A Living Wage For London

Discussion in 'London and the South East' started by citydreams, Jun 6, 2006.

  1. Monkeynuts

    Monkeynuts Hello sailor

    I'm afraid the mode wouldn't actually be too meaningful - the median does actually serve the purpose you require though.

    It would be very hard to calculate and might give some funny answer far removed from a sensible "average", just because a cluster of people happened to earn that figure.

    Modes can be calculated for things like number of bedrooms people have or number of cars per household or number of toes people have, but with pay people very often earn "odd" numbers, like £17,261.29 - certainly this is the case with my old work where you get the 3.5% annual rise to the penny. There might be no-one else in the entire country on this but twenty thousand people getting exactly £60,000.00. Probably not but you get the picture.

    Modes would work I suppose if you bracketed pay and looked at number earning £12-13k, £13-14 etc
     
  2. smokedout

    smokedout criminal

    well yeah natch

    basically its a simple question

    what percentage of folk earn 10k, 11k etc or under/over 20k or the national wage ive never seen any figures like that except in locally produced reports (which often tend to show a much different analysis to national averages/medians)

    whilst the ones ive seen have generally for areas recognised as being deprived, they are usually the densest areas population wise

    ive already shown a link which suggests folk like blagsta are in the top 20% of the population

    i suspect things arent as rosy for most as the average/median wage suggests
     
  3. Monkeynuts

    Monkeynuts Hello sailor

    I think you are probably right. I found a report on "Social Trends" on the Govt stats site which shows household disposable income (rather than actual pay) and shows the distribution on a graph. The averages are past the top of the graph (i.e. the bracket into which most people fall is less than the average) and there is a very very long tail on the graph (i.e. a lot of people with a lot of money, albeit spread over a very wide range) which cause this effect.

    So yes the mode looks to be less than the median and mean and things and you are right, it's not as rosy as these figures suggest.
     
  4. TeeJay

    TeeJay New Member

    Hopefully this image will work at least for a bit (its on a free geocities site with limited bandwidth so it can only be viewed a few times every 24 hours)

    [​IMG]

    I originally got it from a .pdf of an Institute of Fiscal Studies Report here:

    [PDF] Poverty and inequality in Britain: 2005 (page 9)
     
  5. citydreams

    citydreams on the road again

    Gla Meeting Next Week

    The authors of the Living Wage report are presenting their paper next week.

    Questions I'm putting forward are:

    1. Whether any forecasts are available to show the effect of 100% take-up of the living wage on housing and employment, ie crowding out of the poorest sections of society?
    2. What predictions the LGA Family Budget Unit expect the living wage to be as a result of 100% take-up.
    3. Should the GLA really call this a Living Wage when in reality it is an average of several different model families. The wage falls below what a single mother would need for anything more than basic subsistence in London once the wages of two-children two-couple families are included.

    Please feel free to add your own.
     
  6. Monkeynuts

    Monkeynuts Hello sailor

    Be interested to know what is assessed as a reasonable amount of money to spend on whatever you want (stamps, salsa classes, bingo, beer, tabs. fake tan, gold clown pendants, whatever) after basic survival is taken into account.

    What account is taken of the relatively fortunate position of those ensconced in LA housing, ironically subsidised by the genuine poor forced to compete in the open market? Makes a bit of a difference if you have a three bed flat for your family for only £80 a week. There is a step change between the two situations.
     
  7. Red Cat

    Red Cat Well-Known Member

    There are a lot of people on this thread who seem to assume there is a massive difference between someone earning say 11k and 25k. There isn’t. After NI contributions and tax, take home pay is not considerably different. My salary was 10,500k when I worked as a teaching assistant a couple of years ago – my take home pay was approx 850- can’t really remember exactly. I now earn 19k and my take home pay after pension deduction and union dues is less than 1200 - varies monthly as I get a bit extra for unsocial hours. So I get about 300 more, which I think does make a difference between a barely surviving wage and a living one, but is actually fuck all compared to the differences in thousands that many in this city earn. Someone earning 22k like Donna used to or 25k like Blagsta have already stated the approximate amount they take home. Again not really that much more. These are not significant differences in a city that is as expensive as London.

