to think dual person 'full time' worker family households should never have become the norm?

[workingdilemma]

Was thinking about the other thread talking about tax credits etc.

Around 40 years ago, as a society we'd reached a point where one person working in a household was enough to support a young family.

Now we've ended up where it's pretty much required to have both working full time to be able to afford the same lifestyle - mainly due to the insane 'cost' of housing.

It would have been far better to have had both people in a couple working perhaps part time to allow engagement with the world of work, and also a healthier work/life balance.

Why did we end up like this? Was it all an orchestrated plan to keep the debt cycle going - after all, you can lend on two incomes now for a mortgage. Lovely jubbly for the debt pushers. Is that why the banks and governments encourage this?

I dunno, but I do yearn for a better way to deal with the problems we're having now then everyone demonising each other.

We pay a hell of a lot more tax than people in the same position did 40 years ago. So you keep much less of your money.

UK tax burden is now (barely) second to Denmark, the most expensive place in the world - and their public services work.

I haven't been abroad in years and don't own a car - there isn't any point where I live. If I moved further away where prices were (marginally) cheaper, I'd have to run one (no good public transport) - but that would negate the housing saving.

Aargh.

The big change 40-odd years ago - for middle-class households, at least - was women's lib. Women who'd been expected to stay at home wanted to work, and wanted equal pay for equal work where previously men were paid more than women as a matter of course because they were assumed to be breadwinners.

So with the increasing advent of women in white-collar workplaces, prices started going up to adjust to two-earner households. And households with two high earners took the earnings differential to even greater levels. And now most ordinary white-collar families can't afford not to have both parents working.

In my view, as a working woman, women's lib was an amazing thing I will forever be grateful for. But when people moan about prices and how things were different 40 years ago I always feel it's a bit of a blind spot, maybe because it's not really done on MN to criticise something that has benefited us all.

It's more than 40 years ago OP and depends on family circumstances. My grandmother, who was born in 1911, worked from the age of 14, having had a pretty decent education before then, and she carried on working from home after marrying and having my mum. Grandad had a profession, but wasn't a high flier.

Some middle class/better off families may have had only one parent working, but it's a myth this was the case for everyone. Large families needed multiple workers to support them so older children lived at home, went to work and paid their way.

This, to me, is like the myth that women didn't go to work until they had to support the war effort when the men went off to fight. Working class women worked from an early age in peacetime.

40 odd years ago many banks wouldn't give women mortgages or count both partners' incomes when calculating how much they would lend. Mortgages were much harder to get for lots of people and long term renting was normal for large sections of society.

YANBU its very sad. I have been a SAHM and we have struggled and its buggered my career. Its sad that it had to be a choice.

Womens lib and the necessity to live on two incomes are two separate issues. Combining them and saying 'well, some compromise had to be made' is a complete cop out.

I love th fact that I have a job and a career and I don't have a societal expectation to stay at home and look after my children.

Ive yet to see anyone present a non-subjective argument as to why one working parent families are a better model.

Of course 40 years ago things like washing machines and microwaves weren't around so commonly, if anyone watched that dining in the past programme on Bbc it took almost a full day to arrange food for the family u til the mid to late 70s.

So the role of the stay home parent would have been very very different to the one people take by choice today.

I know where I would rather be.

I'm not sure that minimum wage has helped much, it seems to have become a benchmark for 'acceptable wage' when it's clearly not.

I was earning £12k per annum as a 22 year old finance assistant in one of my first jobs, that is more than the current minimum wage and it was 26 years ago.

winter hmm let me see one of you earns over 45k a year, or you were left some inherritance or you top up on benefits or you both purchased houses 20 yrs ago when the average house price (in these parts anyway) was 65k, and sold for a tidy sum 10-15 years later (same house in these parts now £145k)?
We are not money grabing, we are not extravagant, we have not had a holiday since dc, nor do the dc do not wear fashion labels but generally handme downs, l cant remeber last time a bought new clothing/ shoes or makeup.
However we both have to work in order to be able to settle all our bills at the end of each month. We are lucky in that we have been able to keep out of debt, but i would dearly love to give up work, the pressure of juggling work and children is unbelievable. But sadly most people HAVE to do this.

Your post is out of touch with us commoners!

I kind of agree with Othehugemanatee. People tend to look into the past nostalgically with rose tinted specs. Ok, so we'd all love the cost of living to be cheaper, but would we want Everything that went along with that... Men being expected to support a family single handed, not being as hands on with their own children; while women were expected to play the little housewife even if they were bored witless and had the potential for an interesting career?

The bottom line is, people don't want to be pigeon holed as much any longer. Lots of families don't want one parent to be presumed to be sole earner while the other gives up work. It's about wider choice and expectations

Oops sorry for extra do not!

I accept that the single earner family was a short lived phenomenon, and in the early 20th century the norm might have been more like today. However, society HAD reached a point where it was feasible. It certainly was for my parents, and my dad wasn't a high earner.

And then we went back to this again. Technological and economic progress should have meant that we should have advanced socially (women's lib), without again making the retrograde step of needing the dual incomes.

Or did I dream the 80s?

I go back to my original point that both people working part time would be far more ideal - we've got sidetracked again by 'one full time income'.

RJnomore, i love the fact that you can have a job and career and not have to stay and look after your children. That is great, your children have a fantastic role model in both parents and i am 100% sure they are happy with that arrangement. I am glad you have had the choice.

What is sad is that is not what everyone would choose. Many many families would like to have either two part time workers or one full time worker. The inequalities come where that choice is usually the woman who is the sahp because she can't bring is as much money as her partner. Some do, most don't. The inequalities come when a mother has to go to work and pay someone else to care for her children when it isn't her choice to do this. That is heartbreaking.

