To not understand how housewives of yesteryear could afford to stay home but being a SAHM is a lifestyle choice now?

[PeachyParisian]

Am I missing something really obvious? Or is it just a case of the cost of living rising and our standards of living increasing too? How could everyone manage to get by on just one wage?
I understand that work wasn't really an option for most women but traditionally families got by on one wage didn't they? When did that stop being possible for so many?

people these days get themselves in debt, usually for things they want rather than need.

I think lots of women used to work though. Just maybe not ft?

Yes, when house prices started going up in the 1970s. Also that was when it started to be easier for both of a couple to work, with the arrival of automatic washing machines, freezers etc.

With historian's hat on, options for employment for women varied depending on where you were in the country. Textile industries, seaside resorts, seasonal work in agriculture, tended to employ a lot of women.

I agree that it's largely a myth that women stayed home - one that came about with the rise of the Middle or professional classes in Victorian times IMO.

There is a fascinating blog written by a MNer about printing and writing (IIRC) in the Middle Ages. Women were expected to help run the business and participate in the actual work too.

How did landlords live off their rental income of it was so much lower? Rent round here now is about 80% of a full time minimum wage salary for a 2 bed flat, so quite a chunk of income. If it was considerably lower I imagine it wouldn't have been so attractive.

both my grandmothers (working class) had to work off and on. Cleaning jobs, factory/shop work. I don't think I know of any women who never worked at all.

As far as I know my great grandmother took work in i.e. sewing. I am told that during a period of unemployment (heavy industry) my g/grandfather took on household chores to allow his wife to work. Many men may not have done so at the time.

I presume they were at home at times, otherwise neighbours/family/older siblings helped out with children. Even when they were 'at home', they weren't going to the gym or for coffee. They were at home cleaning their rented houses and washing clothes. Also looking after elderly relatives.

Labour saving devices e.g. washing machine/vacuum/fridge meant one of my grandmothers was eventually able to work full time. Also, as she was reasonably young when she had her children she was able to get back to work by the time she was late 30's. She then had more disposable income and they became a 2 income family and bought their house as did many other families!

1. It's a myth. Working classes never had true SAHMs.

1. Women were paid shit all, because it was assumed they were working for pin money and had a man to support them. So it didn't make as much difference, because they couldn't pull in the kind of wages paid to a man anyway. Widows without a widow's pension and women whose husbands ran off would literally be unable to support themselves. You'd have to hope you had family to lodge with or you'd end up in the workhouse. Same principle is why we still have a separate minimum wage for younger people - we assume they are still being financially supported by somebody else.

1. Different lifestyles and cost of living? There wasn't as much disposable stuff. People wouldn't have as many things, and they mended things when they broke instead of buying new ones. People lived in smaller houses which didn't cost as much. You'd grow veg if you had room and didn't waste as much food. No central heating, no or not much electricity. Things were reused and home made and lasted longer. Lots of people didn't have cars or telephones. Your essential costs would be housing, food, fuel, maintenance/repairs and taxes. Today our "essential" costs are much higher - transport, tax, house and car maintenance, housing, food (and we feel we need more food - snacks, fancy imported things, more variety, organic etc), gas, electricity, water, phone, internet, TV licence, mobile phones, insurance, replacement of knackered or outdated household items and/or clothing.

Housing and living costs.

My family were not SAHM for ever but were when the children were small.

Also when living with extended family (which was normal until the post war house building programmes took effect) older aunt and grandma looked after the youngsters.

foreign holidays,
cars
TV's and other goods
white goods

the cost if keeping up with the Joneses

My FiL was talking about this at the weekend. He always says women have been tricked into working 2 full time jobs.
They paid 1800 quid for their house in 1959, a very comfortable 3 bed semi with garage in Dublin. he had just qualified in his trade and earned about 15 quid a week, within a year or two it had rose to 20 quid a week. They paid 2.3 times their annual income for their house, 2 children, drove a banger for many years, had 2 weeks holidays each Summer. They didn't get a washing machine until 1983 "fitted" kitchen the same year. Different priorities, mass consumerism didnt exist. MiL laughs at remembering darning socks, knitting jumpers and patching jeans for DH and his brother. Imagine patching jeans and darning elbows for your average 15 yr old boy today

My family were working class and did some SAHMing (or else had another family member doing it) Doing the laundry took a full day. Laying the fire, making every meal from scratch and daily shopping all took more time than today's equivalent.

Just look around houses today compared to back then.

Not everyone had a house phone back then.
Now nearly every household has a home phone,a television package,multiple mobile phones,home computer 1 or more,laptops,multiple gadgets for playing games,kindles,dvd players or blu ray,massive flat screen 3d tv's.

I would say housing. 17 years ago, I could afford to stay at home as out mortgage was £220, h's salary then was about £1500 a month. food shopping was nowhere near as much as it would be today, I used to shop in waitrose and not even think about it, out in town on a Saturday buying shoes, clothes etc, we went abroad for 2 weeks every year.

fast forward those years and ok, we have 2 more dc, but our rent alone is £1050. I work now because my dc are older and I found being at home not for me. I've always enjoyed working. I know hardly any sahm mums now, most mums especially of school age children work in some capacity and most because they need the money for bills, mainly the mortgage/rent.

