I earn a 6 figure salary...

[herehearher]

Just reading another thread and pretty much every post is going on about "6 figure salary" - as if this is some sort of meaningful marker.

But obviously there's a massive difference between someone on £100k and someone on £900k. So by "6 figure salary" are they just essentially saying they earn around £100k? If they earned £250k, how is it acceptable to describe that?

Don't know anything about law outside the big city firms where they are all highly sought after - we are not lawyers but know a few partners in law firms. Genuinely we do seek women in our teams and they are valued and mentored, we do everything we can to attract grads from diverse socio-economic backgrounds - we have a good balance of male and female employees at a 6 figure salary but we can't choose on that basis both from a business and a legal perspective. It has to be talent first.

@Walkaround You're really overthinking the status of carers. It's not about 'deliberate devaluation'.
Despite what people like to think their taxes don't go into a pot and pay for themselves, from cradle to grave. Each generation of older people subsidised their elders, when the former were young and working. And they are now subsidised by the current working people.

We're reaching a stage where the proportion is out. With an ageing population there will be a large amount of people needing care, without an adequate number of younger people paying taxes to support it. This doesn't even include those needing lifelong care like the disabled.

Any thread regarding care always descends into an argument regarding careful, thrifty sensible people having to pay for care while the poorer ones get it for free from the government, rich people getting to hand down assets while the entire value of poorer people's houses go onto care, etc.

Where's the £££ going to come from?

I don't disagree that there should be more money but it's a broader societal issue related to wealth and social mobility, the perception of 'fairness' and demographic stability rather than just 'it's women's work and we needs lots so let's just squeeze them'.

Hehehe, tech USED to be female dominated.
The earliest programmers were women..

www.history.com/news/coding-used-to-be-a-womans-job-so-it-was-paid-less-and-undervalued#:~:text=Presper%20Eckert%E2%80%94thought%20they%20could,to%20perform%20calculations%20with%20it.

All sounds a bit of a boastfest to me.

Female dominated when the pay was rubbish and the potential not seen! It wasn’t women who profited from it.

@OooErr - I didn’t say it’s women’s work, specifically. Slaves (or women), then servants, I said. A capitalist system doesn’t really work unless it deliberately downgrades people’s perceptions of certain areas of work (particularly the ones helping the weak and vulnerable survive or thrive, as these cannot be allowed to be profitable unless we are willing to live in a more honest society that more openly expresses its resentment of the needy and happily lets them perish unless they can pay to be propped up). It’s not all about supply and demand, because we have far more demand than quality supply, to the extent we are damaging all our futures, and far more people in financial services than the world needs - generating the proceeds of crime, mostly, it seems.

We just devalue the work we need most because we don’t want to be held back by it - those not interested in nurturing and caring want their time freed up either to have more fun or to be more exploitative. It’s our exploitativeness as a species that has enabled us to make so many advances, and also potentially extinguish ourselves altogether, but that has always needed to be tempered by other qualities, or we would already be extinct. I think people should be more honest about this, rather than pretending some people are just thick and don’t actually deserve good pay, and that if they are stuck in professions on low pay, it must be because they lack the talent to do something else, not because not everyone is motivated by the same things. The wealthy should stop trying to feel good about themselves by trying to justify the inequalities on the back of a load of old bollocks about lack of skills or general intelligence. We need skilful, intelligent people in all areas of life, not just the most exploitative.

But nobody's said that some people are thick and deserve low pay.
They just point out that on every thread, every time someone mentions high earners there's comments about how they must be privileged, and there's a race to the bottom. People don't believe 'they' can be high earners. They think anybody who does it from a humble background is definitely lying. On an INDIVIDUAL level there's quite a bit of opportunity, and the 'average' person whose only issue is lack of exposure and not disability/caring whatever scenario could have made it if they'd gotten the right advice. The big4 accounting firm for examples even takes school leavers and pays for everything. Intelligence isn't even the main requirement.

What 'society' values is a separate discussion altogether and I actually quite agree that there's a lot of money in things that don't generate life improving value. But the alternative is letting a central force decide, and allocate. Even that has its problems as we can see.
There's also the fact that while 'capitalist society' is bandied about there has never been a truly capitalist society. It would mean one with 0 regulation. But we have a lot. And it's constantly expanding. It's not inconceivable for us to force a future where value is measured not mostly in monetary terms.

