To think raising a child was much easier for previous generations?

[wondering7777]

For my parents and certainly my grandparents’ generation, bringing up children must have been so much easier.

Mortgages were a hell of a lot cheaper for starters, but now the average home costs something like ten times the average salary. As a result, in most cases both parents have to go out to work whether they want to or not, and pay extortionate childcare costs to keep a roof over their heads. In the “old days” mothers were far more likely to be able to take time off work and the family could pay the mortgage on one salary.

In addition, my grandparents’ generation were much more likely to have family living nearby and a more close-knit community to help raise the child.

Judging from what I read on Mumsnet, there’s also a lot of competitive parenting these days, and a lot of parents feel they have to put their child at the centre of their universe, which causes stress. Children from my grandparents’ era were left to their own devices and would play out for hours.

There was no technology then so no angst about children accessing the internet and the reams of inappropriate content that is readily available at the click of a button.

Uni was free so parents didn’t have to save up to send those kids who did go, and jobs were far more readily available when children left school.

Also, the cartoons were better

AIBU?

I've had a much different life. I worked for 20 years before giving up to be a SAHM and have never had any financial worries. My sister has had the same experience as me and is also now a SAHM with a very comfortable life.

Presumably you have both (been lucky enough to?) marry high earners for this to happen?

Most people I know need two incomes to pay the mortgage.

@Ijustwanttoretire you've quoted my post about what things were like in the 1970's. yes I know most people's life was like that in the '70's. that was my point - what was considered a normal way of life in the '70's would be considered to be a life of poverty by today's standards.

My parents generation had it easier I suppose in that their house went up in value massively and they were able to remortgage to pay for school fees and that isn’t an option that we will ever have (unless there’s a busy followed by a massive boom). Their parents had a horrible time of it though. They were raising my parents in the USSR. You couldn’t buy anything unless you knew someone, you couldn’t leave the country even for a holiday unless you knew someone, the KGB was constantly breathing down their necks. It was horrible. I couldn’t imagine raising children under those circumstances.

I don't think it's true that only posh people went to university in the 1980s and early 90s. Less people went for sure and less from working class families, but it was only those that achieved highly academically that went. And in those days an A at A-level was a real achievement and A star wasn't even invented.

My cousin went in 1979/80 and she was from a single parent family with a widowed mother and lived on a council estate. I went in 1990 and was the first in family to do so- my mother was a cleaner and my father an engineer who both left school at 14 without any qualifications. They are working class through and through but I achieved well at school, Mum and dad spent their money wisely, and I got a full grant which in those days was just about enough to live on if you were very careful. Of course my parents supported me in the holidays but I also worked.

All generations have their bonuses, all generations have their challenges.

Whether or not you think previous generations had it better over all depends a lot on the experiences you have heard about and what kind of life you personally prefer.

My grandma rasied 2 children on my grandad's teacher wage, they bought nice (not luxurious) houses and never really had to worry too much about money but never wasted it. She volunteered with the brownies/guides and was able to call on any of them to babysit when she needed to. She loved it. My grandad was kind and gentle, responsible and handy about the house. They took regular holidays with a large group of very close friends and she has many happy memories. Later she volunteered with the National Trust and loved it. She enjoyed sewing and making her own curtains and things. Now she still gets my grandad's pension and lives with my dad+wife in a massive house, safe and loved. In short, she has led a happy and blessed life.

My gran, on the other hand, raised 7 children in near poverty with husband she probably felt trapped with and was next to useless in the home. He was a jack-the-lad and liked pub culture and I suspect there was little love lost between them. She was smart and clever and would have much preferred an education and a career but that option did not seem open to her. She lived a life frustrated by her circumstances and though she loved her children, would not have chosen to have them and resented being stuck at home with them, always worrying about money. She buried two children before she died - one a few days old and the other about 50 years old.

Saying what you earned in the year dot is irrelevant. It's all relative!

The reason we have student loans now is because so many more people go into higher education. The old system was deemed unaffordable.

