Am I the only one who hates when unemployed people moan that weekend is over

[Sunflowerhappy]

It's just annoying and frustrating.
I work full time and my weekend goes in a flash. Monday mornings are a mad dash between getting ready and doing breakfast club drop off. Finish work and then another mad dash to the school then dds clubs, cooking and tidy up then the bedtime routine it's hard...
Then you get the unemployed who sit and moan about the weekend been over, moaning about the school run or moaning they have so much to do and I think we'll at least you can drop kids off at school at normal time, put on your slouchies to drop off so takes minimal effort, come back and get a cuppa before you do housework etc.

If I get a day off during the week I do the above and it's bloody bliss.
I know I should just ignore and let them get on with it and I know it's none of my business but it's still frustrating all the same.

No arguments over who does and who doesn't have a right to enjoy the weekend more than weekdays....everyone's personal circumstances are different. But since issues like this have been raised;

If someone's husband is wealthy enough and happy for their wife not to work, whose business is it and why is it acceptable for people to have a go at them just because they have money?

I have to ask why we as a society don't consider people who are voluntarily unemployed (including SAHP) more of a social issue. People in this situation are not paying income tax, national insurance and so on, yet are still using public structures and services, schools, the NHS etc. With the exception of council tax, the household containing one earner and one voluntarily unemployed person pays no more tax (and sometimes no more NI), than if the earner in the household were single. So the non-earner has possibly been supported by the background of the welfare state since birth, educated through school and (esp in pre-loan days), uni, yet is not contributing financially back into the social pot, often for a decade or more.

I understand when people are ill, have caring responsibilities for the elderly or DC or relatives with chronic illness, SEN etc. But if society thinks it is so important to get single parents back to work once their youngest child is five, why do we not require everyone in that situation to work? You might be living with, or married to someone, who is able to pay your everyday personal living expenses but they are not covering your social costs.

I get that some people do voluntary work and appreciate that, but the opportunity to do that is still partly subsidised by the wider working population, including those working parents who have been sneered at on this thread as 'part-time parents'. Just my thought, but I can't see the logic behind this continuing to be socially acceptable.

Nothing personal against any SAHP and their circumstances, or how much anyone enjoys the weekend, just seem to be dual standards at play in social and economic terms.

Definitely need to re-evaluate your life choices.
Following PND, I developed more depression and anxiety that was linked to a stressful job.
I’ve now stopped working for a while to be a SAHM...we will just about get by money wise...but that not important.
I love the weekends as we are all together, but equally love the week as DH is at work, DD1 is at school and DD2 and I mince around having fun! Yes, doing all the housework/life admin is a ballache and difficult to do with small person around but I’m far happier, so in turn we all are.
If you are so sad, bitter and angry, things need to change

Cannot believe the ignorance of that post..it’s colder indeed. I mean really? You want to talk about social contribution? Where shall I start? Apart from the fact that prior to my ‘career break’, which was not just based on dh being a top rate taxpayer and therefore supposedly able to carry the financial can...(there were rather more pressing family issues that shaped that decision in the end, but that’s nobody else’s business but ours) I was also paying top rate taxes and NI for many years. We do not use state schools, and we have private healthcare. We have our bins collected for a princely sum of council tax dues, and yes I have also volunteered for years in a professional capacity, and helped with various charities in the area, because well you know...I’ve got nothing else to do but sit on my pretty well funded arse. In fact I’m not even sure the ignorance of that loony post deserves a reply..so I don’t know why I’m bothering..
Yes let’s open up the worm can on social contribution everybody...see where that all ends

I don't see it as ignorance Mum2Two, I am just questioning the logic of why we treat the two social groups differently. It is impossible (and shouldn't be necessary...hence no worm can), to calculate the cost and value of who uses private education and healthcare etc and who doesn't. Also how well or otherwise your career was paid before you stopped work or how much voluntary work you do. We have one group in society who aren't requIred to contribute to societal costs if they are not earning (except 25% council tax) and another who are required to work - better family income and less claim on benefits as the main reason, but the other often quoted is they can then pay tax and NI and contribute to the economy and social costs.....so a double economic benefit to society in getting LP's back into work. I just always wonder why people who are not working and not claiming benefits get a free pass to the social costs bit. There is HRP to protect their state pension but this is linked to child benefit and so covers their contribution until youngest DC is 18/19. Yet LP's are encouraged back to work when their youngest DC is 5, partly so they can 'pay their way'. It is a question for another day I guess but always seems an ilIogical situation and I raised it in response to some of the comments earlier on this thread. Everyone has the right to enjoy the weekend!

You realise there aren’t enough jobs to go round, right?

But it's not the same at all. There is a household income that my DH earns, and I have my own money (inheritance). LPs need to earn a salary because they don't have a partner who is earning, though sometimes the NRP makes a contribution. My DH's salary pays for our DDs. If LPs don't work then public money is supporting their DC.

I also did earn a salary in the past and I have my own money (inheritance). Our DDs are adopted, one of them with SEN and both with attachment issues, so it makes sense for me to stay at home.

I don’t have. A job, don’t need a job. My DH pays enough tax for two by virtue of the fact he earns enough money for two and only has one tax allowance.

I don't work but I do have a chronic illness that will never get better and my son is ASD so I have frequent school meetings. So I can understand unemployed people being sad the weekend is over.

@Its olderoutside your post is quite offensive. My husband is a higher rate tax payer, we have private medical insurance and also pay a fortune in CT. And as others have said, they're is t enough jobs for everybody to work, you need some people economically inactive that aren't claiming any benefits, this allows jobs for those that would otherwise have to claim benefits instead. Not that there's anything wrong with being on benefits but I know most would chose work instead.

I’m not entirely sure of your reasoning here itscolder...I get what you are trying to say, but when you say that a person who is not working, ie a SAHM, is getting a free pass to societal costs, I really can’t agree! If we were to tot up our past contributions, and start netting them off against the public services we do or don’t use, I would say that many high earners, and particular those who use private schools and private healthcare, are net contributors overall. That’s the worm can I’m referring to, it would get rather messy if we were to start talking about our societal contribution at any level, let alone in terms of whether mothers stay at home or not.
As for LP, if they didn’t work, who would support them? The state presumably, so I can’t see any logic there in that sense.
As a family, we have contributed massively to the pot over the years, and still do. Getting what we’ve paid for would be very welcome on our part. Our at least opting out of the services we don’t actually use...or better, paying at source if we ever do...but that’s definitely a conversation for some other time!

Have you considered the fact that an unemployed person from Monday to Friday has the soul destroying reality of watching people go to work, and feeling left out and worthless. The weekend is the the time when they are not being judged by everyone and that they can be productive like everyone else. Mondays to Fridays are days that remind them that they are not working. In this day and age looking for a new job is a job in itself, the number of CVs, meetings letters and telephone calls just to get an employer to look at your application is immense. I have friends who have been made redundant from high paying professional jobs in finance and have struggled and are still struggling.

Now I agree that there are members of society who are just too lazy to look for a new job, but the vast majority of those unemployed are not and are desperate to get back into work.

I've been there myself and I'm a professional and struggled for almost 2 years to get a new job even with my degree and professional quals and experience. As some have said you need to walk a mile in their shoes.