    Living in a nice flat in an area that I consider home is a priority for me but its hardly luxury – its fucking cold in the winter, apart from the living room, and the kichen is barely bigger than a cupboard. I love where I live but its not luxury living in the context of the norms of our society. I live in Brixton not fucking Knightsbridge. Blagsta and I did not 'turn our noses up' at 1 bedroom flats – we looked at plenty – and they were small pokey and over-priced and at approx 100 quid a month more each we could get a significantly better flat with 2 bedrooms. Its not a ‘spare’ room but one that is actually used by me in which to work; its not essential and I’m perfectly aware that many people do not have that privilege but I will not accept that it is a 'luxury' in the very wealthy society that England is. Its pretty ordinary - and thats the point surely - that a living wage should allow a standard of living that is considered an ordinary one to aspire to in the context of our current, wealthy, society.

    Greater distribution of wealth, more social housing, rent control and control on multiple house ownership would greatly enhance the standard of living for most people. The cost of property is directly linked with the salaries and bonuses of people working in the city – it’s not some natural outcome that we simply need to accept but a product of neo-liberalist economics and government policy. I’m amazed at the lack of political thought on this thread and that some people seem to think that the main difference is between the poor and the average rather than the average and the very rich.
     
  8. Monkeynuts

    Monkeynuts Hello sailor

    Rent control doesn't work. Have you been somewhere where they have it? Buildings get run down as it isn't worth maintainign them and it reduces liquidity in the market - i.e. makes it f***ing impossible to find a flat.

    As for the City bonuses, I'm not sure this has much effect at "our" end of the market. Those taking home obscene sums do not in general compete in the same market.

    Quite. The graph on the previous page shows this.
     
  9. Red Cat

    Red Cat Well-Known Member

    They effect the buy-to let market which has had a massive effect on property prices
     
  10. Monkeynuts

    Monkeynuts Hello sailor

    To purchase, possibly - although I don't think it is City bonuses behind BTL really. I just don't think that's what they spend their money on.

    To rent, I don't think so. Rents haven't gone up all that much in the last few years as BTL has increased in polularity, possibly because there are more flats around fo rent.
     
  11. Hollis

    Hollis Bloody furious

    Exactly - as my example as Wood Green shows.. you can pick up a decent sized house for £400 a month each! Bargain.
     
  12. kingmaker

    kingmaker Banned Banned

    Move the Stock exchange to Birmingham/Leeds/Newcastle or Liverpool.

    I'm serious. It makes no sense to have the financial capital, politcal capital, media capital, cultural capital, shopping 'capital' and tourist capital in the same place, and the stock exchange is the easiest to move.

    Then redevelop the rest of the city of London as combined residential/cultural spot a la the Barbican. Housing supply increased, demand reduced all in one fell swoop.

    And those disgustingly big city bonuses will at least be helping to regenerate one of the poorer areas of Britain instead of simply pump-priming an already overheating SE housing market.
     
  13. Red Cat

    Red Cat Well-Known Member

    Wasn't specifying renting - i said cost of property. And as for what city workers spend their money on, its been noted for a good while that people have invested in property rather than the stock market with their bonuses.
     
  14. Hollis

    Hollis Bloody furious

    I'm really not sure its city workers buy-to-let that is the problem.. its the fundamental disparity between population and housing stock, the increase in single-occupancy households, the lack of new builds over the past few decades.
     
  15. Dowie

    Dowie Well-Known Member

    there is a bit of a flaw in your plan - the london stock exchange floor closed quite a few years ago - it is all electronic now - sure you could pack up all the computer servers & move them to birmingham if you wanted but it wouldn't make much difference to the region.
     
  16. EvieG2017

    EvieG2017 New Member

    This living wage depends on a number of factors, I always find it particularly difficult to even calculate as surely everyone's idea of a living wage is different. London isn't cheap, that's not new news to anyone, accommodation can be pricey and travel.

    I'd argue that to live comfortably in London you should aim to be on a wage of £22,000 at least, unless you're happy to live in zone 4 in shared accommodation. Of course if you can save money on travel expenses you are cutting out a large chunk of your total expenses. Oyster cards are expensive to use constantly even if just travelling from zone 3 to zone 1.

    The living wage in London in 2017 is calculated at £9.75 per hour or around £18,300 a year which equates to a take-home salary of £1311 after tax Tax Calculator for £{{earningsSliders.yearly | number : 0 }} salary - Income Tax UK

    The U.K's median average salary stands at around £26,000. Surely these simple figures indicate that whilst the London living wage is reasonable, that is in fact not the case at all.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice