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

And society used to be much more callous about mental and physical disabilities. The weak and feeble were often disregarded in ways our tender hearts now find completely abhorrent.

midwide friends advise against having children over 40 which I can see being the norm soon

but there are so many households with children that only have one parent who works full time, that having an economy based on the necessity of two working adults makes no sense.

And the answer isn't that every adult should work ft - the economy doesn't support that, and real life makes it impossible for huge numbers. So, there should be some allowance within the economy for people to have affordable housing. That doesn't have to mean owning their home, but good quality, long term housing is a pretty important part of life.

Lots of people are now looking at half the family income going on housing, which doesn't leave much for the other things. There does need to be a balance where people can afford the basics. Secure housing, reasonable food, healthcare etc. should not be outside of people's affordability. Feeling unsafe about those things can really cause anger and instability.

The cost of living does largely rely on two adults working. SAHM is really for the very poor who would not be better off working, or the very well off.
And it was actually a historical blip having SAHMs. In the past all women except the very rich, worked at home. They would be canning, growing food, making soap and toiletries from scratch, looking after animals like chickens, and helping out during busy times such as harvest, lambing or in a trade. We look at the 50s ideal of a SAHM as the norm, when historically it is not.

Brady, the only reason SAHMs were the norm in the 50s was because when the men came back from WWII there weren't enough jobs so the married women were sacked.
Don't forget that previously without labour saving devices it took hours each week and real hard slog to look after a family and house so unless on the bread line women didn't have much choice but to stay home. However it was recognised that most men had a family to keep so men received much higher wages than women.
I feel depressed about the current situation and the future for my DD and DGC. My parents left school at 14 and although bright were denied a good education. They worked hard and my sisters and I had a comfortable upbringing and I got 2 free University degrees and professional training.
We thought there was a bright future for all but now the clock has turned back and the rich seem determined to retain control of global economies. Sadly too many we people continue to vote for these people and believe the self serving lies they tell

The weak and feeble were often disregarded in ways our tender hearts now find completely abhorrent.

Although in policy terms, the policies don't match up with general social attitudes - it's the health and social care equivalent of greenwash. Look at this new round of NHS cuts.
www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/18/ae-cancer-and-maternity-units-to-close-in-major-nhs-overhaul
www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/18/nhs-cuts-in-devon-if-these-services-end-my-boys-will-for-certain-die
And general attitudes have hardened somewhat since the credit crunch.

(SockOrphanage - love the name BTW)

UK govt policy seems to be to squeeze people slowly and painfully, deprive them of services and sufficient funds, yet not even, as PP said, allowing euthanasia for those with degerantive and terminal conditions who wish it.

the answer isn't that every adult should work ft - the economy doesn't support that, and real life makes it impossible for huge numbers
Yes, and probably even less so going forward, with automation and resource decline.
They are the sort of macro conditions that make unfairness more likely, the thing is how to mitigate it (what people can do for one another as individuals among their families, friends and communities, and to what extent it's possible politically.

The welfare state has been central to making it possible for people to free themselves from abusive families and partners, otherwise "just leave" is only possible for those who have decent jobs and/or sympathetic friends to help them.

I understand why a PP mentions the importance of community, it's necessary if state provision is worse, but it's also suffocating for the people who can't fit or are suffering because of bad apples in that community.

Loralei76, overpopulation, yes, it would seem to be humane to discourage people from having a lot of kids (already being done in a small way by benefit changes, but that disproportionately targets a particular section of less well off families) when there may well not be enough work or resources for all those kids in some decades time, never mind services of the sort we grew up used to in the later twentieth century. Policy and social attitudes seem to be so blunt in Britain, would it even be possible to encourage fewer kids but also make better provision of the sort Changing rightly suggests?

it was actually a historical blip having SAHMs. In the past all women except the very rich, worked at home.
Kind of goes back to the 70s Wages for Housework idea, in that a lot of that food related work was about making savings, being less involved in the market economy because you grew more of your own food, and before fashion was so in your face, made clothes there.
At least there is a bit of recognition now that some men are better suited to household work than to traditional employment, although only in some countries and some areas.

There's an old saying: If you are not a Communist when you are 18, there's something wrong with your heart; if you are still one at 48, there's more wrong with your head.

I'm not a communist, but this is a maxim that was formed during the politically stable twentieth century and among the sheltered middle and upper classes - a period of time during which things in developed countries were generally getting better, and when people tended to have long term careers and become better off as they aged, and generally have better quality of life than their parents and grandparents. It's not that world now, we're going in the opposite direction, and there are all kinds of circumstances such as redundancy, having a disabled child or long term illness where people find they are now not as well provided for as they once assumed they would be. Someone who loses their job and ends up on benefits at 48 now wouldn't proportionally have as much to live on, and would have stricter conditions, compared with the 1980s.

I've become more left-leaning with age, particularly since the financial crash.

Yanbu.
My younger sister is 17, living alone, not in education or employment, not entitled to benefits and nothing in the area in the way of services to help her. I'm currently financing her so she can survive. She wants to work and was dropped by her last employer the day after they offered her the job, prior to her going in.
She cannot find another.
When did it become so that shop workers, retail workers, waitressing etc was a job that was fought over by over 100 applicants?
I feel awful for my sister, and for the rest of the British youngsters.
It's a crying shame.

More tax cuts coming for the better off.

Autumn Statement 2016: Financial upheaval ahead for families

The personal allowance for Income Tax is currently set at £11,000, will go up to £11,500 in April 2017 and £12,500 by 2020-21.

