General Chat Thread, Rowntree Foundation - Educational IT Professionals' salaries in General; As I'm sure most of you saw/heard in the news yesterday the Joesph Rowntree Foundation have produced a report explaining ...
2nd July 2008, 11:07 AM #1
Rowntree Foundation - Educational IT Professionals' salaries
As I'm sure most of you saw/heard in the news yesterday the Joesph Rowntree Foundation have produced a report explaining what the minimum income that is necessary to have an acceptable living standard (Minimum living standards: public consultation shows what people find acceptable). For a single adult they've reached the figure £13,400(gross)/pa.
Looking at the jobs posted on this site, I see many jobs advertised at or just above this level and it isn't just IT support in school. Most 'support staff' in my school bar a few exceptional circumstances are pro-rata Grade 3/4, which means their salary comes out at around £10k~£14k. With fuel prices set to go up another 40% this year and the inevitable knock-on to all other prices (food, services, etc. etc.) will £13,400 be enough?
This amount expects a single person to be renting accommodation for £52 a week. I think the local and national government leaders should be made to live in accommodation that costs £200/month to rent - nevermind the fact they can claim £200 back on expenses without a receipt in Westminster!
There is nothing built in for pensions or savings in this figure. How is the state going to provide for such a large amount of the population once they reach pensionable age without a single penny in savings or an asset (like a house) to liquidise?
This is coupled with the fact that, in education, we work with people who's salaries go up an extra couple of thousands pounds every time they take on "extra responsibility"...I just find it all a bit galling.
2nd July 2008, 11:12 AM #2
£200 a month?! Where are they looking at accomodation?
I have to say, it is a bit unfair to be picking up on the Pro Rata pay. I think you have to look at the full pay. Be like saying someone in a job for one day a week is being under paid as they only get £80.
Apart from that, can't disagree. But what can be done?
2nd July 2008, 11:33 AM #3
For £200pm you couldnt even get a council flat. Surerly he means £300, but then id still struggle to find somewhere.
Originally Posted by TechMonkey
2nd July 2008, 11:49 AM #4
I was paying more than £200 for rent 15 years ago
2nd July 2008, 12:22 PM #5
Last time I was in a council flat, circa 2001 it cost me £70 a week in one of the grimiest areas imaginable.
2nd July 2008, 02:25 PM #6
the rowntree assessment does not include mortgage/rent payments, so you can add several thousand to the 13k and 26k figures highlighted.....
we, as a single income family (read 'traditional family' of which there are around 2 million left in this country) need an income of atleast 32k to be able to afford private housing and have a reasonable standard of living....i'd imagine you'd have to increase that 32k figure by several more thousand for those families living and working down in the south and south-east of england...
so never mind the 13-16k jobs, those would struggle to provide a single person with a reasonable standard of living, a family needs 30k+ minimum for the mortgage, taxes, cost of living to not overwhelm them....and to be honest 30k jobs do not grow on trees.... particularly in the public sector.
where we are you cannot rent anyting (2 bed flat or small terrace) for less than £550 (mortgage repayments would be £800+ depending on deposit), a £26,800 income minus council tax, food, cost of motoring, bills etc. would probably leave around a grand to pay the rent where we are...that leaves £450 to 'save' and god help you if you've got a blown head gasket or you have other unexpected costs to meet or if it's that time of the year to pay road fund license, tv license or get your motor through the MOT. But, all in all, if your being frugal renting is mangeable for a family on 26.8k...if your a ftb single income household you'd be left with next-to-nothing which is not a bad thing, but your left with next-to-nothing on a 100k+ debt!!! 100k would have bought you a four bed executive home in 1998 even though salaries weren't THAT much lower than they are today....and don't forget that 100k+ debt that still has 25 years to run. Again the 25 years isn't the problem, the problem is that salaries are progressing at a snails pace while housing is 30% overvalued.
So no, 26.8k is defintely not enough in the current climate. As an income it's reasonable even after taxes, if only rent and mortgages weren't so out of whack. today we have decent salaries and good medium to long term employment prospects and stable interest rates....if only someone would do something about insanely expensive property then living in the uk might not be all doom and gloom, even with high fuel prices.
2nd July 2008, 02:57 PM #7
Nope, but I did hear on the radio that Canada is keen on hiring "high-tech workers", which I guess counts us. Looking at the Canadian immigration website (you know, I was just curious...), it looks like they're so keen they even have a whole special area for high-tech workers letting you skip the normal processing procedure. I could get a flat in downtown Vancouver with a shared pool, 2 blocks from the beach, for the same as I pay in rent in Alton - and Alton, while nice, just isn't downtown Vancouver...
Originally Posted by mortstar
2nd July 2008, 03:40 PM #8
showing my ignorance here about the vancouver climate....but i'm guessing 'beach' in vancouver is more seaford in january than it is bondi.
Originally Posted by dhicks
2nd July 2008, 03:55 PM #9
Yep :-) Vancouver is on the west coast, on the Pacific ocean, and is sunny and warm during the summer with mild winters. It's surrounded by large beaches with sand imported from Japan. Okay, more rain than say California (technically the area is in a temperate rainforest), but that's probably a good thing anyway. The only downside to the area is the amount of disembodied feet that have seemingly been washing up all over the place recently.
Originally Posted by torledo
2nd July 2008, 03:59 PM #10
Heard this in the morning and thought it was so out of touch.
They should stick to making sweets.
2nd July 2008, 04:13 PM #11
!. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is one of the biggest charitable research organisations in the country and concentrates on social research. Spends over £10 million a year on this. While Rowntrees is a sweet manufacturer, Joseph Rowntree was a Quaker so put the money he made to "good works".
Originally Posted by sparkeh
2. If you actually read the paper, it doesn't say these are the amounts needed to live on, but that these are the amounts people claim they need, a very different thing. Furthermore, they are significantly higher than the amounts the government claims are required!!!
2nd July 2008, 04:47 PM #12
2nd July 2008, 04:48 PM #13
They should make gingerbread houses for us to live in.
2nd July 2008, 05:07 PM #14
to see what the report actually said see:
A Minimum Income Standard :: Homepage
Makes for interesting reading.
2nd July 2008, 05:12 PM #15
Why do they not include housing costs? Its not like its an optional cost or a luxury. They should include Housing costs for each major city and county.
In London for example even the cheapest 1 bed flat would cost £150 a week, travel (if you lived in zone 2) would cost at least £5 a day, so you are looking more at a basic income of £20,000+ for a single person.
Last Post: 24th March 2010, 05:48 PM
By mrphil in forum Bad Experiences
Last Post: 8th February 2010, 01:17 PM
By tech_guy in forum General Chat
Last Post: 12th December 2007, 01:29 PM
By tech_guy in forum General Chat
Last Post: 10th December 2007, 02:08 AM
Last Post: 27th January 2007, 12:29 AM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)