Back in the late 70s the LEA paid the tuition fees. Most students didn't even know there were any fees. The LEA also paid out a maintenance grant. That was means tested against parental income if the student was under 23. The full grant was enough to live on because universities weren't trying to turn a profit on their accommodation back then. Most parents whose child got less than a full grant made it up to the full amount. Mine did, anyway. It wasn't a huge sum.

As others have said, you could claim benefits in the long summer vacations if you couldn't or even just didn't get a job.

Perfectly possible then to graduate with no debt and go straight into a well-paid, secure job. Because graduates were so few in number, graduate jobs genuinely did need graduate-level skills and knowledge.

Another world.

A higher percentage (30%) of wages was used just for food.
Depending on which decade, food was also boring. We needed immigrants to bring more variety such as Italian, Chinese and Indian food.

There were higher rates of teen pregnancies in the past. Kids these days are more motivated to do well at school. They are less likely to smoke and drink now.

They are less likely to smoke and drink now

But more likely to self harm and have mental health issues.

Judging from what I read on Mumsnet, there’s also a lot of competitive parenting these days, and a lot of parents feel they have to put their child at the centre of their universe, which causes stress.

I think that this is the real reason why it must be perceived to have been easier for previous generations, so many of the threads on here are self-created, they're not real problems. What is the 'etiqiette' for a 1st birthday party? If people are getting uptight about such unimportant things it's hardly surprising they find it hard.
Ditch the books of 'advice', ie someone else's opinions, people have brought up children for thousands of years without books, go with your instincts.

But more likely to self harm and have mental health issues.

I don't know whether that is the case or whether we are just much more aware of it now. There are plenty of ways to self-harm.

I sort of get what the op means. Life is so fast paced these days, kids being ferried to school, to childcare, to clubs etc. Their lives are so busy and they certainly have less free time than I had as a child.

I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the days of sky high interest rates or a world with no gadgets to make life easier. But do our gadgets save us any time to enjoy? Or have we filled the time we saved on doing yet another chore?

The more things we have, the more things need to be looked after. The week days are full of work, running kids about, etc

Come the weekend it's a long list of other stuff which needs done and taking kids to more activities and arranging playdates.

There is something to be said for simplifying life. I hate that certain sections of society look down on families where only one person works and the other stays home. It doesn't work for everyone obviously but its sad that women are no longer given the option for staying home due to the fact that everyone has to work just to survive.

@fedup21 in answer to your question it's yes and no. When I married my husband we were both earning very average incomes. We both saved hard and were lucky to buy a property before things went crazy. Then it took us 10 years to have kids. By the time they did arrive and I gave up work I was able to pay off my half of the mortgage with my savings and investments which is what made it possible to be a SAHM. Husband has continued moving up in his career since I gave up work and now earns about three times what he was when I left work 13 years ago but we'd have still been comfortable even if he hadn't moved up the salary scales. My sister's situation and experience is similar - we both became parents later than we planned to and bought property early in life.

For my parents, getting into grammar schools and staying on at school to 16 and getting a few O-levels was a big deal. Their parents left at 14. Both were bright enough to go to university and it wouldn't have cost anything but they weren't encouraged to- I guess to their parents it seemed excessive and would mean years of lost earning potential.

When I just started primary school a teacher told them I was university material so it put that seed in their brains straight away! My dad wouldn't have pushed me to go though even so and would have probably been happier with me getting a Proper Job at 18. I didn't think about it much myself but was with a cohort of friends for whom A-Levels and university were the norm so I just copied them really.

It was certainly easier to buy a house.

Just everything else that was expensive - relative to wages.

We had very little "stuff" - as seen by the minimal storage in 60's/70s houses. When I left home I had all my personal belongings and clothes - every single thing I owned - in a suitcase.

If by 'easier' you mean lower standards then yanbu.

Some standards were categorically lower, sure. Some advice was wrong or insufficient.

But some things that were normal in the past that have now to a certain extent been lost for the sake of "higher standards" are actually better for children.

