Where do your earnings rank you?

[otolith]

Breadvan72 said:

Junior City soliciors start on about 70K ish gross and up to 100K gross, but they all work 28 hours a day 366 days a year, so I do not know what they ever do with the money.

And if you don't believe this, just check their billed hours

[anonymous-user]

The City law firm business model is dodgy but effective. A lot of the work is done by paralegals, who are demoralised kids with law degrees but no solicitor training contracts. They are exploited, do a lot of the lawyering as well as the mindless bundling and copying, but the client gets billed at partner of associate rates. The partner parachutes into a meeting every now and then when the client gets in a strop, and completely reverses and fks up the carefully wrought tactical plan devised by the mid ranking associate who is actually running the case. Then the partner buggers off again to do internal meetings and client development and worry about being fired (and I mean fired: bin liner, security guard, the works) for not making the target set by New York. Every now and then they might ask counsel to do something, perhaps if they fancy a cheap reinsurance policy (lay off the negligence risk on the bazzer's insurance), or the client insists, or they actually need some persuasive advocacy instead of someone reading a script, but not too often as otherwise the client might notice how cheap the barrister was compared with the rest of the bill.

MY USP:

Hire a posh law firm to advise on a legal issue and the partner will get the senior associate to get the junior associate to get the trainee to get the paralegal to get the intern to get the take your daughter to work day schoolkid to look it up on Wikipedia.

Hire me, and I will look it up on Wikipedia myself. OK, I will get a pupil to look it up on Wikipedia, but whatevs.

[anonymous-user]

The only really important question here is:

How much does the average PH IT consultant/company director set off against tax for male grooming products and weights gym subs?

Answer: Trick question! They are all offshore and the taxman actually pays THEM. This frees them up to have time to complain on PH about how bad the roads and the police and the NHS are. Life is good!

[Derek Chevalier]

vonuber said:

Derek Chevalier said:

Not sure why you don't believe it - Engineering pay in the country is, on average, rubbish considering the calibre of people that work in it. Every single one of my Engineering coursemates left to go into IT, banking, sales or accountancy.

Define 'rubbish'. Our grads start at 27-28 which is not bad.
But yes i agree salaries have lagged behind other industries, but they are definitely ramping up year on year (finally ).

Agreed that the starting salaries aren't bad, it's just that in my experience (and this is going back a few years) the guys that had been there for 20 years weren't earnings a great deal more, whereas if they had been in one of the areas mentioned above they would be earning ~2-3x as much by the time they got to 40. I'm pleased to hear the pay is catching up.

[anonymous-user]

By the way, with a thread title that reads "Where does your earnings rank you?", I infer that the OP is not a teacher of English!

[turbobloke]

RYH64E said:

turbobloke said:

Therefore it doesn't look made-up at all and unless somebody can find the aforementioned transcription or typo errors then complaints and expressions of disbelief need to be addressed to ONS c/o Chris Daffin.

It's clearly not made up, but it is misleading, imo. The notes clearly state that the figures relate to employees only, the self employed are not included...

It was ever thus, so the next time average earnings and house prices are being discussed, usually as a ratio, we can all remember that self-employed high-earners are excluded - meaning that any "long run average" or other chicken soup numbers are largely for entertainment value only.



In terms of the article and this thread the point about knee-jerk reactions to data which is ONS not DM remains.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Breadvan72 said:

By the way, with a thread title that reads "Where does your earnings rank you?", I infer that the OP is not a teacher of English!

Why?

[Fabric]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Why?

Because "does" is a third person singular pronoun, ergo it's something you would use when talking about someone else, rather than yourself (I think!).

[anonymous-user]

Earnings is a plural form of a noun (the word "earning" can also be a verb, but here it is a noun). The fact that the singular form of the same noun would rarely (if ever) be used is neither here nor there. The thread title should be "Where do your earnings rank you?".

Test it this way: would you say "I has earnings"? If you read a business report that said "dollar earnings from the US subsidiary was eight million", wouldn't you notice the error?

[anonymous-user]

"Is our children learning?" [/Dubya]

[PurpleMoonlight]

http://www.reverso.net/spell-checker/english-spell...

If you input 'do' into this it corrects it to 'does'.

[anonymous-user]

Fabric said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

Why?

Because "does" is a third person singular pronoun, ergo it's something you would use when talking about someone else, rather than yourself (I think!).

The word "does" in the thread title is a verb. The word is not filling in for a noun. It is doing duty to describe an action. The word might be about the Au Pair doing the dishes, or the husband doing the Au Pair, but here it is helping a thing (earnings) to achieve a ranking in a league table of made up or not made up numbers. (FWIW, I vote for not made up, but poorly categorised.)

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 28th November 13:39

[anonymous-user]

PurpleMoonlight said:

http://www.reverso.net/spell-checker/english-spell...

If you input 'do' into this it corrects it to 'does'.

So what? You can get a SatNav to send you up several wrong turnings. Computers are dumb. Humans are (supposed to be) smart. If you blindly follow a SatNav, you may end up in st creek. If you blindly follow a spell checker, you may type gobbledegook. Solution: use computerised device, but apply human judgment.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 28th November 13:38

[PurpleMoonlight]

Breadvan72 said:

So what? You can get a SatNav to send you up several wrong turnings. Computers are dumb. Humans are (supposed to be) smart. If you blindly follow a SatNav, you may end up in st creek. If you blindly follow a spell checker, you may type gobbledegook. Solution: use computerised device, but apply human judgment.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 28th November 13:38

Yeah, right you are .....

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

Therefore it doesn't look made-up at all and unless somebody can find the aforementioned transcription or typo errors then complaints and expressions of disbelief need to be addressed to ONS c/o Chris Daffin.

I really CBA'd to check the source, but this obvious howler

Greg66 said:

Barristers & Judges (odd mix, as barristers are self employed and Judges are civil servants) 36k; solicitors 43k, but legal professionals - which should mean barristers and solicitors 76k. Something not right there.

makes me wonder whether "barristers and judges" means "those barristers paid by the Govt together with Judges" - ie barristers employed by the CPS. Ditto "solicitors", leaving "legal professionals" to be lawyers of both flavours in private practice.

As someone else pointed out, how on earth the compiler of this data has compared an overall employment package (bonuses, share options, pensions, whatever) with (say) a self employer plumber's turnover gross of overheads is a mystery.

[turbobloke]

Greg66 said:

turbobloke said:

Therefore it doesn't look made-up at all and unless somebody can find the aforementioned transcription or typo errors then complaints and expressions of disbelief need to be addressed to ONS c/o Chris Daffin.

I really CBA'd to check the source, but this obvious howler

Greg66 said:

Barristers & Judges (odd mix, as barristers are self employed and Judges are civil servants) 36k; solicitors 43k, but legal professionals - which should mean barristers and solicitors 76k. Something not right there.

makes me wonder whether "barristers and judges" means "those barristers paid by the Govt together with Judges" - ie barristers employed by the CPS. Ditto "solicitors", leaving "legal professionals" to be lawyers of both flavours in private practice.

As someone else pointed out, how on earth the compiler of this data has compared an overall employment package (bonuses, share options, pensions, whatever) with (say) a self employer plumber's turnover gross of overheads is a mystery.

The notes with the spreadsheet say that estimates with a coefficient of variarion greater than 20% are suppressed from publication on quality grounds, along with those for which there is a risk of disclosure of individual employees or employers. This makes the sample size and nature relevant to certain professions with colour coded cells and an x in the box, which includes barristers iirc.
However if you're sure there's a howler let ONS and the person involved (Chris Daffin) know, I suspect they'd be grateful to have an obvious mistake pointed out. Either way, it's not the DM.

[Countdown]

Greg66 said:

makes me wonder whether "barristers and judges" means "those barristers paid by the Govt together with Judges" - ie barristers employed by the CPS.

That sounds about right. One of my nieces is a CPS Barrister and IIRC her pay scale is £35k to £42k.

[wolves_wanderer]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

We are cheap. We'd still be cheap at 2-3x the salary.

You'd better run that past PH as we are fortunate to have numerous posters who are uniquely qualified to assess a fair rate of pay for jobs about which they have no understanding.

[Fabric]

Breadvan72 said:

The word "does" in the thread title is a verb.

Apologies, I had somewhat of Saturday hangover moment typing that out; I've not forgotten what a verb is.

It was intended to have read "does is used in the context of..." in reference to the fact that it is being erroneously applied as if it were being used with a third person singular pronoun (i.e: he does, she does, it does).

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

Greg66 said:

turbobloke said:

Therefore it doesn't look made-up at all and unless somebody can find the aforementioned transcription or typo errors then complaints and expressions of disbelief need to be addressed to ONS c/o Chris Daffin.

I really CBA'd to check the source, but this obvious howler

Greg66 said:

Barristers & Judges (odd mix, as barristers are self employed and Judges are civil servants) 36k; solicitors 43k, but legal professionals - which should mean barristers and solicitors 76k. Something not right there.

makes me wonder whether "barristers and judges" means "those barristers paid by the Govt together with Judges" - ie barristers employed by the CPS. Ditto "solicitors", leaving "legal professionals" to be lawyers of both flavours in private practice.

As someone else pointed out, how on earth the compiler of this data has compared an overall employment package (bonuses, share options, pensions, whatever) with (say) a self employer plumber's turnover gross of overheads is a mystery.

The notes with the spreadsheet say that estimates with a coefficient of variarion greater than 20% are suppressed from publication on quality grounds, along with those for which there is a risk of disclosure of individual employees or employers. This makes the sample size and nature relevant to certain professions with colour coded cells and an x in the box, which includes barristers iirc.
However if you're sure there's a howler let ONS and the person involved (Chris Daffin) know, I suspect they'd be grateful to have an obvious mistake pointed out. Either way, it's not the DM.

You seem to be addressing a different point.