Reply to: Java skills

[nomadd]

Don't be naive! Nowadays loads of people are happy to work for £300/day in London!

Not! Me! (wow, managed to match you count of exclamation marks! )

£300/day in London? Well, I guess if you are "naive"...

Nomadd

[mobi]

Don't be naive! Nowadays loads of people are happy to work for £300/day in London!

[scooby]

Well, we've gone for the "plenty quickness, much cheapness" appraoch.

He's located in London, but staying up here... Absolute dire rate too!

[OrangeHopper]

I suspect he did because the role only appeared on jobserve the once.

[Billy Pilgrim]

by the way - ever get your Java bod ???

[Francko]

Depends which field you are in.

The bigger issue is the lack of roles in Manchester. One week search with "Java" brings up:

LONDON (ENG) + 25 Miles (371 Jobs)

MANCHESTER, Lancashire (ENG) + 25 Miles (14 Jobs) ...and 4 of those are the same job - in West Yorkshire!

Nomadd

Sure it depends on the field. But generally speaking I can say that contracts that used to pay 500-600 a day just over a year ago, it's not common to see them advertised now for 350-400 and yes in Central London, so don't think it's just a Manchester problem...

[nomadd]

I think you are taking for granted that all contracts in London are paying 600+. Unfortunately not only Manchester rates have been cut to 300 from 550 but also London rates are often cut from 600 to 400 and even less.

Depends which field you are in.

The bigger issue is the lack of roles in Manchester. One week search with "Java" brings up:

LONDON (ENG) + 25 Miles (371 Jobs)

MANCHESTER, Lancashire (ENG) + 25 Miles (14 Jobs) ...and 4 of those are the same job - in West Yorkshire!

Nomadd

[Francko]

If I can rent a house for the same amount - which I can - then I'd rather be picking up £600+ / day in London than half that in Manchester. I was offered a role back at Barclays in Knutsford recently - rates had fallen from the £525 I was on 2 years ago to £250!
Nomadd.

I think you are taking for granted that all contracts in London are paying 600+. Unfortunately not only Manchester rates have been cut to 300 from 550 but also London rates are often cut from 600 to 400 and even less.

[nomadd]

Living in South Manchester is generally cheaper than London because of the life style. You save time travelling and there are no crazy congestion charges and underground ticket prices. Eating out is cheaper, life is generally more chilled out.

Although on £600/day I don't think it would make much difference.

I motorbike to work. 30 minutes, door-to-door (11 miles.) No Congestion Charge for a motorcycle. Never use the Underground.

And as for "Eating out"? Well, you don't need that when you have a good microwave.

I agree that the lifestyle can be more chilled out, but that's more to do with the client site, TBH. I would not call my time at Barclays in Knutsford "chilled out"; whole experience for both permies and contractors was destoyed by one bad manager...

Still, I keep an open mind. If another contract came up in Manchester, I'd certainly look at it - but only once the rate "pi55 taking" stops.

Nomadd

[northernladuk]

Am not sure why we are even attempting to compare house prices between Manc and London? Comparing the most expensive area in Manc for an average area in London seems a bit apples and pears?

Bit of a no brainer as to which is like for like more expensive no?

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

Intersting points Nomadd

South Manchester is definitley an expensive place but the range of prices is a lot more vast than that in London. You can get a good semi detached house in a pretty good area e.g. Heald Green, Cheadle Hulme (the better part of it), Gatley, Handforth for a hell of a lot cheaper than the equivalent areas in London. There are plenty of semi's, bungalow's, detached houses varying from £650 - £800 a month which are pretty damn good.

Council tax is a killer in the higher bands though (i pay nearly £2000 a year for a 2 bed flat).

Living in South Manchester is generally cheaper than London because of the life style. You save time travelling and there are no crazy congestion charges and underground ticket prices. Eating out is cheaper, life is generally more chilled out.

Although on £600/day I don't think it would make much difference.

[nomadd]

Manchester is cheaper than the south (Ok London and Surrey)

I've lived in both areas.

I've lived in London: 23 years.
I've lived in Manchester: 24 years.

I happily do contract work in both locations. But very little in Manchester these days due to the pathetic rates agencies offer.

