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.

howabout I bought my flat in the 90's when it was as you say 3x wages, but house prices were linked to this. So a flat was 3x a single persons average wage. House 3x joint average wage.
I then bought my house a few years later, was pushed into a self cert mortgage as 'everyone was doing it' and my flat had doubled in value in the 18 months self cert became the norm. Hence the rediculous house prices we now have.
But now we are back to the 3x lending but on self cert prices, they don't meet.

Meechimoo its so bizarre. I wonder if she hates childminders? Obviously not as how would she work without childcare? So it's okay to look after other people's kids but if you look after your own you're nothing more than a Prostitute...

I would also favour a system which is neutral over whether people work or not as long as we retain separate taxation of husband and wife. The chandaliers which will be circa some date in the 1980s came with the house. Nothing antique which is just as well as bits have been lost off various of them by various children over the years. Better a damaged chandalier than a perfect childless home)

(I hate no one. Obviously people who have been conditioned to thinking staying at home whilst men earn is right are going to be of a similar ilk whether fundamentalist Christians or Muslims or just from sexist homes. I don't think the analogy is wrong - all over the planet men try to convince women to depend on them and keep house. They then say I could never do what she does and other similar silly statements to elevate housework into some kind of higher calling to con women into thinking it is a saintly and hallowed life they are lucky to have the chance to enjoy).

As for if it is necessary for men and women to work. Clearly never in this welfare state. So any man who chooses to abandon his children and outsource their care to his wife or a childminder is making an active choice not to be with them 24/7 and is an admirable tax payer and husband or a pernicious morally damaging parent who is choosing to deprive the children of his 1 to 1 company, depending on your views.

I do understand Lotuslight's point. I think the message is that she values female achievement. It shouldn't all be the men that get the opportunities. Women historically, and for many currently have the raw deal so I admire Lotuslight's determanation to become a successful lawyer and have large family.

It isn't perfect but I am glad I live now where women have choices. To me, there has been no time in history that has been better

I am just very thankful that my husband didn't want to stay at home and do the child care- I loved it, it was very short and gave me things that money can't buy. I went back to work afterwards. I don't regret it for a moment- just very grateful that I could manage it once married. I had been able to afford it for my first as a widow. Now that I am retired I can look back and see things that I might have done differently, but I certainly don't regret not spending more time at work!

I am glad that I lived in a time of choice- sadly I think that the cost of living had taken away the choice. Lots of people have to work- they need a joint income.

Do you not think it is good we have options that meechimoo? Dh stayed at home for our last one and he is primary carer now. He is a natural though is good at hair, ironing, cooking etc. Whereas have a drive for career success. If we were born years ago our lives would have been a complete misery.

Lotus what about people who were bought up in a neutral way who still feel like they'd rather stay home?

Do you feel the same about women who choose to dress in a certain way or remove hair? Have they been "conditioned"?

I was brought up with brothers- treated the same. However they are not terribly ambitious in the career line. If they could afford it I think they would both like to go to a rural part of the country with a small farm or similar. It appeals to me- I would love to be an artist, work with textiles and live by the sea. Sadly reality means that I can't!
I would much rather look after children, grow vegetables, make jam, keep bees etc than live in a city and work in an office.
I am all for choice but we should recognise that one person's dream is another person's nightmare!

I agree past mortgage conditions would not support current house prices.
However my policy prescription would be to reduce house prices by normalising interest rates and lending criteria.

The problem is that this would result in a precipitous house price crash and a reincarnation of the banking crisis. Society is still bearing risk on behalf of the banks and those realising the gains of lax monetary policy.

So coming back to the op I agree that house prices are unaffordable in comparison with historic earnings multiples. I would further argue that the scale of the problem is distorting government decisions on fiscal policy and monetary regulation to the detriment of families and to the benefit of those holding assets (disproportionately the baby boomers).

Have the women who honestly would prefer to stay at home found a decently paid (if not well paid) career / job that they really loved though? Or are they the ones on the whole unhappily doing min wage jobs with narrow-minded bosses that wouldn't cover childcare (although as we all know childcare costs should be 50/50 or split pro-rata).

In terms of education / voc training / career guidance I suspect that not enough is being done.

Even for people who do end up doing the traditional min wage jobs such as cleaning / caring - it's the ones (certainly that I've met) that are self-employed, that charge a reasonable rate that seem to be happier / more content and certainly more self-reliant.

essex

Answering for myself, I had an above minimum job that I enjoyed and could have progressed in

I didn't love it though,

Minimum paid job

Lotus
I was never conditioned to be a sahm in fact quite the opposite, even though through no choice of her own my mum wasn't allowed to work. My Dad encouraged and supported her as soon as she got the chance though.

I was brought up by a feminist father who helped me realise I was capable of doing anything I chose.
After a short but very successful career I decided to be a sahm when the dc came along.
I have no regrets and certainly knew what I was doing. My dh was happy for me to do whatever I wanted to and we would have lived according to my choices, made compromises for me to continue.
I didn't want to and have had a fantastic time living life to the full and being free to do what I like. I certainly wouldn't have found this in any type of employment. I consider myself very lucky to have been able to make the choices I have.
I am pleased for your success and its great to be able to encourage women to reach the top of their profession as you do. However, I wouldn't change one aspect of your life for mine, and I'm sure you likewise.
I judge success on happiness, self awareness, satisfaction etc.