But that's a different discussion, and separate from the question of whether a specific individual A, who wants to improve their life, can do so in 2022 Britain.

@HopeItzNothing - You could argue your brother hasn’t made it in any profession, yet - he quit one and has only just embarked on another. If he quit the latest career choice, too, and decided to become a psychiatric nurse, or a pharmacist, or to go into academia, or into teaching, or set up a gardening company, instead, would you tell him he’d taken a low job to appease the average person? Or that he had failed and was downgrading? Or was letting himself down? Where is your line between “best” and average?

@Walkaround

OMG you jealous person.

He IS a Doctor, not a student or a junior Doctor.

He went to Oxford and walked into a £100k job. Was there for a few years.

He's made it twice.

He never failed.
He was idealistic and thought he wanted a vocation rather than a career.
I told him he would be wasting his time treating awful people - probably like you.

You've clearly haven't made it so are envious of others.

Yes, if he took an average job or a low paid job I would tell him he was an embarrassment. Luckily he hasn't had to nor wants to.
I would not be happy for any member of my immediate family to do a low paid job.

@OooErr - nobody has said some people are thick and deserve low pay?! What planet do you live on? This is frequently the obvious implication of people’s comments in numerous Mumsnet threads, in the media, spouted by politicians. And whether an individual who wants to improve their life can do so in 2022 Britain is indeed a slightly different question, but it isn’t the one raised in the OP, so not exactly more relevant to discuss than anything I raised. Besides, it is not possible to improve your life financially in 2022 Britain in all fields of endeavour, so only actually open to those people who either are willing to pursue a career path of no interest to them beyond the financial, or whose interests fortuitously lie where the money is.

@OooErr - see @HopeItzNothing for a case in point regarding people’s attitudes to some career choices!

I know it’s the bit you think is a separate discussion, @OooErr , but I find your following points interesting:
”What 'society' values is a separate discussion altogether and I actually quite agree that there's a lot of money in things that don't generate life improving value. But the alternative is letting a central force decide, and allocate. Even that has its problems as we can see.
There's also the fact that while 'capitalist society' is bandied about there has never been a truly capitalist society. It would mean one with 0 regulation. But we have a lot. And it's constantly expanding. It's not inconceivable for us to force a future where value is measured not mostly in monetary terms.”

Do you really think the only alternative to the current status quo is letting a central force decide and allocate? It seems to me the proliferation of City jobs and financial services careers in London in particular are not the choice of society in general, but were encouraged and fostered centrally by years of tax and regulatory policy - by active choice. We have been groomed as a society to value some things above others, it’s not all free will at all. The increasing disrespect for anyone who did not prioritise their personal financial security over any other responsibilities also seems to me to be a cultural phenomenon, not entirely spontaneous and common the world over. Why the belief that kinder perspectives on life have to be forced on us and cannot be encouraged through gentler means?

I earn a variable 6 figure salary - never less than £100K, best year out of last three £330K, but to be honest, after tax and pension tax charge (for exceeding life-time allowance), the better years feel pretty much the same as the less good ones. Not that I’m asking for any sympathy. I’m comfortable
but definitely no yaught (can’t even spell it..) or private jet. Mumsnetters should save their ire for people earning £1million+ per year! I’m just like the rest of you.

@Threadkill

The problem here for you is that Mumsnet isn't really for well off people.
£0k - £70k - households can never understand what your issues are.
You'll get flamed for just posting.

I don't think it is grooming. The average IQ is 100. Most people cannot pass the exams to be doctors or lawyers just as I cannot be a professional footballer as don't have the skills. So those jobs few can do have higher pay - simple as thatm always was and always will be..... It does not mean that those doing jobs just about anyone can do are not equal people to others - of course they are.

And yet how often are people told that the reason they don't earn enough is because they didn't work hard enough to pass all these exams or go the extra mile at work. MN is crammed with people who look down on others and kick the boot in at every opportunity. You'd think their smugness at being so important and successful would be enough but no they have to patronise others as well and point out how much they've achieved.

If we didn't have people that go into less lucrative employment, society would be a whole lot worse. We need teachers, social workers and psychologists as much as we need lawyers and accountants but they wouldn't necessarily have lower IQs.

It's fine for those in scarcer employment to earn more but they don't have to look down their noses and they don't have to fight for an even bigger slice of the cake than they already have.

You have had some insight since I was a lone parent on benefits @Xenia back the you advised everybody to "just" earn more.

