To feel depressed for the future for 'treadmill families'?

[user1478265589]

A report on the BBC website today says more and more people are having to run, just to stay still, and that's the experience of many people I know. I don't even know what can be done about it, it's just really depressing...

• Millions of workers - particularly women - are trapped in low pay

• Only one in eight children from low-income backgrounds is likely to become a high-income earner as an adult

• From the early years through to universities and the workplace, there is an entrenched and unbroken correlation between social class and success

• Despite some efforts to change the social make-up of the professions, only 4% of doctors, 6% of barristers and 11% of journalists are from working-class backgrounds.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37987166

Low income parents are on average more likely to be to be 1) less well educated than higher earning parents 2) less interested in their children's education (which is a HUGE factor ins success) 3) less intelligent 4) have other life stresses which impact on ability to drive and create an ambitious high achieving child (like money troubles, relationship issues, work issues etc)

I don't disagree with you. I would, however, like a link to the research that says 'relationship issues' and 'work issues' are more likely to be the domain of the less educated, and less intelligent. I don't see how that can work. Are you suggesting that people with, say, GCSEs are more likely to be divorced than people with degrees?

It's been a huge run of things contributing to it, a lot of it not right wing and none particularly meant

1. Highly earning women in 1960s-80s marrying high earning men and upping house prices because they could afford higher prices and mortgages on a joint income.

2 Labour government selling the idea a university education guaranteed a higher income when anyone could tell (a) the higher income earned by the likes of Blair was to do with reading law/sciences not the humanities (b) the more graduates competing for graduate jobs, the less the income would be (c) introducing university fees and both govts confusing prospective students about pay-back time and compound interest.

1. Lack of provision for trainee apprenticeships and elevation of some of the good trainee technical colleges to universities.
2. Lack of housing and the continuation of right to buy under both Tory and Labour - worse still, Tories now involving housing associations in right to buy leaving us with little stock around.
3. Gordon Brown snatching tax relief off stock market based pensions in 1997 - meant a lot of people turned to buy to let to ensure they had enough to pay for their old age - and put the kybosh on final salary schemes for anyone under 50.
4. Gordon Brown selling off our gold stock at the bottom rate just before it soared in price, leaving the UK much worse off.
5. The growth of unpaid work experience to qualify for top level jobs in cities so anyone who didn't have a friend/relative to stay with and whose parents couldn't afford to help them with rental/expenses couldn't apply for them. I believe the Tory party is trying to address this.
6. The increase in highly motivated workers in all trades prepared to work flat out to earn money - from all over the EU. Undoubtedly filling gaps where some UK people aren't prepared to do the jobs (what, wake up at 4am? do shift work?) but also lowering the hourly rate. To say nothing of the poor bastards working as slaves to UK and EU slavemasters.

Do you want me to go on or shall I just shut up

So one thing I've noticed among my peers (I'm 21) is that uni is either a way in to a good career (doctors, lawyers etc), a good way to put off finding a job for a few more years, a jolly or something to do when you don't know what to do.

I didn't go to uni, I ended up not getting good grades at A Level (MH issues) and I didn't want to do more assignments, essays etc. I did an apprenticeship, which was like a do over of my A levels. I now have a pretty good job and hopefully I'll be able to keep on track for a great career.

BUT apprenticeships are still often looked down upon as what the thick kids do or for just trades/lower paid jobs. I've been shot down by two separate people from Microsoft entirely because I didn't have a degree, they were only intrested in people with them regardless of whether I was more capable of doing the job or not.

I don't think more people going to uni is all that helpful, it's raised the bar for entry level jobs meaning that for those who couldn't or just didn't go are shut out. But I don't think people should be stopped from going I just think that a lot of rerouting is needed so that it's more evenly balanced between say 3 years experience or a degree by age 21.

millie

1. I hate this, but I see where you're coming from. Even renting I need a partner to afford a 1 bed flat (london) I think most people do - technically a studio isn't "affordable" for me. Even sadiq khans affordable housing thing is based on a average households income (aka 2 people) for a 1 bed flat, my first thought about that was what about single people (ok maybe a studio would be manageable but not for a single parent)

1. I'm so lucky I started my apprenticeship in London because there is neither the quantity not quality near where I currently live. Apprenticeships simply don't pay enough to live near where the job is independently so if you don't have someone to live with nearby or give you money you can't do it. I think apprentices should be able to get a maintenance loan to help cover their living costs, for most it's only a year and they should soon be earning enough to pay it back.

