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.

If you won't move due to family would they not move as well? There are so many places you could go and have a better standard of living, both materially and timewise if you wish. Loads of Londoners where I am and they say they like it as it is a lot cheaper and nicer than London.

There are times it is tiring meechimoo but I would rather have that than looking after the kids constantly. I have more than served my time doing that. I feel refreshed after work, but it only works if you have a partner who does their fair share.

Puffin - i said earlier that my personal situation is not what is important to this thread.

To answer your question though - it is not simple for families to just up sticks! People have brothers and sisters, who may also be married to others, who also have parents who also have other children. And you know, they like seeing each other. And their friends.

Pretty soon we'd all have to ask kevin bacon if he's prepared to move.

Well you can't really have it both ways
Statisically not that many women work full time with children so it isn't like the majority are made to do it. Most either want to or want the lifestyle, which includes living in an expensive area.

Or they have jobs which are really only available in that area, but who's wages haven't moved to reflect the reality of the new cost of living thanks to the mass financialisation of everything.

The original question is phrased in gender neutral terms but it really means let us ensure women are housewives and only men earn money. This is because despite 60% of graduates being female and women under 30 earning more than men women either marry someone who earns more or is older so earns more or they are from sexist backgrounds or cultures like Saudi, ISIL and all the rest that say women serve and men earn.

If we encourage more parents to stay at home you can bet your bottom dollar it will not be men rushing to change 15 nappies a day and hoover the stairs.

....Mind you I've; just been cleaning a chandalier up a ladder and then a cupboard so I certainly do my fair share of cleaning sadly.

And this isnt just abour women.

It is absolutely about men too - there are many, many men - including those who are quite high up who would prefer a balance, but employers have failed to recognize that people might feel that way.

Mind you I've; just been cleaning a chandalier up a ladder

In your ivory tower lotus? Sounds lovely.

You're quite right lotus actually - you've discovered my hidden agenda.

I secretly want all women to be polishing doorsteps all day. When the men come home what i would really like to see is them brazenly stepping on them in deliberately muddy shoes - laughing and demanding the sad female licks it clean because shes part of a sub species.

Yup you've outed me.

Mind you I've; just been cleaning a chandalier up a ladder

In your ivory tower lotus? Sounds lovely.

Lotus ever considered some women like being SAHM?

Not read the full thread but if we are to go back to only being able to borrow on one wage then people should only be able to put down a deposit of 10% or only be able to put down a deposit they saved for themselves so that I'm not competing with the Bank of Mum and Dad.

I don't see much difference between the two situations. Deposits which haven't been earned distort the market too. That's just the way things are.

Not read the full thread but if we are to go back to only being able to borrow on one wage then people should only be able to put down a deposit of 10% or only be able to put down a deposit they saved for themselves so that I'm not competing with the Bank of Mum and Dad.

I agree 100%.

It's perfectly easy to have "family tax allowances" without abandoning individual taxation. Each adult gets give a single adult allowance and possibly child allowances tied to child benefit claims. If an adult thinks it is in their interest to do so, they can transfer their allowance to another adult. The relationship of the two adults and whether they live together is irrelevant.

Or was the intention that two adults who live together should get less than two adults who live apart? Because I don't support that, and in fact want the benefits system to change so that who you live with makes no difference to the money you get. (Any number of adults and associated children can live together if they wish, with each adult claiming benefits separately, if they claim at all, and the benefits (or indeed earnings or investment income) of other adults in the house should have no effect on the benefits or tax of any individual.

I want both the tax and benefits system to be completely neutral with regard to household composition.

They might think they like being home but it's like an ISIS bride - they are just conditioned to believe women shoudl be at home because they didn't have a feminist mother or they had a religious upbringing or they think girls aren't up to much so cannot have careers or earn money; so it feels like "choice" but it's not really. Their husbands rarely had such "choice" which says it all.

Yes, not been cleaned for ages. In fact after I got off my ladder the chandalier spray arrived so if I manage to finish checking the proofs of my book and much else I might get time to get back to that task.

Dis, women fought hard to avoid transferable allowances which see women as appendages owned by men. The Tories have introduced a new such allowance which is pernicious and sexist and supposedly supports marriage over living in sin. It is worth some tiny amount like £200 a year and takes hours and much difficulty to claim it apparently.

Lotus that's incredibly rude. So sll women who are educated and enlightened will choose careers and the rest of us have been brainwashed? That's rubbish. I was bought up to be anything I wanted, my gender was never relevant, as a child I played with cars trains and climbed trees, most of my friends were boys. My dad encouraged me to study law funnily enough, and I still choose to not be particularly career minded and prefer being at home.

Not everyone who stays at home is a quiet timid woman who lacks a voice. I'm quite the opposite.

In fact after I got off my ladder the chandalier spray arrived so if I manage to finish checking the proofs of my book and much else I might get time to get back to that task.

Ooh exciting! Do let us know when your book is out Lotus - i cannot wait to digest this jam (today) packed compendium of pearls of wisdom.

Is it being published immediately by Penguin Classics like Morrissey's autobiography? I guess if not immediately, its only a matter of time for the reprint, stone cold piece of gold that I'm sure it is.

Mumsnet is the only place where I know full time working mums. I only know of 2 full time working mums of younger children and they're both wrung out and fed up (judging by their Facebook)

At my primary school, a SAHM was the exception and was v unusual. However this was a fee paying school and most mothers had v middle class jobs (teachers, doctors, lawyers, lectures, etc) where they would have worked hard to et to their current position, and the economics of working made sense. And the families could afford decent child care.

I think the circumstances in which it is NECESSARY for both parents of a young family to work are very few and far between. I would say that, by and large, we have become a very entitled generation, that that comes at a financial price.

I was very lucky to be able to stay at home when mine were young- most can't afford the choice these days. Nothing to do with brainwashing- personal choice.
I love it now that I am retired- time to really live without the straight jacket of paid employment.

I want both the tax and benefits system to be completely neutral with regard to household composition
Completely agree with this and struggle to see why there is so much resistance to this among working women.

Strikes me memories are very short. When I had a mortgage for a short time at the end of the 90s the normal terms were 25% deposit and 3 times single or 2.5 times joint salary. These seem prudent terms but would be unaffordable to most given the current disconnect between salaries and house prices.

There is an article in the Times today considering the continued support for the international asset price bubble and suggesting tightening monetary policy and raising rates as the best solution. I tend to agree.

A separate article also suggests the July budget could go some way toward addressing BTL fuelled inflation by cutting tax relief on mortgage interest and raising the CGT rate. Again I agree.

None of these options attacks anyone's right to work.

Part of my disapproval for subsidies for childcare and government subsidy for low wages comes from my belief that I should not be subsidised to pass on my more tedious responsibilities when my salary / work satisfaction ought to be incentive enough.

BTW Lotus I am taking my mind off the impending need to help dd2 grapple with the sewing machine. I do not have a chandelier but I like to think the stonework is artistically enhanced by the cobwebs. The spiders and I have a houseshare agreement.

Lol, lotus has compared sahms to prostitutes and now she's comparing them to Isis brides. You really really hate sahms with a fiery brutish passion, don't you? It's very very odd.