The two that spring to mind are free play vs constant activities and entertainment (child led time playing out is good for developing cognitive function, resilience, independence, imagination etc) and anti-bac fucking everything messing up our immune resistance and creating superbugs.

Providing kids with lots of stuff and directed time and an excessively clean environment might be hallmarks of higher standards, but they're not actually better.

I regularly think that on balance I've been so much luckier than my mum (me=40, her=75) I think it must grate to see us have it much easier than she ever did. Apart from pensions, she's living nicely on hers.

Seeing how difficult it is now though, she agrees she can't complain as my dad was a lorry driver when I was born and she was a typist. A couple with those professions now would not even be able to get a mortgage for a one bed flat on their combined salary in the area my parents live, let alone the three bed family home they bought.

Interesting post. I think that property prices are a massive factor in all of this.

No, I wouldn't say it was easier "back then". The challenges were just different. And the standard of living was worse - I wouldn't swap.

And we both work full time, pay extortionate mortgage and childcare costs and other things you describe in your OP. But we have disposable income, share the parenting etc., and can afford everything we need.

My mum and grandmother were SAHMs, the men didn't lift a finger at home, and money was much tighter. It was very tough for them too.

I think it's important to identify the decade. I was born in the early 60s where my mum had servants! 😊 (abroad).

When we returned to the UK, mum only ever did 'pin money' jobs. She felt no desire to do more. Dad's 9-5 middle management electronic engineering job paid the mortgage. We were lower middle class, I'd say. Grammar school.

But they bought a house in rural Wiltshire in 1968 for £4500. And paid off, by which time, at 58, my dad engineered his own redundancy and pay out of £70,000 in 1990. Which they invested at 17%. (We sold it 4 years ago for £450,000...).

Neither went to uni, but neither needed to. My non academic DB got a bakery apprenticeship despite no CSE in Eng or Maths. Straight in. I went to HCP college as minimal cost to my parents in 1979.

Expectations were lower. We bathed every other day. Wash day was once a week. Mum got her hair done twice a week. Bakers, butchers and greengrocers delivered, in a van. There was no need to trog into school at least 4 times per term.

Most of my parents friends appeared perfectly happy with these arrangements. But parents weren't judged by their DC's failure to ace A levels.

but property prices were in line with income and it was never easy from my grandparents in the 30's (huge recession) to the 50's my parents first home was a struggle, three years after my youngest was born before we could afford our own home (huge recession in the 80's).
although property values have gone up so have wages and life expectancy.
i think it has more to do with expectations. my parents first apt was minuscule, single sink, toilet shower combined, 4 electric outlets in the whole place. minimal furniture, minimal kitchen appliances. clothing and all things were repaired. i have a refrigerator bigger than the closets they had.

although property values have gone up so have wages

But the rise in property prices has far outstripped the rise in wages

From a report in the Express...

“The average home in England and Wales costs a UK worker just under eight times their salary, a report has revealed. This is almost twice as expensive as it was in 1997 to buy a home.

“House prices have increased at a faster rate than wages in the past 20 years, data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has revealed.

“The figures showed house prices have shot up in the past couple of decades, almost doubling in cost.

“In 1997, the average UK home cost 3.55 median earnings – while now this figure has more than doubled.”

Property prices were at an all time low in the 1990s. Previous to this in the 50s 60s 70s and 80s prices had been fairly high and working class families didn’t own property as a rule. Council houses were common or small terraces were rented. Those that did but their property bought terraced houses and multiple children shared their bedrooms. It was only in the 70s and 80s that families started buying property and ownership became more the norm and desirable for working classes.

jasjas1973 - what a nasty comment.

It may interest some of you to know that in the 60s/early 70s child benefit was not paid for the first child, so my mother never got any extra money for having me!

I was born in the 60s. We didn't have a washing machine or fridge for years,

I was born in '48, I missed the NHS by 2 months and my mother, jokingly, never let it drop! I don't recall ever not having some sort of washing machine, the first had an integral mangle, then a twin tub with a spin-drier then autmatics, we also had a fridge, first in the avenue and a TV in '53, a lot bought one for the coronation.