The housing market rose because thatcher sold off most of the council housing. People buying houses for 10k & selling for 50k cause the huge inflation of housing prices that made housing costs unmanageable for buyers and renters

I think that somehow we forget just how much of a treadmill life has always been. Before industrialization the life expectancy of labourers was very low. And there wasn't a huge choice about jobs or social mobility. Since industrialization life has got better - very few of us have to literally put our back into earning a crust. There is support for people with disabilities/caring for others/pensions etc.

It used to be that a relatively small % of the population really had a retirement. Most worked until they were unfit to do so, then had maybe a few years with not much quality of life, then died.

It is only since WW2 that people have even thought that they could own a house, plan a lengthy retirement, have serious amounts of leisure time and the resources to have hobbies etc to any great extent.

I'm not saying that I want to go back to those times, but I do expect to work until I'm pretty old, have to save up for my own retirement, spend a lot of my time working etc. Otherwise, as a society we won't be productive enough to actually fund ourselves.

changing - I agree, I think you are bang on here about the real problem.

There is a LOT - I mean really a LOT - of data out there that shows that without a doubt we have big economic problems and that no, these aren't the same as the problems faced by other post-WW2 generations and no, it hasn't always been this way. Anyone who thinks that simply hasn't grasped the full gravity of what happened in 2008. Had there not been a bailout on the grandest scale, there is every chance the money system would have collapsed. You would have gone to a cashpoint and been unable to get out any money. Capitalism fell apart.

So what are the problems we should be talking about? Weak and unstable growth (and the destabilising effect of increasing private debt) -and the sheer idiocy of pursuing policies of austerity in such a climate. A decline of investment (an effect of financialisation - instead of profit going back into businesses, it's going to shareholders). Flatlining wages and stagnant living standards (if you look at labour productivity, it is rising, but wage growth hasn't followed- the two are now decoupled,). Data suggests that about half the population haven't really seen an uplift in their income for 25 years, partly as a result of the weakening of labour rights. So where's the money that is generated going? Study after study shows that a grossly disproportionate amount - as much as 91% - is going to the top 1%.

There is book after book that painstakingly lays all this out. All the ammunition, all the information is out there. Yet most people remain in the dark about what is happening. I think part of this is a bit of a high-falutin issue (neoclassical economics continues to be a dominant paradigm, despite being really quite discredited now). There are some myths of economics that are endlessly recycled as a result - e.g. the idea that the private sector creates wealth, while the public sector taxes it. Actually most wealth is coproduced, with the private sector being heavily, heavily reliant in many areas on innovation produced by the public sector. Mariana Mazzucato's work on this is well worth a read. We also have to stop thinking that growth and wages are linked and start facing the fact they've been decoupled (capital will ALWAYS push its luck, which is why old fashioned collectivization is still important).

However, far more of it is an issue about how this stuff is reported by news media. The news cycle tends to focus on the event, and to give only a brief insight into context and history, and very little time to real data. Yet if we really want to understand what's happening economically today, we have to understand what happened in 2008, and what led up to that - and the seriousness of it- and how many of the same assumptions and behaviours are being repeated today!

I think we should make politics and economics absolutely mandatory at school - they are more important than any other discipline and the major principles are well within the reach of high school kids. We need to build literacy on these issues so that on threads like this, future generations won't just be giving a vague impression of what they think might just possibly be happening based on groundless assertion, but discussing in detail data sets and graphs, as well as ideological arguments about how truth is produced and interpreted. I very much include myself here: I'm not a political scientist or an economist, and I also should know way more about both than I do.

The housing market rose because thatcher sold off most of the council housing. People buying houses for 10k & selling for 50k cause the huge inflation of housing prices that made housing costs unmanageable for buyers and renters

No, that was one factor others include:

• Interest rates falling making mortgages more 'affordable' even before the financial crisis. This meant anyone who bought before the rates went down had masses of equity (well unless they'd remortgaged to buy a yacht)
• Increase in population and an increase in single-occupancy households (although this is now declining)
• Banks lending on a 'self cert' basis meaning people could borrow as much as they wanted to, in effect
• The increase in private rents meaning that landlords were still able to make money even at ridiculous prices (I agree this linked to lack of council housing but it is also linked to housing benefit levels).

