AIBU to say that some people just cannot work full time or even at all?

[thebeesknees123]

This does seem to be an age old discussion among parents, particularly among women with young children.

I can think of various reasons why people can't work:

Just had a baby and breastfeeding
Mental or physical health conditions
Caring responsibilities - e.g. elderly relative
The money does not cover childcare/commute expenses

Personally, I do work (30 hours per week) but I am lucky in that it is shifts around the school so I don't have childcare costs. I would never slate someone who couldn't find something suitable for their needs or pressure them to take something that is going to cause them undue stress because they are put in a position where they are forced to be unreliable, which, frankly, I would be if I were forced to work 9 to 5.

I can't work at all anymore. Between chronic illness that fluctuates and an ASD ds I'm unemployable. No one would touch me with a barge pole because I could never predict when I could actually go in.

I feel like a second class citizen these days with looks from neighbours or that awful question when a doctor/nurse/anaesthetist you've never met before asks 'that' question, "so what do you do for a living?"

I'd probably benefit mentally from an understanding, flexible employer taking me on but it's not going to happen any time soon.

I think what annoys me is when single mums get slated for not working whilst martked mums are lauded for being good mums if they give up work.
I know lots of very hard working single mums who would rathet be at home with the kids but can't.

Those who find work which fits around their commitments should do so and those who have "other reasons" should #livetheirbestlife with money syphoned off from the privileged (working) elite to subsidise them. It's the only equitable way.

But lots of CEOs are completely fucking incompetent. They preside over disastrous marketing campaigns, allow dangerous faulty goods to be widely sold, fuck up the staff pension funds etc. Sometimes they are prosecuted, mostly they are just paid off.
Yes, some wealthy people have worked very hard to get where they are and fair play to them. But many simply got born into wealthy, well-connected families.

I'm not arguing for everyone living on the bare minimum in order to be 'equal', not by a long way. But the current economic situation is an absolute disaster and radical change is needed. The quickest fix for the economy is actually very simple give poor people money, unconditionally. Yes, take some from the super-rich and redistribute it. It's necessary.

You have completely misunderstood the way distribution of value works. It isn't that a chairman (or lady chairman - wouldn't want to be sexist) works 1,000 times harder, it's that their skills are 1,000 times more valuable. It's lack of skills, education and expertise which mean the board members earn so much more than those at the bottom of the chain. The CFO could likely work on the shop floor but the same reversal would be catastrophic.

You've missed out something important here, which is that there is a system of barriers to Joe or Jane Bloggs from the street acquiring those rare, expensive skills. Those barriers involve education (only considering Law or PPE at Oxbridge/public schools), social class (internships and pocket money jobs in the right places through Daddy's work) and a host of formal and informal requirements regarding participation and knowledge, most of which are barely relevant to the actual job being done. My contention is that the inflated salaries commanded by these people are not down to how few people are capable of doing those jobs, but to how few people they will actually allow in. Obviously I'm not saying that a factory worker could go straight in and run ICI, but I find it hard to believe that ex-PMs and ministers are really worth the ££££ they earn in non-executive directorships, speaker's fees etc.

Childcare costs should be treated as any other joint bill

For example:
DH earns £30k and I earn £15k
Childcare costs £10k

We pay half each: he has £25k left and I have £10k left. Together we have £35k left, which is £5k more than we’d have if I was a SAHM

I pay it all: he has £30k left and I have £5k left. Together we have £35k left, which is £5k more than we’d have if I was a SAHM

What is it that people don’t understand about this?! It’s utterly irrelevant whether you treat it as a shared bill or not.

My pay only covered childcare costs when dc were little and I was a trainee... So effectively I worked for nothing and according to cosmic comet I wouldn't do this..unless I loved my job more than my dc.
Well I did love my job, and i recognised that there is so much more to working than just the pay.
I did it cus, I loved what I do, I worked hard to get to that position, I needed to use my brain outside of playgroup and nappies, I had been trained at great expense to the state and society needs doctors to stay in the profession, I like talking to adults more than talking to young children...

My pay only covered childcare costs when dc were little and I was a trainee... So effectively I worked for nothing and according to cosmic comet I wouldn't do this..unless I loved my job more than my dc.

No, of course you don't love your job more than your dc in this situation.
But as it's not for financial gain, you don't need to work, it's a personal choice to work rather than spend this time with your dc.
It's not done out of necessity and some people would rather be with their dc than work and have somebody else raising them, whilst they work.

@theredjellybean but you were working for future money. So not for nothing. If you had no prospect of a higher future salary resulting from your time spent working for nothing, I doubt you’d have made the same decision.

Oh yes... I get that. And have sympathy for people who feel stuck like that. But the original point of the thread was asking or stating no one would work if they didn't have too.
I didn't have to but chose too and when dc little I did not have access to independent funds like I did when they where older so I did not have luxurious lifestyle.
I am sure I would have worked even if I had had that money then

Not stating no one would workif they didn't have to (although could be tempted). Just that, for some, their circumstances are too difficult to hold down a permanent job - esp in the rigid 9 to 5 structure

Sizzledrizz I'm in a similar position, but have 2 autistics (plus 2 other kids). Eldest will never leave home due to his autism and chromosome problem. 2sd autistic will need support to live independently. Now husband has got several health problems including one that is life limiting. I wish people would understand there's a lot of people, who wish to work, but without understanding employers, a family that can help or is able to help, have a family at all or child care that caters for disabled kids, it's nearly or is impossible.

I was in a very fortunate position after thhaving children where I landed a job which involved mainly sitting on my bum at home waiting for the phone to ring, drafting a few letters each day and travel maybe 1-2 days a week. I was paid quite well, so I was actually 'underworked and overpaid'. Some days I may only have worked 2 hours.