Manc.:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...%2Fhouses.html

London:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-21208712.html?locationIdentifier=OUTCODE^1671&insI d=2&displayPropertyType=houses&oldDisplayPropertyT ype=houses&pageNumber=4&fromSummary=true&backToLis tURL=%2Fproperty-to-rent%2Ffind.html%3FlocationIdentifier%3DOUTCODE%25 5E1671%26insId%3D2%26displayPropertyType%3Dhouses% 26oldDisplayPropertyType%3Dhouses%26index%3D30

Both cost the same rent (and I'm very dubious over the "five bed" claim for the first one - a three bed semi.)

My current contract rate in London is almost double what was quoted at the start of this thread for work in Manchester. Rates of pay in Manchester have been hammered over the last year or so due to the lack of roles and agencies believing that life north of Watford gap is "cheap". Rates in London have also fallen, but not by anywhere near the same amount.

If I can rent a house for the same amount - which I can - then I'd rather be picking up £600+ / day in London than half that in Manchester. I was offered a role back at Barclays in Knutsford recently - rates had fallen from the £525 I was on 2 years ago to £250! Over a 45 week working year, my current gig leaves me about £80k better off than going back to Barclays. And when I can rent a 3 bed property for a similar amount in both locations, well, Manchester doesn't seem to look cheap any more. I guess that was the point I was trying to make: Manchester is cheaper per se, but not once you take recent pay rates into account.

And as for the person who was trying to compare Islington with Didsbury, try comparing it with a similar area - i.e. Hale. Look at this rubbish for £300k:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...%3Findex%3D160

And here's a 3 bedder in London close to where I rent that's cheaper:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-27490550.html?locationIdentifier=OUTCODE^1671&maxP rice=300000&displayPropertyType=houses&oldDisplayP ropertyType=houses&pageNumber=1&fromSummary=true&b ackToListURL=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2Ffind.html%3FlocationIdentifier%3DOUTCODE%25 5E1671%26maxPrice%3D300000%26displayPropertyType%3 Dhouses%26oldDisplayPropertyType%3Dhouses

I'd love to move back to Manchester full time, but the rates of pay on offer just don't make that financially viable. Like I said, a nice area in the south of Manchester isn't cheap: your pound doesn't really go that much further, especially when you are getting so many less of them.

Mind you, like all places in the UK, I can see housing getting much cheaper over the next few years, but that's an entirely separate debate...

Nomadd.

[RichardCranium]

EDIT: There's also this rather nice two-bedroom... well, shed. In Wilmslow. Offers over £50,000

"Opportunity to modernise"
"a two bedroom park home"

However, I'd far rather have a static 'van in a mobile home park than a new-build inner-city 'executive apartment' cardboard-walled shoe box.

If you want somewhere secure, this is a snip. It's a £20,000 water tower in a field.

[NickFitz]

Problem is, it isn't. And I'm saying that as someone from Manchester. A nice place to rent or buy in South Manchester is just as insanely expensive as The South. Doesn't stop people from quoting stupid rates for Manchester based work, though...

Nomadd

Manchester is cheaper than the south (Ok London and Surrey)

I've lived in both areas.

Just for fun, I went to findaproperty.com for some comparisons. As I don't know Manchester or London that well, I chose what I hope are similar-ish areas: that is, one in South Manchester that I've heard people from there describe as desirable, one that a contractor friend of mine lives in down in London, and another London one that a permy friend lives in - Didsbury, Islington, and Hoxton.

For each, I'm taking the current price of the cheapest two-bedroom house listed on findaproperty. From the descriptions they're all pretty similar in terms of size although the London ones are very quiet about parking.

Didsbury: £137,500.
Islington: £400,000. (There's a maisonette for £340,000, but that's not a house even though it's described as one.)
Hoxton: £410,000.

I reckon Manchester is probably cheaper than London.

EDIT: There's also this rather nice two-bedroom... well, shed. In Wilmslow. Offers over £50,000

[SueEllen]

Problem is, it isn't. And I'm saying that as someone from Manchester. A nice place to rent or buy in South Manchester is just as insanely expensive as The South. Doesn't stop people from quoting stupid rates for Manchester based work, though...

Nomadd

Manchester is cheaper than the south (Ok London and Surrey)

I've lived in both areas.