AIBU To think that the vast majority of the 5% of top earners in the UK don't really post on MN

[ChristmasAlone]

Top 5% of earners in the the UK earn 70k or more, but it seems that every 3rd poster on here earns way above that and beyond.

Your typical teacher in London isn't sitting on UPS3 with a TLR, nor are they a deputy head.

And of course a typical teacher won't be a deputy head, I never claimed that. What do you think a typical teacher is on in London then & do you have statistics? We know a NQT starts on 32k so it would be odd for the vast majority to be on 35k.

But the inner London MPS/UPS are not very low paid, that's my point. If someone is in leadership they will be on L scale, I didn't reference those scales. You can have a TRL for HOD without being on a leadership scale.
But that poster didn't say that teachers in London were low paid. She said that there's people in London on minimum wage and in normal roles such as teaching and nursing.

Why are you trying to explain my own pay scale to me?

FWIW, whether a HoD is on MPS/UPS + TLR or on the L scale depends on what the school decide to make the role. The bottom of L scale can work out as lower pay without the directed time coverage than MPS/UPS+TLR.

Equally, some SLT positions are still advertised as MPS/UPS+TLR.

It doesn't detract from the fact that most teachers, like nurses, will be on MPS/UPS, and pointing out examples of people in leadership roles doesn't change that.

** obviously with nurses being on the NHS normal payscale rather than MPS/UPS.

Not just examples of people in leadership roles, but people who are working in inner London (I know that teachers in Scotland start on £32k too, but in the rest of England, the starting salary for a teacher is under £26k).

So the salaries earned by the tiny minority of teachers in the highest cost area and with extra responsibility payments will bear no resemblence at all to what is earned by 90% of average teachers actually earn.

@Alsohuman

Do you think all the houses that sell for millions in London are empty?

Did you know that there are only about 500,000 £1 million properties in the whole of the UK? Many of which were bought for considerably less.

That figure seems very low

There are entire boroughs of London where every single house (and many flats) will be worth more than £1m.

There must be more than 500,000 £1m+ properties just in K&C, Hammersmith & Fulham, Camden, Westminster and Wandsworth, before you factor in any of the home counties or the rest of the UK

I imagine that most people are telling the truth. There are some quite obvious bullshitters.

There is obviously a sway towards university educated professionals, but that alone doesn't make for some of the salaries on here. You can work "in finance" in the way my brother does, as an accountant in West Yorkshire, and earn £37,000 (good salary, by most people's standards) or you can do it in the way that MN (or husbands of MN, it mostly seems to be) do as an Investment Banker in the City. I don't know exactly what that pays but the recent "wives of investment bankers" thread indicated that it's serious money to burn territory.

Most of my friends are university educated but they're also mostly public service so salaries aren't so high. There's a spread over teachers, social workers, probation officers, nurses, doctors, police, civil service... All quite comfortable. My family are generally on lower salaries. Still broadly comfortable.

“Did you know that there are only about 500,000 £1 million properties in the whole of the UK? Many of which were bought for considerably less.”

That is simply not true. Where did you get that stat from? A one bed flat (not particularly modernised) over a shop is £600k where I live and this is not one of London’s most expensive boroughs. An ex-council terrace house is easily over £1 million.

@safiya7

“Did you know that there are only about 500,000 £1 million properties in the whole of the UK? Many of which were bought for considerably less.”

That is simply not true. Where did you get that stat from? A one bed flat (not particularly modernised) over a shop is £600k where I live and this is not one of London’s most expensive boroughs. An ex-council terrace house is easily over £1 million.

I used statistics, not anecdote. I’m assuming your Google works?

@safiya7

“Did you know that there are only about 500,000 £1 million properties in the whole of the UK? Many of which were bought for considerably less.”

That is simply not true. Where did you get that stat from? A one bed flat (not particularly modernised) over a shop is £600k where I live and this is not one of London’s most expensive boroughs. An ex-council terrace house is easily over £1 million.

The first thing you get when you Google is 770,000 in the UK (Independent) and 737,000 (Daily Mail). Something called Barton Wyatt(?) puts it at less than half a million but expects it to increase massively.

That's just from a quick look. I expect there's more exact results but the Independent one sounds reasonable (or believable, at least. It's still bloody extortionate).

Depends if you are talking about personal income or household income? My household income is over £150k but I earn minimum wage for a non profit. I'm both you could say!

@safiya7

£70k is really not a lot in London. How would you even get a house?

The average salary in London is easily Googleable. Spoiler alert- it isn't 70k a year.

@caitQ

Most women in their 40s in a professional job will be on £70k+, especially if they're in a city with a higher cost of living, like London.

If you're in your 20s and/or in a different line of work, £70k+ may seem high. But you're not comparing apples with apples.

How much do you think teachers earn? Social workers? According to the NHS website, the basic range for speciality doctors is between £41k and £76k. So, a decent number of them as well. Most lawyers employed by CPS/local government/legal aid are paid less than that. All professionals.