It's being presented, of course, as benefitting the poor. And it WILL benefit someone earning £15K.

But it will also benefit someone with an income of £100K (from work or investments) , while having no impact on someone earning £10K or unable to work. JobSeeker's Allowance and Income Support have been frozen and disability cuts are still working through (porting from DLA to PIP still in process).

Definite plans to slash Inheritance Tax, too: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36014533.

Pausing, nobody who is working full time will be earning as little as 10k (FT is between 13-14k) so I don't think this increase in a tax free allowance is something to complain about! Anyone earning 10k because they're working part-time won't be paying tax.

And it's an income tax allowance, so of course it won't benefit those who don't work.

Oc the UN have just concluded that the UK is first country to violate the convention on the rights of people with disabilities. In part this was due to unfair benefits cuts/bedroom tax, but also to how negatively people with disabilities are portrayed within media as lazy and scoroungers without the government intervening (as they would be forced to if any other protected group was being demonised publicly).

KickAss that's an interesting point about part time. On here particularly, people often look at Scandinavia as a example of utopian family life, yet it is, IME, the norm to work FT there. My impression from friends and family there is that being a SAHM isn't really a thing, and certainly not desirable. Yes they have subsidised childcare but in the UK we can't have it all: subsidised childcare, part time working and the option not to work at all if we want, and still demand the ability to purchase a house and so on.

People working part-time because of caring commitments, be it for old, young or disabled.
People on zero-hours contracts, not by choice.
People insecurely employed with gaps, again not by choice.
People forcibly "self-employed".
People unable to work because of disability/illness.

These are people unlikely to benefit from the tax cuts, and likely to be harmed by cuts to Income Support etc.

And by the way, you really don't have to work to benefit from the Income Tax allowance.

I know this very well, as people in my own family don't work but have substantial income from property ownership or shares (acquired by inheritance, divorce and the property bubble). The doubling of the Income Tax personal allowance from approx £6 K a decade ago has been very nice for them.

Hopefully, in time, we will move to a full time working economy once again, not reliant on top ups.
Sure, with protection for those genuinely unable to do so.
There is the work out there, 300,000 net migration shows us that. The jobs do exist, the end of unskilled immigration should enable stable, full time employment.

If we want zero-hours contracts and a "gig" economy, for the benefit of employers, then we have to accept a lot of the population will be working in this economy.

I don't think it's clever, in the long run, to take the line "Oh, they're only part-time or underemployed - who cares about THEM?

These are people. They're also voters. Trying to sweep them under the carpet isn't an answer.

Migration goes both ways user, and brings more to our economy than it takes

Brasty - but in the past they would have been able to take their children with them (indeed the kids probably worked too!)- I was very fortunate to grow up on a farm in rural Australia with both parents around all the time- yes they worked hard but they were always there for us.

I feel there is more ambition today, but less success for those not 'well-off' no matter how hard they work. I feel this way because of a few things, but mainly watching my friends passed over for decent positions that they are qualified for, in favour of other people I know who actually have less qualifications but could afford 'better schools'.

I am from a working class family. I had ambition but failed. I am not ashamed to admit that. There were many reasons things did not work out for me, including a kind of defeatist attitude come the end. What eventually did it though was my health declining, which can't be helped. My brother though, he is 10 years younger than me and looks well set to become a doctor. His grades are fantastic. He works so hard and really wants this and has said it ever since he was a little child...when all of his friends were wanting to be pop stars and astronauts, he always wanted to be a doctor. He has around 2 years of uni left before he has the qualifications to start trying to enter the workplace. I hope to god he isn't held back by the fact that my parents aren't rich and connected, or that he went to public schools and such. It would kill him.

Migration goes both ways user, and brings more to our economy than it takes

But losing a proportion of young and talented people hardly helps the economies that they have come from. It adds to a Europe with stark rich/ poor nations. But hey as long as we're OK and large corporates have cheap labour who cares if the elderly of Poland have no working population to support them?

Trying to solve everything through movement of labour is not sustainable.

This article sums up why we are in this state:

www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

The middle-class is shrinking and the poor and working classes have been let down by both the left and the right (remember Tony Blair introducing tuition fees, privatising the Post Office? Continued the Conservative agenda of selling off the state). Add to that huge and noticeable numbers of immigrants from much poorer nations who are willing to do those horrible zero-hours type 'jobs' and often live 4 or 6 to a bedroom or living room, and it is a recipe for social disaster as they get blamed too. Neo-liberalism only serves the owners of big business as they benefit from cheap labour. The same owners who avoid tax through offshoring their earnings - no wonder the NHS, schools and transport are under pressure from both ends.

The only solution is to move away from taxing earned income (low & middle earners) toward taxing unearned income: the 1% etc who don't have salaries and therefore don't pay much income tax or are very clever at 'offshoring their earnings', but who own most of the land, control natural resources like gas and oil and why the hell electricity water is in private hands I don't know.

Public services need to be run for the public and not a penny of turnover should be turned over to their private owners and shareholders.

How many people rubbed their hands together with glee though when the railways, the gas, the electricity etc was privatised. I remember it happening and my grandparents being disgusted but my parents who had shares went to Barbados with their nice cheque. Chickens are coming home to rooster, but luckily they don't give a fuck and can't see how their children's finances have anything to do with them so sleep soundly like most baby boomers.

You can't post a Guardian and present it as fact. The Guardian is my paper of choice, but it is still the Guardian!

*A Guardian article