"Strivers vs Skivers" - what do you think?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

Prompted by a blog post this week from MN Blogger Sonya Cisco, and this opinion piece by BlogFest panellist Zoe Williams, for our first blog-prompt of the New Year we thought we'd ask for your thoughts on the current debate around benefits cuts.

According to both Sonya and Zoe, politicians have deliberately encouraged us to think of people as either 'skivers' or 'strivers' in order to pit people on low incomes against one another - and to divert attention from the fact that the economy simply can't provide enough jobs.

Do you agree with them? And if not - why not? Post your URLs here if you blog - or, if you haven't got a blog (why not? ) do tell us what you think here on the thread.

I don't even live in the same country as my mother, who is in quite a high level job as it is travelling the length and breadth of her country and in no position to offer childcare. My MIL already takes care of two other grandchildren.

I am currently on maternity and have had OCD for the last year. Hopefully it will go away and it is just a pregnancy/postpartum thing, but either way, the hour and a half commute to my job in the NHS where there is more and more paranoia and a culture of overworking and scrutiny with scant net income after childcare doesn't seem worth the stress and the potential impact of that on my family. My oldest boy is showing signs of anxiety himself (OCD is very heritable) and my NUMBER ONE priority in this life is to support him to develop his confidence and belief in himself and the future. My parents were both workaholics and we lived in near chaos at times, there was never any housework done or routine, you never knew who you would see after school if anyone, if you were ill you stayed home alone. They had plenty of money for it to be otherwise, but they were pretending to themselves that they could have and do it all.

I think I will probably have to go back to work for some part of the week, but increasingly, much of what is outside friendship/family and paying basic bills/mortgage seems totally and utterly meaningless to me. It's all very well to aspire to have all this "lovely stuff" and "experiences" for the kids, but I can't help but think that life is very ordinary really and we are all being trapped into the notion that it must be exceptional when, let's face it, in 3 generations no one will really remember who we were even if we have got our names in some paper etc. Our time is so fleeting. Striving - striving for what exactly? Skiving from what made up nonsense job laden down with paperwork that makes people look busy and lines the pockets of the fat cats? I don't want to be either. Basic simple living is the best route forward for all of us but a capitalist society is never going to promote that.

Indeed - the chaotic domestic lives of some (not all) of my contemporaries with stellar careers always leaves me perplexed. How can you not care that your DC have no dinner, no adults to talk to when they get home and live in squalor?

The mind boggles Bonsoir. Generally I have found that well paid professionals have cleaners.

In rl I the only mothers I know that dont work at all are on benefits.I think the stats are 63% of mothers work in some form,so most children will have a working mum at one time or another.

I know lots of mothers who don't work and have all the kids at school. They have the choice, that's all. Its hard enough getting a job that fits in with school times if that's what you want, most jobs like this are boring mw jobs, I should know, that's what I've got. All the mums I know who don't work wouldn't be seen dead doing a job like mine, but we need the money so I do it.

Bonsoir, I found your comment about your cousin who did some night time cleaning very telling..." Lots of people do do hard things. When one of my cousins was unemployed, his wife (RG university degree educated) did night-time cleaning so that he could carry on with his job search during the day. Nobody knew except close family."

I hate what I do, I could do so much more, but this job means I'm home whenever my kids are so I do it. And I hold my head high when anyone asks what I do, no one should be ashamed of providing for their families.

Looking after a baby, 1 year old and 3 year old (a combination we had at one stage) all day alone whilst maintaining a house is as hard work as any job which is why most parents seek to avoid it.

What seems to have happened is that those in the middle are finding their net pay after tax, VAT, childcare, travel and housing costs is much less than it was and no pay rises for 5 years or forced on to a 4 day week. They then see those out of work with as big a net income and all housing or a good proportion of it picked up by the state. They resent that. Those on higher incomes whether earned by their husband or wife aren't in quite the same category.

That seems to be why there is massive support in the UK for measures which appear to make those who don't work and draw benefits have less.

I have less income out of work than in work....even when housing benefit is taken into account. I was on a middle income (£34k) in work. I definitely don't have the same disposable income now despite the extra benefits I get as DS is disabled.
I am struggling to understand how middle income can make someone worse off than someone on benefits because it absolutely is NOT my experience.
Now NMW work I can see why there might be a difference. ....but surely this means the NMW needs to increase OR benefits for those on NMW nedd to increase and yet the Govt has embarked on a programme to make those people in work and on low wages worse off financially. Strange....one might think they were pursuing an ideological path..........oh wait

Xenia that's simply not true.
The vast majority of women with kids under 3 either do not work outside the home or work part time.
A minority work full time.
I sort of agree with your point upthread wrt a one off benefit for all of £200 per week - that would be great for me!! - but I worry that the children in low income households would bear the brunt of these cuts - as they are now in fact.
I also agree about being at home with children...far and away the hardest thing I have ever done.
I really like thunks post...exactly how I feel.

it can't jake - it's just bullshit. but no matter how many of us who have actually lived on benefits and on salaries and in my case back to salary again say 'we were never better off of benefits' we just get ignored because it doesn't fit the spin machine.

xenia they wouldn't pay housing benefit for a five bed house for you when you have adults living there.