From personal experience I would say the disparity between wages and housing costs not rising together happened about 10/12 years ago. That's when our £36000 house sold for £147000, we had been in it 3/4 years. We rent now as we took the cash and at the time renting was a lot cheaper for the size of house we wanted but haven't got back into the market yet, so the money is earning interest in the bank to pay for retirement/and hopefully some left for the dc.

how did landlords live off their rental income
Well, the cost of living was lower. The rent could pay off the mortgage and it was a valid investment.
And yes, it is a more attractive deal now. There are lots of privately rented properties.

Very working class background here, my grandmothers/great grandmothers were never SAHM. They always worked though worked around childcare, early morning/evening cleaning, factory shift work, that sort of thing.

I'm the first SAHM in 4 generations of my family!

My mum has always worked (she's HV now), my grandmothers were a pharmacist & an engineer, my great grandmothers were a seamstress & mill worker. My aunts & cousins all worked outside the home. My SIL is the only other sahm - both she & I home educate(d) our children - hers are at school now & she's gone back to university. I had a professional career (best qualified out of all of us) & plans to return to it, but a disabled child interrupted that.

None of friends had sahms when we were at school.

My experience is the opposite - most people i know can't afford to work so it isn't a choice at all (well not if they want children). Any of them who earn between £25-35k and have 2 children simply can't afford to work.

When I was very young (late 70's), everybody I knew had a SAHM.

The only mums I knew of that worked were the ones in 'posh' families (in my eyes!) who were teachers, nurses, etc.

Expectations are higher - we don't doff our caps and live on the breadline anymore as many of our parents/grandparents may have done (although I appreciate that there are still many people who do struggle financially).

Also we have equality legislation - men worked, women stayed at home but now we have legislation to (try to) ensure that men and women are treated the same at work and paid the same for the same work etc. Women see that they can have more of a role in life than doing the housework and looking after the kids. Men see that they can have more of a role in life than going out to work and coming home and flopping in front of the TV or going to the pub.

Also university is not just for the rich, it's for anyone who can get the necessary qualifications to get in so you have a lot more qualified people of both sexes so expectations of earning (and therefore) spending power have increased.

So social norms have changed.

And then as people have mentioned, the cost of living has risen and also there is more to buy/pay for. Also schools are always asking for money for things, so it's not just about "keeping up with the Jones", wanting an expensive house, car, holiday but also wanting to ensure that your child can go on school trips, learn to swim, learn to drive, etc.

So it's not just housing - think about the cost of running a car, or rail fares as well.

People say that social breakdown is down to women working. Well I'd rather live now than in the 1950s. I like the fact that I can choose to work or not. I like the fact that sexism is less acceptable, that if someone pinches my bottom I can get something done about it, that being gay isn't illegal, that having a child outside wedlock is not considered to be worse than murder etc etc.

I have no illusions about "the past". We are much better off now - in general.

I would say that some people I know are both working to fund 2 cars, holidays, child care etc.

They could easily live more modestly on one wage, but are quite entitled to choose not to do so.

Others are both working because they absolutely have to as they have suffered in the housing boom and are living in small houses with disproportionately big mortgages and outgoings.

being a SAHM is not always a choice. some people like me had no choice.
disabled child, no family to help out, millions of appointments

I think basically it is a case of ... spiral.

People started being two income households, some from necessity, some from choice. They had more spare money to spend. The number of two income household's grew. More spare money. Markets expanded to grab this spare money. Probably some inflation thing happened. The people with spare money to afford to pay just that bit more, and so when the market tested their elasticity to pay extra, the demand flexed and adjusted, or something like that.

By the time two income households had become the norm the markets had adjusted for the additional income and prices had risen becuase the demand could afford it. And so it sort of spiralled like that until the point where two incomes were needed to cover basic costs rather than provide spare income.

There's bound to be a lot more to it (and proper terms rather than the ones I've sort of made up as I went along) But I'm not sure any economic system allows for "double your money or near as dammit" growth without a moving of the goalposts. It's like it needs us to not be overly populated in the "bundles of spare cash for fun things" group. A sort of pyramid that requires the bulk to be at, or near-ish, to the base in order to support the pointy bit where everybody is rolling in it. I suppose that becuase the pointy bit having fun depends on relative spending power, rather than a simple quantity sort of thing along the lines of "I have X pounds, and that makes me wealthy" so no skin off my nose if you have a nice life with Y, rather than scrabbling a bit on just Z.

So if income rises for the base living bulk, then prices rise too, in order to maintain the status quo of ".still scrabbling to pay what needs to be paid" which makes the pointies wealthy in relative terms and it is that relativity that maintains their pointiness.

Oh god I hate economics. I know what I mean. I just can't say it in simple, concise and understandable sentences.

Expectations.

We are often used to being dual income before children and make decisions based on that re housing. And our lifestyles are based on that.

Then children come along and it is much harder to downgrade that lifestyle and those expectations than it was to rise up to them in the first place. We still want the eating out,regular holidays, treats, etc.

My parents married and bought their first house, a 3 bed semi, for £3000 in 1965. My dad was a teacher and £3000 was about 4 x his salary I think. NQTs today earn say £21k and no way would a 3 bed semi be as little as 82k in most of the country. The mortgage only took his salary into consideration because it was assumed that the wife would not be working when she had children. And until they married my parents both lived with their parents, so no renting costs, no coffees in Starbucks, no clubbing or drinking. They had virtually no furniture when they moved into their house, and managed with deckchairs until they'd saved enough for a sofa. Entertainment was the church youth club. They didn't have a car until I was 5. My mum worked in an office and gave up when she had me, it was just normal. She didn't work again until I was 16. As another poster has said, expectations were so different. And their wedding list was stuff they really needed! We still eat off that bone china dinner service.