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.

Better for your liver not to be too affluent and independent, then.

Of course, younger women may be favouring Prozac over alcohol, because they think it's less bad for them in pregnancy, before turning to both in later life! They may also be able to get away with lying more about their drinking, because the effects haven't made them seriously ill, yet. The 44-55 year old age group can't lie about it any more, because they've already done serious damage. Or maybe, messages about heavy drinking are finally getting through to people and women have stopped trying to drink as much as men, because if they do, they kill themselves twice as quickly as men do...

Whatever conclusions we come to about the causes of Valium taking in the 1970s, or antidepressant taking and drinking now, they are going to be subjective and probably wholly inaccurate, as everyone has a different reason for behaving in the way that they do and statistics are so widely misused as to create untruths - people do like to connect things that are not necessarily connected.

(connect things in their minds, that is, that are not necessarily connected in reality!)

Im not sure that I like the idea that there is something wrong with being on Prozac - that it is a substance being misused in the same way benzodiazepines and alcohol are/were ?

The valium taking in the 70s etc is well documented and was part of the sexist rhetoric of the time that prevailed in every area of life.
Shut the women up !

Interestingly on another forum ( not NM !) there was a discussion about the misuse of food as a way for women to cope with stress and I do think that this might be true- alcohol/drugs are not considered socially acceptable in many cultures and of course women in charge of small children/ out at work cannot be drunk.
Several posters stated they did use food to cope.
Also on that forum there was a discussion about depression rocketing in all groups .
I have a theory that this might be linked to low fat diets .
I would be interested to see if any research is done to look at this.

"Im not sure that I like the idea that there is something wrong with being on Prozac - that it is a substance being misused in the same way benzodiazepines and alcohol are/were "

Was just thinking the same thing - I was on an SSRI for a year or so for bad postnatal depression (for which it worked very well, and I weaned off it no problem), it certainly wasn't something I took up as a socially acceptable alternative to boozing, and I can't describe taking them as a fun activity (unless "making me stop wanting to throw myself into the sea" counts as fun). And no, I didn't have PND because I couldn't deal with the normal stresses of parenthood, I had it because my hormones went bananas (I got identical symptoms on the pill). Agree antidepressants are probably overprescribed but I dislike the glib idea that they're just a crutch for people to dope themselves up against the world, if people had less stressful lives they wouldn't need them, etc.. See also the whole "fighting depression without drugs == strong and brave", "the drugs don't deal with the real problems" trope.

Anyway, back to the actual topic.

I've rtft and can't help but think that some/lots sahm were about in the 60's and 70's. More than in the historical past, less than in the post 70's womens lib? Probably, it's hard to know really as different regions produce different needs.
I do agree that the price of housing was affected by the extra buying power that the (newly recognised) women's wage added, swiftly followed by the 80's 90's 00's credit bonanza which is the real problem.
There's a whole bunch of reasons why one wage doesn't really cut it anymore and I'm convinced that the prime reasons are; baby boomers, capitalism and expectation and aspiration- but probably not in the ways you'd think.

The baby boomers were/are the lucky ones, they had been born into a world of hope and optimism they engineered the 60's and 70's with the older generation stoic in the view that their future should not resemble the past that they'd just had to go through. I think that is why the 70's might have produced the idea of the one wage utopian family. With a side promise of computers, robots and jetpacks for all.
The boomers had the advantage though of still actually being raised with the frame work of the late victorian/modern british empire of their parents close behind them, they caught the swan song of the industrial revolution with the optimism of the sunrise of the future.
all good for them and I don't resent them for it.
But it wasn't to be maintained for more than a generation really as the wider world caught up a fair bit and like what was posted upthread the jobs disappeared from the country, the computerised future killed the industrial past which was the reason the 50's,60's and early 70's kinda worked nationwide.
This was doomed with the 70's labour union strikes, the capitalists of the 80s, the movement into tertiary industries, larger finance center in london. Dismemberment of nations industries all made financial sense but helped push far too much wealth into the se corner of the uk. Later/ more recently entire business/industries fold or go offshore because of profit.
I'm not suggesting the baby boomers or the late victorians were saints but their focus was more GB family centric; build a better future for our heirs.