I would be surprised if I said everyone could earn more just as I say above I could never be a professional footballer of course I know not everyone can earn more. However we are in a much better time now in 2022 - for the first time in my adult life there are more jobs around - that is unprecedented and reminds me of books I used to read about the 1950s and 60s when people would leave one office job on friday and get another on the Monday. It has never been like that in my adult life time. For once now in 2022 there are (perhaps only briefly) jobs available. It may not last but now is a good time to seize the chance. Good luck to everyone.

@Xenia - an article in Chambers Student stated that in 2017 legal aid barristers earned on average £28,000 a year after tax and chambers rent. According to iNews from June of this year, in the first 3 years of practice, junior legal aid barristers earn a median income of £12,200 . The link between length of time spent training and intelligence and the ability to attract a high income is far more strongly related to whether you decide to work closely with the wealthy and powerful than anything else. It’s not as if legal aid work requires less training than other types of law, and it would be an appalling state of affairs to argue that the least intelligent and talented should do legal aid work. NHS doctors and nurses likewise - incomes squeezed.

A society with an increasingly small number of super wealthy people at the top and a fast growing pool of poorly paid people at the bottom, with everyone in the middle being concertinaed down, ever closer to the poorest, in order to ring fence the gross wealth of the tiny minority, is a society that has lost the link between skills, training and hard work and consequently high pay. It has also never paid those at the bottom of the pile fairly - hence the inability for anyone to earn a good living looking after those who need the most help. It’s a pathetic, sickening state of affairs. Who cares if the UK is technically a wealthy country if this is no longer translated into good infrastructure, good public services, good training and education, and an ability to have a reasonable quality of life in return for hard work?

And why do the heads of multinational companies get such huge incomes and bonuses when they have mostly contributed massively to the world’s problems? They don’t get their huge rewards for being good employers, or providing excellent training, or making huge progress in tackling pollution or activities which contribute to climate change - until recently, they appear to have been most rewarded for “restructuring” (aka paying less for more work done by fewer people), lowering the quality of customer care (has anyone ever found a chat bot capable of giving an intelligible answer, or found being unable to get access to a human being a satisfying experience?), outsourcing to cheap countries, and lowering the quality of the products they produce and deliberately building in obsolescence, thus fuelling a throwaway culture. What atrocious leadership.

We keep being told that capitalism is what inspires the creativity to tackle climate change and other issues, but it seems to me it does the opposite - the creativity all goes into trying to sow doubt in people’s minds that anything needs to be done about it, and in trying to cut corners, and in finding it objectionable to have to pay humans enough to live. Innovation that might actually help the planet to survive, it seems, has to be outsourced to tax payers to fund, or subsidised by the state, because it might never be profitable. What a con.

Agree with you and I voted Tory all my life until now. These people are just vultures, contribute nothing (except to their own massive egos) and cause so much damage and misery.

Thankfully we still have elections here unlike some countries so people can vote at the next election. I continue to support the Tories even these very high spending high tax Tories (but at least they are much better than Labour). We are certainly in difficult times for many at present with the inflation getting up to the 1970s levels I remember (where we had 20% a year over 3 years - ie 60%). I suppose 10% in one year is nothing like as bad as then but it is always hard to compare times and generations.

I am not in favour of envir. measures that damage people in the UK and have just about no international impact because most other countries are not bothering but I know there are lots of different views on these issues. I support capitalism as the best system we have come up with.

@Xenia - how much use is an election when the real power in the western world has been given to international financiers, global corporations, and a handful of extremely wealthy, powerful individuals who may or may not have acquired and maintained their wealth through legitimate means? We are merely voting for slightly different shades of the same thing and, as you point out, have no influence over the rest of the world whatsoever. The UK was particularly helpful, however, in actively helping Russian oligarchs to launder and hide their money for decades, and in advising companies how best to reduce their tax burden to as close to nothing as possible. We have actively embraced assisting all comers to avoid tax and hide their assets. Now that money the City specialised in helping all comers to hide, with minimal questions asked, is being used against us. Quelle surprise. If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas, as they say. It’s a bit rich blaming the poor for the situation, though, and accusing them of being workshy and unproductive, as though it is that which forced the UK to focus its efforts on making money from corrupt international finance practices, rather than anything else.

It is always the poor who get blamed, though - all those people claiming benefits, expecting free healthcare and education, etc, etc. Such a burden for all those overworked, overtaxed elites and their helpers.