I very much include myself here: I'm not a political scientist or an economist, and I also should know way more about both than I do

I have a degree in economics. All those stats and graphs are based on models and are therefore arguably assertion. It is why it is something no government has ever got 100% right and never will.

I've really enjoyed reading your posts, shove, thank you xx

Can you recommend any books/resources in particular?

I think we should make politics and economics absolutely mandatory at school

...And critical thinking...

But the council housing being sold came first, and banks giving mortgages to anyone came about in part because of this. The idea fed to us from the tories that social housing wasn't enough, that home ownership was necessary for secure, safe home- because they weren't willing to provide one otherwise. Yet affordable safe secure home enabled families to build links to communities, enabled them to stay in one place for employment, affordable housing meant a surplus of income that was then spent so went into the local economy (because poorer people spend their 'extra' money where as richer people save it in times of recession).

Sohard & shove I agree- but it's all theory, because we know a tory government won't put money into education to enable this. So what do individuals do? What can we do?

House prices had already gone up as mortgages were easier to get, prior to the sale of council housing. Also not everyone got onto the property ladder in that way. I agree it was a factor but it wasn't the only one.

But even if we're all brilliantly educated, and understand the big picture of economics/politics, then what difference does that make?

It might make a slight difference to voting patterns, but not necessarily. People would still vote according to their own personal goals, and most people just want whichever party will leave them with the most money in their own pocket. Very few people vote altruistically.

There has to also be some understanding of how greater equality can benefit all, but that is hard to prove. If you look at the media representation of these issues, it doesn't even begin to focus on the super wealthy and the impact that they have on all of us. It's all about benefit scroungers, or the MC buy to let landlords etc. It's a great way to get the have-nots and have-not-a-lot-mores to focus on each other without anyone really looking at the impact of the huge global companies and multi-billionaires etc.

I sound like some communist conspiracy theorist, but I'm not. All it needs is people to have a vague impression that they'll be better off if they vote for X, and that's what happens.

Speaking on a personal level I would like things to be a little easier. We both work around each other so that there is always one of us around for the kids. I work nights, weekends and evenings and some day shifts. It has always been this way since we had our first child 17 years ago. My dh and i are both permanently knackered, dh not in the best of health and feel like we are constantly on a treadmill trying to juggle work, household stuff , kids activities etc yet still only just making ends meet and with not much option to ever afford a bigger house/ do improvements etc. Whilst I know it's fantastic that most women now work and things are much more equal, i can't help thinking back to the contrast with my own childhood where my mum was a sahm until I was a teenager and whilst my dad still worked long hours , the whole household seemed to run smoothly and was relaxed. I knew this could never be an option for us and I am grateful for having my career but would just love things to be a little less stressful.

shove I've loved your posts on here. I read the Paul Krugman link which was fascinating. Thank you. I really do struggle with economics but am determined to try to read up on it a bit more.
Is there a kind of Dummie's Guide to the 2008 crisis? It shames me that I really don't understand what happened or what led up to it.

My DH was diagnosed with MS 4 years ago - he was always the main earner, even though I've always worked full time (bar two maternity leaves) as a primary teacher. He had to give up work 2 years ago and now we struggle desperately on my earnings, despite him claiming all he is entitled to. We have cut absolutely everything to the bone.
We're both educated but you never know what life is going to throw at you. I feel we're always a whisker away from losing our house - the stress is dire. I can't take another job to top up, I'm exhausted from teaching full time and I have to care for DH and DS2 who is autistic and still lives at home.
Life has become nothing but a treadmill - I hate it.