It was great at first, but there were some downsides. I had a nasty, sly, backstabbing boss. I was wanting career development and exposure to more interesting work as I got very bored, but I was constantly denied this. The last straw came when my boss went on mat leave and told me I'd be able to go for her job as a development opportunity/secondment. When it actually came down to hiring someone she made it clear through her actions that I had no chance, and got an interim in externally.

So I left. Do I regret it? I don't know yet, I'm yet to find the right job but I basically turned down a well paid job working 2 hours per day from home for a full wage....so I don't think we do just work for the money. Its nice at first to be sat around all day doing nowt but it gets boring real quick. I do sometimes question if I should have just stuck with it though.

I think most people can do some form of work for most of their lives, but there are times this may be difficult. There are some for whom work is just not possible, often because of severe mental health problems and then there are some who feel it’s their right not to work and to rely on subsidies from the state.
I do think children are of benefit to society and mothers who chose to should be supported to be at home with them financially whilst they are very young.

Havent read the whole thread so apologies if points already made.

There are obviously people who cannot work - people with a disability for example however I don't think not working and receiving benefits as if you are working should be a lifestyle choice.

I am very surprised that women are still saying that the cost of childcare makes it not worth returning to work. A shift in attitudes is needed here, the cost of childcare is spllit between 2 earners normally, the long term benefits of working far outweigh giving up work and more women need to start to expect more of their partners re childcare, taking time off work etc.

Of course some people are too ill to work, otherwise incapacitated or single parents with no childcare. But I also think there are some people who like to make minor health complaints their entire identity as an excuse not to work when really they could. If you’re choosing not to work for no compelling reason, you should fund it yourself. If everyone took that attitude, how do you think public services would be funded? A work ethic is a valuable thing, whether you work in a pub or as a CEO. It’s about so much more than money - independence, contribution to society, social stimulation. I personally see work as an obligation for everyone if they’re fit and able, I’d struggle to maintain friendships with people who didn’t work ‘just because’

Automation will in time of course completely change the complexion of this conversation. For the moment we need people to work and incentives, as always, matter.

the original point of the thread was asking or stating no one would work if they didn't have too

On the contrary, if I had money the first thing I’d do would be to hire a nanny while I retrain and get a job or start a business. But I don’t have money for childcare, or for retraining. And the job I could get with my current training wouldn’t cover the cost of childcare or provide future prospects for a higher salary. So basically I’m trapped and there’s no point working, because I’d receive no current or future financial benefit from doing so.

It's all about personal choice. Personally I couldn't stand to give up my job but I'm lucky that I'm able to work full time at home. I studied for five years for my career and qualifications and I find my work mentally stimulating and exciting. I probably wouldn't feel the same if I had a job I didn't enjoy.

I cannot work full time currently. My reason is mainly down to the fact I live semi rural and don't drive but public transport available to me is pretty poor.
For me to find a job that can offer me full time hours I would have to get the bus to and from work, however the times of the buses means that I'd end up being late for work each morning and I'd also end up being late to pick DS up from nursery each evening.
My current place of work could offer me full time hours if I was able to work evenings and every weekend, however as a single parent that's just not possible.

I am hoping to be able to save enough to do driving lessons and maybe even purchase a cheap run around car within the next 12-18 months though, and then I can finally go back to working full time 🤞

All those people who think they don’t have to work/not worth working to just pay childcare etc. Who do you think is paying for your children to be educated, your NHS cover, cover you in old age?

Divorce rate is what 50% and non married partnerships are higher. Do you really think your current partner will support you if you break up or is it the good old state?

the cost of childcare is spllit between 2 earners
It’s irrelevant who pays. The amount of joint income left over is still the same.

the long term benefits of working far outweigh giving up work
Not for everyone. Only if you’re well paid or have the future prospect of being better paid. Wow, some posters really are so privileged that they can’t conceive of people having jobs that don’t have better future prospects.

more women need to start to expect more of their partners re childcare, taking time off work
If my DH asked for time off for childcare he wouldn’t have a job any more! He isn’t even allowed to take a two week holiday, his maximum is one week because he’s too important to be absent for two weeks. If you want to climb the career ladder you have to work late and give 110%, you can’t have time off for childcare. This is why women aren’t promoted as frequently as men. In a couple only one of you can dedicate themself to career progression and it’s usually the man.

I have fibro, ME and a few other bits. I recently went back to working 20 hours a week.

My health has got worse. I am exhausted, sleeping most of the time I'm at home. I'm in more pain and the fog is terrible. The only upside is more money but as it's minimum wage it's not much and it's just enough that I now have to pay council tax, prescriptions (I'm on a pre pay card), dentist etc. I cannot quit, despite what advisors say about seeing how it goes, as I passed my work capability assessment as fit to work so I would be penalised and probably homeless. Even now I have to live with family as I cannot afford to live alone.

This isn't a life. This is an existence that I'm sleeping through.

Full time and I would collapse and end up homeless.

cosmic

Never a truer word. People think it's inequality, it isn't.
If you want the promotions at work and have a career ladder to climb you can't do this taking time off for ill children and childcare issues.
Women with a sahh or a dh in a lesser role than themselves, manage it fine, as they have someone at home to pick up the slack.

The thing is, the proportion of people who think that they "can't" work is so much higher in the UK then in most other countries - the benefits system has bred a shocking level of entitlement to help from the government.

I live in a European country with next to no benefits system - are there thousands of people starving in the streets? No. Everyone works.

Working is HARD. It's hard for everyone. It's harder for some people than others, and in a lot of cases that's just life.

Of course there must be a provision for those who genuinely cannot help themselves - but judging who can and who can't help themselves is a highly subjective matter.