LegoPoliceman
Teachers in inner London will typically be on main payscale or upper payscale. Main payscale tends to cover the first 6 years of teaching and is roughly £32,000-42,000. The upper pay scale involves going through threshold and is approximately £46,000-50,000. It's typical to do several years at each stage on UPS, so £50,000 as a classroom teacher would typically be someone with 12 or more years experience, often picking up additional areas to meet the wider requirements that many schools expect to award UPS.

I had a brief look on TES jobs after seeing this thread. Based on current TES adverts, shows to be getting £70k or above, these teachers would have to be a deputy head or head teacher as even assistant head positions in London are typically showing an advertised salary of between the high £50ks to high £60ks.

@LolaSmiles

LegoPoliceman Teachers in inner London will typically be on main payscale or upper payscale. Main payscale tends to cover the first 6 years of teaching and is roughly £32,000-42,000. The upper pay scale involves going through threshold and is approximately £46,000-50,000. It's typical to do several years at each stage on UPS, so £50,000 as a classroom teacher would typically be someone with 12 or more years experience, often picking up additional areas to meet the wider requirements that many schools expect to award UPS.

I had a brief look on TES jobs after seeing this thread. Based on current TES adverts, shows to be getting £70k or above, these teachers would have to be a deputy head or head teacher as even assistant head positions in London are typically showing an advertised salary of between the high £50ks to high £60ks.

I'm not sure if you've tagged the wrong person...? My point to the PP was that most of these professionals did NOT earn 70k. I'm aware that some will be with the conditions you mentioned, but most don't. I think we're agreeing with each other?

LegoPoliceman
We are agreeing, definitely.
I was sharing the pay scale information that illustrates your point to avoid any more 'but this teacher in London earns loads'.

Ah, thank you

Hmmm, I don't see why not to be honest. I don't earn anywhere near £70k but my husband earns far in excess of that and he spends a lot of time on Reddit. I don't see why a female equivalent wouldn't be on Mumsnet.

Also, perhaps people who earn high wages are more likely to post (brag) about them, therefore attracting disproportionate numbers of high earners to financial themed threads?

I did, I do and I will do. Or do I...?

Why does it matter so much to you? There are undoubtedly fantasists but they usually trip themselves up.

If someone is posting that they can’t possibly survive on less than £100k they are a monumental twat. If they claim that there was no luck involved - ditto.

However, I want women to know that women have as much right to the high earning jobs as men - if they want them. Many of the issues that hold women back are social and structural not ability nor temperament. That is the main reason I post. To challenge the underlying assumption that it’s a male thing to earn well. So believe me or don’t believe me but I will carry on posting.

It’s because there are many threads such as - “If you have children in independent school, how much do you earn?” (that one is in AIBU now); or “If you earn £100k, what do you do?” So people will obviously answer and then they get accused of making it up. You can’t win! I don’t earn anything as I’m a SAHM, but it doesn’t take much of a stretch of the imagination to realise there will be all types on here. I can’t relate to a lot of what I read on here (probably most if it, to be honest), but that doesn’t mean everyone is making it up, does it? Why would I need to think that? I’ve been accused many times of making things up on here. At first I was quite taken aback, but now I know what I can and can’t say on here. You learn what is acceptable on MN and what you are allowed to admit to. It’s very different to my real life, put it that way, but I think that’s why I like it because you get a range of people in all kinds of situations, such as I never meet these days. I don’t think people are making things up in general, though some do troll because they have weird agendas of their own. For instance, if it’s a SAHM thread, there’s a hardcore who always come out on those.

I still think my 'Rich People's Problems' branch proposal has legs!

Though of course no one well off actually sees themselves as rich.

@LegoPoliceman

I imagine that most people are telling the truth. There are some quite obvious bullshitters.

There is obviously a sway towards university educated professionals, but that alone doesn't make for some of the salaries on here. You can work "in finance" in the way my brother does, as an accountant in West Yorkshire, and earn £37,000 (good salary, by most people's standards) or you can do it in the way that MN (or husbands of MN, it mostly seems to be) do as an Investment Banker in the City. I don't know exactly what that pays but the recent "wives of investment bankers" thread indicated that it's serious money to burn territory.

Most of my friends are university educated but they're also mostly public service so salaries aren't so high. There's a spread over teachers, social workers, probation officers, nurses, doctors, police, civil service... All quite comfortable. My family are generally on lower salaries. Still broadly comfortable.

See this is what really fucks me off. I earn 200k plus a year on my own, no man involved. My male partner earns half that. Why can't that be the case? Why is it so unbelievable that I could do that on my own?

I don't disbelieve you. But it is much, much more common to see it written on here that "DH works in the city", rather than "I work in the City".

Nowhere in my post have I said that you cannot or have not. I'm not sure why your fucked off.

Well I'm fucked off with the women who live off men for a start but I'm also fucked off that all my years of effort are reduced to "well she must be lying because she's only a woman". What kind of role model are we setting young girls?

I know what kind of role model I am setting my son's.

But I appreciate that you said "mostly seem". Fair play. I'm just sick of these threads effectively limiting women and women's ambition. Making money isn't the be all and end all, of course, and there are many professions that should be a shit tonne more rewarded but God I'm sick of these threads.