Am In the same position Lara. I work for a very supportive school but have two tumours and am working full time as a teacher with three sons two of whom have hfa. I need a major op and am worried sick about money.
Anyway.....
I am from a working class family (dad a miner until he nearly lost his leg, on strike, very young parents, one of four in a tiny house) I went to uni with a child (at 19) and am a firm believer in if you want something badly enough you bloody work for it.
I am left wing but it makes me cross that we push and push children who aren't able through courses to get figures... btecs, uni courses in Mickey Mouse subjects. We need to be back to basics..... am going to stop now as worried I sound like the dreaded Thatcher who incidentally got me kicked out of the brownies.... (long story)

Loving the idea of Thatcher getting someone kicked out of Brownies. I suspect it also had something to do with an outspoken Brownie who told it like it is to some MC Brownie leaders.

Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for our beliefs.

I don't see how that can work. Are you suggesting that people with, say, GCSEs are more likely to be divorced than people with degrees?

Not really, but it is sort of much of a muchness.

On average if you're a single parent you have lower family income.
Lower income more likely to have housing stresses.

Not really saying lower education leads to higher divorce rates.

Aw, you guys are lovely! I really am not an expert though, and I'm sure that other people on here are way better placed to suggest books than I am! But here goes... based on my highly limited knowledge and things that I have enjoyed...

Stuff that I've read that is good and entertaining for newbies to economics (like me): the movie The Big Short is actually a pretty good and entertaining explanation of the US side. You do have to sit through some slightly unbelievable scenes of top fund managers explaining simple economic concepts to their equally expert colleagues using Jenga. But it's not bad and free on Netflix at present. (On the subject of movies, the film The Corporation is one of the best explanations of corporate capital that I've come across. Everyone should see it). Sorkin's book Too Big To Fail is quite interesting on the US story too, if you want a kind of journalistic 'eye on the ground' account. What else? Chang's 23 Things They Don't Tell you About Capitalism is a great read, ans Stiglitz's Freefall is good, along with Krugman's popular books. David Graeber's Debt is long but interesting. But there are an absolute ton of books I haven't read on this - if you look online, the virtual shelves are groaning. So I think there's probably something for everyone!

Stuff for those who want something a bit more involved: Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century is required reading now. It's bloody huge, but if you don't want to tackle the whole thing, a lot of the graphs etc. are pretty self-explanatory and very, very useful. The case that inequality is widening is so persuasive. The book I mentioned above about how a lot of private industry is relying on publicly funded research for its innovation is Mariana Mazzucato's The Entrepreneurial State.

Marx's Capital is still a bloody good book too. There are obvious limitations with it, but it's still one of the best accounts of the unfairness inherent within the system. It's interesting - I've been to a number of research seminars recently where some professor or other has claimed that neoclassical economics is dead, and he holds the keys to the future kingdom - and I often end up thinking "Blimey, I think Marx got here 150 years ago, mate - this stuff ain't new!!". It's really hard in places - not least the notoriously difficult first chapter - but David Harvey's new companion is pretty great at helping you out. There are lots of reading groups on Marx and heterodox economics around the country, often attached to universities but open to anyone to show up -and they really mean that - so check and see if there is one in a city near you. I first got into this stuff turning up to one, which I now run!

Oh and for lara and wannabe. No-one should have to deal with the kind of precarity you are both facing. It breaks my heart that we have gone so far backwards so fast.

And kickass - there is a lot of stuff on the top 1%. Piketty, for instance. But there's also more work coming along - I know a guy who is doing amazing research on the alpha rich and space, with a book in the pipeline. I do agree completely with you, though, that the problem is getting this stuff 'out there' into wide culture, in the face of a media absolutely determined not to air those views.

Babyroobs I agree wholeheartedly! The way work/life is structured these days is we generally don't have a choice whether both of us work outside the home or not, most of us simply have to to keep afloat. I find this pace of life enormously difficult to cope with (& probably a large contributor to my depression). It's such a world away from my childhood in rural Australia; while my parents worked very hard, they have always been there for us, and it's an infinitely more comfortable, slower pace of life - time to think, time to dream... (probably why my British ancestors buggered off in the first place...)

And changing - I wish I had the answer. I really do. The best I can come up with is: activism, reading groups, gentle and persuasive engagement with the kinds of narrative peddled in the tabloids, opposition to the tabloids (whether that's Hacked Off, Stop Funding Hate etc), signalling your support for fairness and justice, and teaching kids how to 'do' systemic analyses, that look not at individuals to blame but at society and culture - from primary school upwards. I do wonder if there is room in the market for a primer on this!!

It's not enough, but it is a start.