It works for you, it doesn't work for everyone.

It was 1980 before a woman could apply for a loan or a credit card in her own name.

That is in my lifetime.

I agree that the one income was a 'thing' for a relatively short period. Both my grandmothers worked as did my parents. Given I'm pretty sure we're peasant stock I'm not sure it's ever been the case one parent solely raised the children.

What I do think is that it's much harder now. 60 years ago no one would have batted an eyelid at leaving an 8 year old home alone for a couple of hours after school while I toddled off to do a few hours work for a small wage. You can't do that now. You could also probably get away with working most of the school holidays safe in the knowledge that same 8 year old would be playing with the neighbours kids and could call on one of them if needed.

Siblings and babysitters were acceptable from a much younger age to be able to watch any younger children for affordable prices.

I'm certainly not saying that the regulations we have today are a bad thing, but they're not cheap are they? It makes working in a low skilled job with a low wage for convienience a ridiculous choice for many. There's a significant population who although are happy to pay their way don't have a career as such, or love their job in its own right who are being forced into difficult financial and logistical situations because their desire to contribute to society (by being a good little worker bee) is only recognised if they're contributing the majority of their week to employment.

I've worked full time since I left education and had a job of some description since 14, but I can still see that working for essentially nothing is a demotivating and ultimately pointless to my personal situation.

If financial costs of complying with societies demands costs me more than any personal gain for my labour then it does certainly seem appealing to bow out altogether.

I think that you are taking a rather simplistic view of history. There was a brief period when middle class as well as upper class women had leisure time during the week and a lot of that was due to modern conveniences. My family have been middle class for the past 100 years or so (if it was possible to be middle class then... I mean that they were definitely not the gentry but had a much better standard of living than local miners, fishermen, farm hands etc) and the women have always worked. Both of my parents worked full time with my mother returning to work when I was 5 and my brother 3 and both of my grandmothers worked with my paternal grandmother returning to work when her only child was 8 and my maternal grandmother returning to work when her youngest of five was 2 and her eldest was 8. One of my great grandmothers worked out of the home, another was married to a farmer so was obviously involved in running the farm and had many jobs around the farm that were hers and, whilst the others didn't have actual jobs, I'm talking about 1910/1920s so there were no washing machines, vacuum cleaners, electric irons, running water & most clothes were made and "cooking from scratch" involved wringing the neck of the chicken, digging the potatoes etc so housework was, literally, work. I don't think any of the women in my family have ever had much time during the working week to sit around, go for a coffee or lunch, have hobbies like drawing or other things that didn't achieve a purpose.

I know many women do want to go back to work after having children and that's fine but so many women would rather be a sahm but have to work for financial reasons....I actually think it's shameful many women dont really have a choice and it causes much stress for families in terms of arranging childcare and trying to fit housework and chores into a small amount of time thus reducing quality family time. The pressure on couples is immense in terms of juggling all these things and I wonder if it is a contributing factor in separations?

I also believe the assumption and pressure to work minimises the role of mothers. For example when you tell people you are a sahm and feel a need to have to justify your choice. Why should I have to explain why I want to be at home with my children?

For us it's not the second income we need but the fact that I want to retain my career and can't find a part time job in my field. I think that's probably much more of an issue. If flexible working were mainstream more people would be able to work flexibly.

if anyone watched that dining in the past programme on Bbc it took almost a full day to arrange food for the family u til the mid to late 70s.

Oh come on. I scratch cook every meal on my days off. It takes about 10 mins for breakfast, 20 for lunch and 1/2 an hour for dinner.

I'm pretty sure I could have done the same thing with a chopping board and a gas stove in the 60s too.

Very few of the mothers I know work full time. I don't know many SAHMs either. The vast majority are part timers....doctor x3, solicitor x3 estate agent, dentist, teacher, secretary x2, HR officer x2 and book editor. I suppose these jobs pay well even part time - some of my friends pay higher rate tax still. And all have partners with okay jobs. It must be hard in households where the main wage earner maker under average wage and the secondary wage earner is on low pay. The latter would feel under pressure to be full time.

Yes working it would be ideal for some families, but again unless its very well paid part time work, its not feasible, as most two part time salaries will still aquate to one full time salary (maybe....if you are lucky!)

I think our livestyles are a lot more extravagant now, all the latest gadgets aren't cheap, we eat out a lot more, more holidays abroad., trips to the beautician, etc, etc. It all adds up.

This is where I've made compromises.

Sorry LEM that wasn't to you that was just a meandering thought.

Yes there IS an issue with equal pay and choices around Childcare. That's not helped at all by the default position being that one parent stays at home unless we evolve a bit further as a society so that's a genuine choice and not still an expectation that it usually is the female which whether or not we want to admit it it often still is.

There's a huge issue with housing costs as well.

I put a lot of my time into social housing for that very reason. It won't help with mortgage prices but having enough available quality housing at affordable rents would help.

I don't think it's that he cost of living is such that no-one can survive on one income anymore, it's that what we "need" has changed.

My Dad had a pretty good professional job and my mum stayed home until her youngest DC started school.

We had one week's UK holiday a year, short breaks unheard of. A restaurant meal was for a very special occasion indeed. Everything was cooked from scratch, no waste, no ready meals, no takeaways. One car - you had to be very rich to be a two car family. Far fewer clothes and many of those homemade. We had one TV and no phone until I was 11, compared to all the gadgets that are essential now.

We were by no means deprived, it was normal then, but all these expectations have contributed to the "need" for both parents to work.