual salaries that typical nannies can expect which are a lot lower than the pp claims.

What a patronising shit thread!!

@gwennah, thanks for a really interesting post.

I just missed the explosion in SM and it would have come while DS was a bit too demanding so the boat left without me. And now I am pretty much retired, with too much time, so I'm here posting on MN in the early afternoon for fun!

When I was with my ex-partner, we were on about £140K a year combined and in London that means a modest 3-bed semi

Well of course a combined salary of £140k isn’t going to buy a Chelsea townhouse but there in fact many, many people earning ten times that. Not because of inherited wealth (although for some inherited opportunity).