What's your idea of a good salary?

[MitchT]

theboss said:

djc206 said:

I voted £70k+ because I think around here that would get you in a starter home without the mortgage breaking you and allow you a social life.

The notion of £70k+ and 'starter homes' makes me glad I moved out of the South East a while ago!

I was pondering the regional element. I'm living in Yorkshire and renting because I can't afford to buy. My wage would have to double for me to be able to buy the house that I'm renting - I do have the benefit of a ten minute commute though. However, if I got a job in central London and wanted to buy an identical house and have the same length of commute I'd have to be paid as much every week as I currently am in a year!

[Dave350]

Freegs said:

Warning - graduate rant.

Having got my BSc at a top Russell group uni followed by an MSc from an even better one, a starting salary of <20k and little progression for 5 yrs+ is a sad reality. Would be very happy to be matching my age with my salary to be honest!

Seems like PH is an increasingly wealthy place. What do all these 50k, 70k earners do...finance, I.T? Someone tell me where I went wrong.

What degree and MSc did you do? What are you working in?

I graduated from a very average Uni with a 1st (Lazy as hell during my A-Levels, got my act together at Uni), did a placement year and then landed a graduate accounting job (at a different company) at £21k + £4k per year study support for 3 years. 12 months later and already had 2 pay rises.

I think a lot of the graduates that end up with sub £20k jobs are either not applying to enough jobs (therefore not giving themselves good odds of landing a decent job), or don't know how to sell themselves as a person!

[STW2010]

Dave350 said:

I think a lot of the graduates that end up with sub £20k jobs are either not applying to enough jobs (therefore not giving themselves good odds of landing a decent job), or don't know how to sell themselves as a person!

Depends on the degree subject. There are some of the softer degrees which have little value, and then there are simply sectors which don't pay very well.

I did chemistry and the obvious routes after were to commercial labs or pharma sector. There were others, such as brewing, oil refinery, material development etc. But many chemists need to work up to management before they even see £25k. It is not a well paid field- I believe that this applies quite broadly across the physical sciences.

I went into the waste sector, which was slightly better paid (and even more so now, especially if graduates join the management training programmes). That wasn't enough and I remember feeling quite disheartened, but then I remembered that I didn't study chemistry to earn money, I did it because I enjoyed it (and was good at it). I now have a PhD and work in academia, which does pay rather well (but it's not that which attracted me to it- I enjoy it and am good at it).

Message to all graduates- a degree does not guarantee a good job. Choose the subject wisely if money motivates you!

[TokyoSexwhale]

Moving between companies isn't always the no brainer.

I've been at my place (a FTSE high ranker) for 5yrs and have just had my 3rd promotion. Apparently I'm supposed to be one of those fast track wkers, my peers are >10yrs my senior if that matters.

There will probably be a move to another Co/region in ~4yrs. Aiming for a COO role by the time I'm 40.




When interviewing/reviewing applications I'm wary if someone has moved Company every 1-2 years: disruptive? Didn't get on/selfish? Suited that role but not the company? etc

Not a red flag, but raises some questions.

[theboss]

MitchT said:

theboss said:

djc206 said:

I voted £70k+ because I think around here that would get you in a starter home without the mortgage breaking you and allow you a social life.

The notion of £70k+ and 'starter homes' makes me glad I moved out of the South East a while ago!

I was pondering the regional element. I'm living in Yorkshire and renting because I can't afford to buy. My wage would have to double for me to be able to buy the house that I'm renting - I do have the benefit of a ten minute commute though. However, if I got a job in central London and wanted to buy an identical house and have the same length of commute I'd have to be paid as much every week as I currently am in a year!

I live in Shropshire and rent because nice large family homes are dirt cheap to rent but relatively expensive to buy. My priorities will change in about 10 years time when my kids are older. I work in London but wouldn't dream of relocating the family to the South East as we'd suffer a significant downgrade in housing standards, space, privacy etc.