When the banks were 'deregulated' in regan/thatcher's era that was pretty much the exact point that the 40's socialist dream of the architects of modern britain was put to sleep and sold to god of profit.(probably the sensible thing to do at the time, but not very sociable)

The problem is now two fold the populations up along with life expectancy but the rare and expensive things are still being used as capitalistic gdp tools. ie land and property. whereas shiny trinkets are ten a penny.
The council estates of the 50's are probably not going to be repeated so the housing stock worth is growing at a grossly inflated value. Even if the government of the day wanted to build another 1,2 or 3 million houses they
wouldn't because the value of the rest would be normalised somewhat and that would not go down well with many voters.
It might get better when the baby boomers start retiring/dying in droves.

tl;dr
we shouldn't have abandoned the empire values without keeping a tighter rein on capitalistic mauling of socialistic ideals and we shouldn't have allowed the post 1970 'rebirth' of the countries industries to have been focused solely around the capital.

As for the op's premise, it is still possible for a one wage family to raise kids,
Of course it is- we're doing it,

Could you do it on nmw? Of course , only if your sensible, get on a housing list, cheap house etc

Could you do it in the se? possibly but I think if your living in the se then you really should be aware that things round there are just generally not representative of the rest of the country price wise.

It's about sensibility and expectation. Although I do wholly agree with you.
The human race as a whole really seems to be getting nowhere towards a land of milk and honey for all- which surely should be the goal right?

SyneHow will it improve when Baby Boomers retire/ die ?
Surely they will spend and their large house, savings if they don't spend it all etc will just provide for their younger generation who will get a leg up on the housing ladder ?
Im also interested in the influence the buy to let housing has had on prices - surely this has inflated them and lead to extortionate rents ?

If we have drop in house prices and they are normalised we will have a massive amount of people on short term fixed mortgages who will be unable to remortgage due to negative equity and be stuffed as a result ?

Just pondering really ...

I'm generalising in a massive way obviously, but one of the perceived problems of the housing stock is 'larger' houses being used by single older people, the family homes being taken up by soon to be retired couples so on so forth, many will downsize, go into retirement homes, emigrate or die.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Population_pyramid_for_the_United_Kingdom_using_2011_census_data.png
That big peak of 60+ year olds will shortly release a lot of money/property into the uk economy. Roughly a million more retirees over the next 10 years to the last 10 which may or may not reduce prices on the property market.

 Its not going to help much in reality because although there is the preceding dip (war) and rise (bboom) in population approaching retirement, the chances are that their retirement is going to be the longest and most well funded ever.

But they are going to also take up a huge amount of social resources over the next 30 years that we are ill equipped to deal with.

The cynic in me thinks this is the reason for the recent jigglement of pension rules- as to get some of that upcoming baby boom cash back into the economy sharpish and hopefully reduce the longer term pension/care commitments...

You've got the 60's boom following that which is larger.

In other words we're stuck in a hole and have no choice but to keep on digging. That's what the markets appear to have done for us - it was, we are told, panic about housing debt that caused global meltdown. It never ceases to amaze me how much people can be rewarded for acting on the basis of mood: the markets are happy and have decided they can inflate their imaginary balloon forever, the world carries on; the markets are shitting themselves and the whole world has to come to a standstill, and all practically overnight, when the only thing that has actually changed in that short space of time is the mood of a bunch of twats in suits who time and again show that they have little idea of the real effect of what they are actually doing in the big scheme of things, because their apparent sole objective is profit for the sake of illusory profit. Making money from money disconnects us from reality. We can make ourselves feel better by pretending to print more of it, for God's sake. So long as we have tonnes of the imaginary stuff, everything will be OK. Who actually needs to grow food, or build houses? It's much better to play make believe.

And what's more, we've all been forced to join in, with pension schemes, etc - we all have a vested interest in make believe.

Well im going to agree a teeny bit here rabbit
I know many people who happily joined in spending ridiculous sums of money released from mortgage equity and laughed their heads off at us ,who continued grafting,saving and paying off our mortgage.

They took no responsibility when the shit hit the fan.

