"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.

mindosa - I think that questions merits its own thread. But, to be succinct, I think that for profit nursery chains are not the way forward for most families. Childcare, like school, needs significant state funding if it is to be effective for the majority.

Agree bonsoir.
Same with any care environment IMO.

I did a bit of googling and apparently people in Sweden pay 50-60% tax once they earn £32K and VAT is 25%.

Many women do enjoy their work even if it is fairly low paid. They like the chatting to colleagues at the factory or customers in the shop or bank.

I certainly accept that most people if they won £20m whether male or female would stop work, but given most of us need to support ourselves and there is the motivation of earnings there there is also satisfaction in many jobs. Also the routine helps people too. Many an older person gets depressed when work ceases. Same as if you come out of the army or prison. They think retirement or housewifeship will be some nirvana of personal happiness and then they realise the reality is loss of purpose and depression. Anyway that is again a separate topic.

As for whether the state wants workers to think there are more skivers than there are, for the state's ends and encourages a skiver/strivers view point I don't agree. I think it is the middle earners themselves who have got heartily fed up of those who don't have a work ethic and think they can rely on state top ups whilst they dabble in working a few hours a week because the state (ie full time hard working tax payers many of them female) pick up the tab so that Julie at home working 2 hours a day has time to get her nails done as full time work would be far far too hard and stressful for her precious little self.

I agree with that last post Xenia. When I apply for jobs I am certainly not doing it for financial benefit. Being a SAHM is mind numbingly dull to me and I will probably be working at a loss.

However, the problem is that "skiver" has become a sweeping generalisation of ALL SAHMs/single parents/benefit claimants.

It is nowhere near as widespread as the government is trying to make out.

The govt is trying to be divisive and it's working.
I am looked down on because I am a sahm.
There is an assumption that I am never busy so can do things at the drop of a hat or that if I do have plans, they aren't important.
Shrug.
I have had to cut back on my church work as its been getting a bit ridiculous...the vicar seems to think I am his PA!
I have 2 young dc. My dh works away sometimes - indeed is going away again next week.
My parents are growing increasingly frail.
My life is certainly not glamourous :) but it is worthwhile and I enjoy it, generally :)

.....and they also demonise anyone not working full time or needing to claim tax credits to top up their minimum wage.

I agree that the assumption that SAHMs have endless swathes of free time to do other people's chores is very tiresome, Badvoc. So patronising.

Wannabe.

I totally agree that the term skiver is used to incorporate too many people.
I think sahp get a raw deal here sometimes. I know that many parents see it as mind numbingly dull, but others like me find it very rewarding and are far from skivers. I work hard to support my family and at present teach my dd at home. Ok, I know its not for everybody, but I have a very fullfilling life and have opportunities to follow my own hobbies and interests as well. I would admit that my position may have greater opportunity to skive, sit on the sofa, watch tv. That doesn't mean to say that I or others do this.

Yes Jake. Just earn more.

morethan I hope I didnt offend you. I do realise that a lot of SAHPs dont find it mind numbingly dumb.

Thing is, if only those wealthy enough to afford to SAH or childcare had children then who would be the workforce of the future?

We need people to have children.

*dull. Ofgs

Wannabe

On the contrary, you see it from both sides.
Some people presume too much about sahp's.
I love the assumption that we are all getting our nails done, cleaning all day and have no life, lol.

I do get FTC/ WTC and cb (the middle as dh works). However, when our much older 2 dc were small there was no support (Tax credits), but I still did not work for an employer as I found it more rewarding at home. I guess it will be the same again if they stop FTC.

All I say is live and let live, and I think it is a shame that when women worked so hard to be able to have choices that it is ourselves who put each others choices down.

Wannabe. Hope you find a job soon.

But some days it is dull, wannabe.
And some days it isn't.
Just like paid work really :)
Take today...it's snowing - again - here ATM. Just picked up ds2 from pre school but ds1 is staying behind for sports club so dh is picking him up later.
So ds2 and I can either stay indoors watching room on the broom and colouring :) or we can go outside and make snow angels/snowball fight.
Already been to check on my mother earlier so don't need to do that.
Need to get dinner and then I am off out to a church council meeting @ 7pm.
Won't be back til 9pm at least. Dh will do bath and bed tonight.
Add to that washing, tidying, dishes etc - it keeps me busy :)
Should have had. B of gov meeting at school @4pm too but that's been cancelled thank goodness.
Was supposed to be going to see my friend in London for the day in Friday but its been cancelled due to weather :(
Might force dh into take me to ikea instead...
I know how to party! :)

Bonsoir...yes it is.
I will help anybody if I can, but it's the assumption that "oh give that crappy job to badvoc, she doesn't have anything better to do!" That really gets to me.
Some weeks there just aren't enough days....