[Joey Ramone]

DoubleSix said:

Would only work as a joke if the profession was left ambiguous. As I was explicit in my first post the 'joke' didn't work. Sorry.

Worked for me. I laughed my tits off.

[DoubleSix]

Joey Ramone said:

DoubleSix said:

Would only work as a joke if the profession was left ambiguous. As I was explicit in my first post the 'joke' didn't work. Sorry.

Worked for me. I laughed my tits off.

Maybe Joey Tribbiani would be a better user name in that case...

[98elise]

theboss said:

TheAngryDog said:

theboss said:

jakewright said:

brickwall said:

£42k is eminently possible as a graduate starting salary in banking, consulting, insurance, even oil; though these positions/schemes do tend to be very competitive.

The age thing only really works at low ages; I'd say a base of £75k at age 25 is more impressive than £120k at age 40.

True. I know quite a few guys contracting from 28 onwards and started at 850 a day.... x 235 a year soon adds up! (ok minus whatever tax)

I started contracting at 27 (now 33), so did both of my younger brothers... mid-to-late twenties seems about the right time for the ambitious to 'convert' having established some credibility. I wish I could say I'm on £850/day though (more like an effective £600 in IT infrastructure) - which industry is that?

Would you say someone in their mid 30's is too old to convert to contracting?

Absolutely not. No such thing as 'too late' if you have marketable skills, are sufficiently motivated to do so and have a slight appetite for risk. I'll never go back - I love my independence, keeping a greater proportion of my own earnings and, as others have said in other threads, am totally fearless about ever finding myself out of work. What's your industry?

Agreed. I started contracting at 45 (IT) and my father started contracting in his early 60's (CEng M&E).

You need to be confident that you can get work. If you fear redundancy, then contracting is not for you.

[Joey Ramone]

DoubleSix said:

Maybe Joey Tribbiani would be a better user name in that case...

Maybe you should just accept that the joke was amusing and that your incredibly tight arsed and humourless response made you look like any utter plonker.

And yeah, I could cope with being Joey Tribbiani.



Or a plasterer.

[pops and bangs]

I'd class a good salary as earning enough to live a comfortable life with the luxuries you would like.

If there's ever anything you want to do but can't afford then what you're earning isn't good enough.

As others have said already, regardless of what you earn you'll always want more, and generally your lifestyle adapts to your income.

I also think the number per annum on it's own doesn't really tell the whole story either. I'd rather earn 60k per annum and be single with no children, as opposed to earning 100k with a massive mortgage, 3 children and a stay at home wife.

I take home around 50k per annum and it's not enough for me due to my outgoings, I'd imagine even if I earnt 70k it wouldn't be enough as my outgoings would likely increase as I'd be spending it on more expensive things as opposed to living the same life with the same outgoings.

[Countdown]

okgo said:

DoubleSix said:

Barely a wall in my house doesn't have some evidence of that.

But he was one of a kind.

Plasterer?

[Countdown]

FWIW a "good" salary has always been £10-£20k more than whatever I'm earning at that time. However the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Outside of London I think an income of £80-£100k is "good". It should get you a decent house, couple of newish cars, 2/3 holidays a year.....

[okgo]

swerni said:

Got to say Rob, some of this is a tad naive, but you're young and you'll learn

I know you've had a change of heart recently re travel and the like, but I don't work in the same sort of environment that you did (as you described earlier in this post), so really at this point I don't have to totally sacrifce life to earn money. Of course there comes a point where you have to make a commitment to a company but at this point I can't see that I need to, probably the next one.

Also I think you underestimate just how grumpy I am. I couldn't care less about traveling the world, never have, never will

[illmonkey]

Countdown said:

FWIW a "good" salary has always been £10-£20k more than whatever I'm earning at that time. However the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Outside of London I think an income of £80-£100k is "good". It should get you a decent house, couple of newish cars, 2/3 holidays a year.....

Half that for outside of London and you're about right, well ~£50k.