I have FOUR, the youngest is aged 5 and the pressure on me to return to work is immense, but the work available to me locally, that works with and around Childcare pays minimum wage and is hard physical work.
It's of no longer term benefit whatsoever to me or my family but as a single mum I HAVE to take the job, so we have a HR manager of a multi national oil and gas company working as a care assistant which seems a bit pointless tbh.

Why cant you go back to your previous role New ?

Surely that with a Nanny for 4 after school/hols is better than having work NMW with no career prospects ??

It's not so much that were stuck in a hole.
I like to think of it as your in a hole and there is a perfectly good ladder with you.
It's nice and safe in the hole, the hole has all of your favourite creature comforts in it, your family and friends are there the rules of the hole are complicated and seem unfair but they are there if you'd like to read them.
The problem is that although you are free to leave the hole there isn't anywhere else to go that will afford you the same levels of society, the places left to go are where the wild things are. Where you'll be properly free, but thoroughly alone because no-one will leave the hole with you.

The matrix has a far nicer way of putting it.

Well, syne, obviously you can't leave the hole on your own, as that would mean either death from starvation and lack of shelter, or being dragged back into the hole to be put into prison for, eg theft of someone else's property when you try to find something to eat...

Obviously, there is the alternative that you convince others to get out of that hole with you, with unpredictable, almost inevitably violent results as you all have to fight off everyone who wants to stay in the hole, because they will all know that as soon as people realise there's an alternative to the hole we are all in, the hole will collapse in on itself, anyway, because it was incredibly badly constructed. In other words, it's stupid hole digging, or violent revolution followed, potentially, by more stupid holes...

Anyone for a nice cup of tea before the Revolution?

Or maybe ISIS and Greece have already started it.

Definitely lots of awful holes to climb into.

And therein lies the quandry.
The op asked originally about two worker families being the norm, when we'd apparently surpassed that point before. Was it an anomaly that it ever came about at all?
I know it can be done. but to what standard of living is usually the determining factor as to whether it is attempted and that is decided on a case by case basis.
I'm not sure it was orchestrated. As much as I'd like to believe in an organised illuminati I can't. There are definitely people who like to try and peddle power and play at being master of men. but even then free will does give you options, to disengage with society- but it's a scary proposition to contemplate.
I think that as time goes on we might get our collective act together, to actually try to ensure all people are dragged out of the mire before anyone gets a velvet cushion.
But when you've got people in palaces claiming to be appointed by god it does make me wonder how we're going to do right by everyone...

Well, I think the world we are becoming is increasingly unstable, greedy, selfish and grabbing. Whether we mean to or not, we reward selfishness, greed and rule breaking, most particularly by those who should know better and care more. When a system ends up in that state, it's no longer an effective system. There will be trouble ahead.

Effectively, many people no longer trust those who supposedly work in our best interests. If you don't feel you can trust anyone, your life is not going to be a very happy one.

It's the stress of living a difficult life over which you feel you have limited control that turned human beings to religion. We need something to believe in and trust. We also need a sense that we have some genuine control over our own lives. If people really do feel they are losing control and choices, it isn't a good thing.

Rabbit the suspicion of those in power and the feelings of powerless that you describe fit with the theory of external Locus of Control- "its being done to me ,Im powerless"
Not everyone feels like this - I don't.

Surely religion helped the masses cope with the bleak reality of death that pervaded everyday life in such a brutal way. ( barely any children made it to adulthood or died of simple illness we can treat now)
Im really glad Im living now not 200 years ago -early death, disease and unrelenting poverty .

I don't feel like that, either, but it is patently transparent that an increasing number of people do and that concerns me. Quite clearly where one locates one's locus of control is affected by one's environment. Which is why I have no intention whatsoever of adversely affecting my environment and going contrary to what I hold dear in order to keep people like LotusLight and their political agenda happy. Provided I feel that I make a positive contribution to my environment and can lead a life by which I can follow my own principles, I am happy. I would have to be a complete nutjob to think I could personally control the rest of the world and its behaviour, though - someone with that much of an internal locus of control would have a mental illness. Therefore they may come a point when I feel powerless, or I feel the need to fight against an increasing sense of loss of control over my own life and choices, and/or the lives and choices of those nearest and dearest to me, even if that risks losing everything. It seems to me, a sense of a malign external locus of control is exactly what sparks revolutions.