Meadow...I am a sahm and have never been on benefits.
Neither has my sister, although her dh is quite rich and she spends quite a lot of her time shopping
We don't go out much, holiday in the uk and my clothes are from places like matalan and tesco but I haven't go the figure for couture anyway :)
I do voluntary work which I enjoy.
I have done many different jobs prior to having dc and wouldn't want to go back to any of them! They include...bar work, babysitting, waitressing, care work, retail work and admin and reception work in offices.
My passions are history and literacy/dyslexia...no idea if I could make either of them into. Job though! :)

I think Xenia is right that about 1/3 of moms work full-time. Best to see the stats here:

www.nomisweb.co.uk/published/stories/story.asp?id=3

From the ONS - latest stats I could find were end 2010:
In this quarter, 66.5 per cent of mothers were in work and 67.3 per cent of women without a dependent child were in work.

Full-time working has driven the increase in the percentage of mothers in work. In 1996, 23.1 per cent of mothers worked full-time, increasing to 29.0 per cent by the final quarter of 2010. Over the period the percentage working part-time has remained stable.

However, a higher percentage of mothers work part-time, as they share their time between work and looking after the family. In the final quarter of 2010, 37.4 per cent worked part- time.

I can understand why only 2/3 of moms work but not sure why 33% of mums without kids don't work!! come on ladies!!

presumably a lot of those will be women who gave up work to look after their children who have now grown up and who are close to retirement age themselves. what that could be read as saying is that a lot of women don't go back to work after stopping to look after their children and that rates of sahms used to be higher. itms.

if you gave up work for 20 years to look after your children allowing your husband to develop his career and by that point have a high income and you have no work experience or financial incentive to work and aren't far off retirement anyway you probably don't go back to paid employment. that third of women could be in their late fifties having married and started familes forty years ago in 1970.

give it another 15yrs (taking us to mid 80's - 90's family starts) and the figures would look very different.

also women then were less likely to go to university. also i'm not sure how working age disability compares upon gender.

My post about women without children not working. I was being a bit facetious ! However I do find it really interesting that basically the same %ge of women with children versus without work. That's pretty shocking. Given those stats I am really surprised the govt doesn't do a better job of investing in affordable childcare infrastructures...

but it's not shocking at all when you consider they're probably of the baby boom generation who spent 20plus years raising kids and now don't need to work. it's not the same percentage of the same women - it will be reflecting generational differences as much as anything.

Women without children under 18 who don't work outside the home may be caring for elderly relatives or for grandchildren. Or they may be 50+, well off, and enjoying themselves. It isn't "shocking" not to work outside the home.

Ha!
Sorry to shock you William!
As I said upthread, I have 2 young dc, do voluntary work and am my mothers main carer (she is due major surgery soon).
I do love the idea that sahms sit around in their pants watching homes under the hammer all day :) < I wish>
I am also a governor of my sons school and the church secretary.
I am plenty busy, thanks :)
I am 40 btw.

Oh, for goodness sake I said it was 'shocking' that the same %ge as women without children work as those that do. Not shocking that women don't work but shocking that the figures suggest, for instance, how much more seriously the government should take issues like childcare.

You guys are getting far too defensive. Why don't you stay on this post and just smugly agree with each other without hearing any conflicting viewpoints and read everything defensively, as if everyones posting is an affront to your choices. I work full time but obviously aren't enlightened enough to discover the meaning of life isn't working. Honestly, these type of posts can sometimes feel like an awful lot of work....

Over and out!

Why should mothers put their children into childcare if they don't want to
I wouldn't have put my kids into childcare even if it was free.
Not til 3 anyway.
I wonder how many members of the current govt and opposition use the kind of childcare they encourage the rest of us to???

The government is caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to childcare. The British have very high standards when it comes to childcare - hence childcare in the UK is very expensive. Reducing quality is distasteful to parents, and subsidising expensive childcare is distasteful (impractical) for governments.

Anyway, the government's agenda seems to be to make everyone work outside the home and tax them to death while indoctrinating them with the idea that this is their moral duty to society and liberating for women . Clearly, many idiots women, judging from this thread, are buying into this- crap-- the idea.

Bonsoir.
Exactly!

Badvoc thats why I clearly stated in my rl.