The missus and I were earning a combination of £55k a few years back and lived in a 2 bed house in Oxfordshire, 2 fairly new cars, and had 5 holidays a year. Granted we never saved, but we were by no means poor.

[Countdown]

illmonkey said:

Countdown said:

FWIW a "good" salary has always been £10-£20k more than whatever I'm earning at that time. However the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Outside of London I think an income of £80-£100k is "good". It should get you a decent house, couple of newish cars, 2/3 holidays a year.....

Half that for outside of London and you're about right, well ~£50k.

The missus and I were earning a combination of £55k a few years back and lived in a 2 bed house in Oxfordshire, 2 fairly new cars, and had 5 holidays a year. Granted we never saved, but we were by no means poor.

I think that demonstrates why everybody's definition of good varies.

I'm speaking from a point of view of 4 kids = 4 sets of Uni fees = 4 sets of wedding fees = 4 deposits on houses. Ergo me and Mrs C do save a fair amount. When I was young free and single, living at home, £30k was very comfortable.

Plus, the other thing is, as your salary increases, things that were previously "nice to have" become "standard"/expected so your expenditure increases as well.

[illmonkey]

Countdown said:

illmonkey said:

Countdown said:

FWIW a "good" salary has always been £10-£20k more than whatever I'm earning at that time. However the law of diminishing marginal returns applies. Outside of London I think an income of £80-£100k is "good". It should get you a decent house, couple of newish cars, 2/3 holidays a year.....

Half that for outside of London and you're about right, well ~£50k.

The missus and I were earning a combination of £55k a few years back and lived in a 2 bed house in Oxfordshire, 2 fairly new cars, and had 5 holidays a year. Granted we never saved, but we were by no means poor.

I think that demonstrates why everybody's definition of good varies.

I'm speaking from a point of view of 4 kids = 4 sets of Uni fees = 4 sets of wedding fees = 4 deposits on houses. Ergo me and Mrs C do save a fair amount. When I was young free and single, living at home, £30k was very comfortable.

Plus, the other thing is, as your salary increases, things that were previously "nice to have" become "standard"/expected so your expenditure increases as well.

Agreed. £50k for me and the missus, with kids I'd want a hell of a lot more!

[chris1roll]

pops and bangs said:

I'd class a good salary as earning enough to live a comfortable life with the luxuries you would like.

If there's ever anything you want to do but can't afford then what you're earning isn't good enough.

Pretty much this.
Now on 28K plus a car and fuel, which costs me about £100/month in tax.
My wife works part time, probably another 5k/yr with overtime.

The rent is paid, I can do a 50 bird clay shoot every Sunday morning if I want, we eat out a couple of times a month, my daughter doesn't want for anything, and we've just started saving, which at some point might become a house deposit.
We normally have 1 UK holiday away each year.

At the moment I can't think of anything else to spend it on, (aside from coke and hookers of course) perhaps I'm just unimaginative

If you are happy - its enough.
I'm home at 5-30 each night, and once I've left the office I don't usually think about it till the morning.

[conanius]

There are some serious pop star posters in this thread.

Some of these figures are absolutely incredible that people think is a good salary - many of them are excellent salaries that are totally unachievable for the masses. The word good I guess is the problem here, as there then becomes a point of one-up-manship, where everyone claims they need more to survive.

When I first moved to London in 2007 on £36k at 22, I was delighted with my salary. I'd imagine now, £40-45k in London would give me the same spending power as that did then. You only need to have 60-70-80-90-100k if you want some swanky pad that seemingly the characters that are even just cleaners in British films live in.

[liner33]

I don't think it matters, most people spend what they earn anyhow, I have no idea where all our money goes each month but we rarely have much left at the end. An extra 10 or 20% would only make a difference in the short term I suspect.

[Hoover.]

^^^^^ based on what he says..... I would say a good salary is always more then you are actually on.

It's bit like cars...... I got myself a nice car when 21, once I got it I wanted something better, and so it goes on... at 42 I got a nice C Class Coupe, but now I'm 44 I want better car a full blown AMG