I'm reminded of a thread a couple of days ago where the sahm's teenage children and husband were resenting her for not contributing, i'm sure he was fine with it in when the children were smaller. Also if 50% of marriages end in divorce then a lot of women may struggle financially in the event of divorce - I guess everything thinks it won't happen to them though.

Essex

Yes, this is quite true a lot of women struggle financially in the event of divorce whether working or not. A little pt job is hardly going to provide for a family and run a home.
I can only speak for myself of course but me and dh have open communication and 2 of our children are grown up now. He has never to this day resented me not working, but he doesn't see the only contribution a person makes as financial. The grown up ds were always happy I was there and were pleased they didn't have to have childcare.
However, I'm sure each family has there own set of issues.

I judge success in the same way morethan, though too. I always put at the top of my list that I am happy and also healthy. Nothing is more important than that.

50% of the mumsnet marriages will end in divorce. I have been on dates with men who talk about how they hid money from their exwife (why they think that is going to endear a woman to them though is beyond me. Another I know, a client this time moved to Thailand with his money so his wife and toddler twins could not have any money at all. Now some women at home make sure assets are in their name, do the family tax returns, manage the money which is good but plenty are not protected financially from men like this who abandon them in their 40s to run off with their secretary and then give up their job so that they don't have to pay a penny other than share what assets there are. Another was about to put all the assets into the family home into the business until his divorcing wife got a freezing order. So yes play happy families and think these lovely men will always provide but the reality is 50% of posters will be in a divorce situation in due course and sometimes that means a man not paying (not always of course).

Essex - I didn't see that thread, but I betcha the sort of man who doesn't value having given up career to look after the DCs is also the sort of man who would have been perfectly happy for his DW to work, so long as she did all the drop offs and pick ups for childcare, arranged said childcare, arranged sick cover that didn't effect him, didn't expect him to use annual leave to cover school holidays looking after the DCs alone etc...

And sometimes, albeit less often, men put themselves in the same position, by trusting a woman. We all choose which risks we are willing to run and which we aren't. If you go into it with your eyes open, then nobody has any right to criticise you. I'm quite sure Lotus Light wouldn't advise people never, ever to try and set up their own business, just because that's even more likely to fail than a marriage...

I do believe in the value of marriage for providing financial security. However I am often tempted to point out its limitations if your DH has no assets and limited earning potential or the tendency to choose not to work if it no longer suits him. I also agree that it is easier than most people realise to reallocate resources away from the family even if there is a substantial family home.

OTOH I also agree that for working life to offer protection it needs to pay enough and be flexible enough to support you and any dependants in the event of family breakdown.

I am the SAHP but I run the family finances. We have equal access to all bank accounts and credit cards. Our home is in joint names. We each hold individual savings and pensions. This was also our arrangement prior to having DC when we both WOH and also when DH was SAH in order to support me pursuing my career overseas.

Our arrangement suits us very well especially as we both started with nothing and built our assets together. If DH were to shuttle off this mortal coil I would not remarry as our DC and I would have far too much to risk on a future spouse.

I see exactly where Lotus is coming from and I too have heard about men like this, but are we expected to think this is the norm? I don't know, I guess. I am out of touch her apart from hearsay as I have a "good un".
I do think that some, not all women see their relationships through rose tinted specs, but there again, is this the norm?
For me it came about because dh doesn't do basic accounting and money management very easily, I'm not sure I'm much better but one of us needed to do it. As he was the sole bread winner, I stepped in and manage personal and business finance, apart from the actual business accounts.
Both houses are in joint names, we have personal accounts and both have 50% ownership of the business.
Should it go pear shaped I'm well protected, but must admit this is more through luck of the draw than the knowledge of protecting my future.
I think Lotus and others are right to advise women to make provision if they can. However, I still maintain that a woman working in a pt job or ft min wage may still not have the means to protect against having to sell a family home and being far worse off after a divorce. I think you need to have a high income or several assets to really guard against financial deprivation post divorce.

Surely the family home would have to be split anyway morethan and the financial set up dissolved ?

Divorce and setting up 2 separate households is likely to cost more whether you are a SAHM or WOHM.
I really wouldn't want to be a SAHM with no recent work experience, its an added layer of stress to find you can only get a NMW job if you are lucky.

I found that my experience of SAHMs who divorced was that they bitterly regretted giving up work and felt they were conned by the ex DH.

It's all choice. We all choose to live where we live. People can move to somewhere cheaper.
I don't agree with op that it needs to be 2 full time working parents. Not round here it doesn't.

well, you shouldn't have children at all if you are totally averse to risk.

lotus the thing that annoys me most about discussions regarding SAHP is the assumption that it will be the woman. You clearly think that you are some sort of feminist but you have made this assumption. You are part of the problem. This is a conversation about people living on one wage (or not). It should have little to do with gender.