Thanks morethan.

I know that Badvoc and I would never expect life to be exciting everyday. Work would be just as boring. But I need to feel useful and have my brain stretched. I just dont get that at home. All my life I hoped for children. I loved children. Im actually quite jealous of SAHMs who enjoy it and sometimes think there must be something wrong with me because I dont.

Im just happier in work. I cant explain it.

Well there isnt anything wrong with you.
I know personally i dont want to do jobs i have done previously.
Been there done that etc.

wannabe.

I didn't used to enjoy it as much when our situation was much different. We were really skint, stuck out in the stix and oldest were little. It was almost like a life sentence at times. When we moved from East Anglia to a large town in Greater Manchester my life improved 100% and we have never looked back. I rarely have a bad day now but I'm fortunate that the move was such a positive one for us all. Now dd is H.ed life is quite busy, but in the main enjoyable.

Most women with children work and most women are like wanna and men for that matter.

this is all getting a bit polarised and black and white now.

i work because i enjoy my job - sure some days i'd rather stay home and piddle around on the internet but actually once i'm up and dressed and on my way i'm happy. i stayed at home with my son for 5 years. i was on and off depressed throughout that time which is what stopped me going back to work really though chicken and egg applies obviously and it may have been the at home, no sense of wider purpose, not enough interaction and activity with adults etc that contributed to the depression.

now i do work part time but can assure those saying otherwise that it's not two hours a day so i can get my nails done. i'm a single parent and i drop son at school and go straight to work, leave work and go straight to pick him up for four days a week and one day a week he is picked up by my parents so i can get more hours crammed in to enable that. in reality full time work would be easier in many ways if i could afford the childcare because instead of doing the working day and the school runs etc i could just drop him with a childminder on the way to work and pick him up at the end of the day knowing he'd been fed and all i had to do was the nice bath, chill, bedtime story end of things.

i don't think sahm's have it easy at all - i actually find it easier to be at work than at home now. however i do not think that sahms should be judging other women's work and benefits decisions. there just isn't that much merit in your husband earning enough money for you not to work and then looking down on others who aren't in that situation re: low income families or single mums. it's all a bit vicarious judging other people by standards you don't actually personally adhere to.

i hate when these discussions get polarised into 'most women love working' or 'most women love staying at home and only work for money' stuff. it's not one is worthy the other must be unworthy. that's as simplistic and stupid as 'skivers vs strivers'. for me personally the women i know who stay at home or work part time would rather be working in fulfilling careers and getting a break from the whole mum/home/constantness - especially those whose children are 3 or older. that's me and the kind of women i associate with - clearly if you're a different kind of woman you associate with different kinds of women and therefore experience something different.

must because we know more people who feel x doesn't mean that the majority of people feel x it just means we hang out with people who feel x because they're our 'kind' of people.

badvoc, how are benefits being taken away to force sahm's into work?

have I missed something?

The universal credit will mean less benefits for most LPs and low income families.
I ask again...how many of the govt or opposition use the sort of childcare they expect us to??

Thats probably part of it morethan.

Perhaps if everything wasnt budgeted to the penny and we werent miles from anywhere it would be different. If DP was working I could afford to be a SAHM comfortably.

I still think I would need to work part time or as I mentioned before start a small business. As it is we are both applying for any job and once one of us is successful we will work round it.

Anyway, thats off topic. What it all comes down to is that we need to do what is best for our families and our lives, not just work because its a moral duty. Bringing up children is just as important to society and should never be devalued.

i cannot for the life of me judge what impact universal credit will have on me as a low wage single parent because i can't seem to find out anything about it in terms of real figures.

if it was the £200pw that has been mentioned i'd be better off personally because despite what the likes of 'entitledto.com' told me before i took this job it turns out i'm entitled to no help with rent or council tax and only get the wtc. i can't for the life of me work out how giving a single mum £200 and a hrt earner with a sahp providing free childcare and domestic labour (as well presumably as giving his sahp £200) makes any sense at all. i don't understand how we can afford to give benefits to people with high earnings. but maybe i'm missing something which wouldn't be surprising given how abstract the notion of UC seems to be.

badvoc, I'm still confused, we are a low income family who receive tax credits, do you know how we'll be affected? I cant find any info on it anywhere either, just random stuff, no figures.