To think it's a bit sad that both people nowadays need to work to afford a household?

[Lowef]

I know this isn't a popular opinion on MN but was thinking how rubbish it is that today mostly both parents need to be working to be able to afford the basics of food, clothing, rent. mortgage etc for the family without being on the breadline.

I have really fond memories of playing with my mum in the garden planting pots, watching her cook whilst i sat on the worktop. She'd collect us from school everyday and on fridays she'd have baked some warm muffins, sweet buns which were still warm and fresh from the oven. She'd give some to my friends too. She taught me so many things like sewing, cooking, gardening (she was very green fingered), growing veg. She spent alot of time with us kids and i look back at those days really fondly.

In comparison I am nothing like this with my children - I just don't seem to have the time and energy for the things she did. I can't bake cupcakes in time for the kids school pick up as they're in the after school club. Dinner is a quick whisk up whatever I have in the freezer / fridge , I'm too frazzled and tired for spending lots of time with the kids. DH is the same.

In an an ideal world i would love to be a SAHM and have more energy and time for my family and myself too instead of just rushing through life. The years are going by so fast and most of my energy and life is taken up by work. The children are growing up so quickly.

Not sure if anyone else feels the same too or if ill get an MN roasting!

Totally agree. It awful that they can’t pay decent wages to people so that one member can afford to stay home to look after kids until old enough to fend for themselves. I’ve always thought this. I know it creates problems if one parent is SAH with money / rights legalities etc. If we think about furlough - they were willing to pay at least £2000 per month to people so that they could try to survive during pandemic. HOWEVER, minimum wage is nowhere near this. So the govt know we need more than we get but allow massive private companies and corporations to under or short pay staff??..... plus it would free up some much needed jobs for our next generation as well. Maybe they won’t have to stay with mum and dad until they’re 42. It’s really a sad state of affairs. There’s nothing wrong with either parent wanting to be SAH.

Freddyfuzzbear what has breastfeeding got to do with being a SAHP? I'm breastfeeding my toddler and I work full time. I'm not seeing the relevance.

@dotdashdashdash

Freddyfuzzbear what has breastfeeding got to do with being a SAHP? I'm breastfeeding my toddler and I work full time. I'm not seeing the relevance.

Yep. Went back full time when child was 13 months. Stopped breastfeeding when she was 4.5 years 🤣

@Pumperthepumper Things are definitely different now, read the articles I posted earlier in the thread. House prices have massively outstripped wages and the only reason your parents didn’t go for foreign holidays/mobiles/tech/new cars is because they didn’t have the same options we do in 2021

No the reason my parents didn't go on foreign holidays or have new cars etc is because they could not have afforded them.

We only had a couple of very cheap UK holidays and, as I said before, my parents went without food to feed me and my 2 siblings. That was with both parents working.

I stopped working when I had my first child. What a struggle it was! We never went on continental holidays. We would spend the summer holidays at a local beach 20 mins drive away. Picnics etc in the local park. Building camps, making plaster cast models, making awful smelling perfume from rose petals etc. Some of our friends worked and had a better 'financial lifestyle' than ours But no one but me looked after my kids, no one collected then from school but me. My kids didn't have Nike trainers etc but they had their mum 24/7. And Dad when he got in from work. I loved the school holidays (why would you grumble that you hate the holidays - shouldn't have had the kids in the first place if you didn't ant to enjoy them) and any time I could spend with my three kids. I didn't have the best designer clothes but I had thee lovely kids. We need to get away from this 'we took the kids to Disney Florida' culture and be 'mums' The best job in the World. I feel so sorry for the mums who, when they pick their kids up from nursery are told, 'he did this today etc. etc., if you cant afford to be a mum, don't have kids. Or perhaps that should be if you aren't prepared to make sacrifices, don't have kids. Nothing wrong with having a career if that's your choice. My parents were quite poor but I knew that when I came home from school my mum would be there with spam and potatoes for tea. And most important - a cuddle. By the way, my kids are adults now and I run a successful business. You can have it all.!!! ( and so can our children). Depends what you think 'paying for basics' is. That's opened up a can of worm, hasn't it....

[quote lynsey91]**@Pumperthepumper Things are definitely different now, read the articles I posted earlier in the thread. House prices have massively outstripped wages and the only reason your parents didn’t go for foreign holidays/mobiles/tech/new cars is because they didn’t have the same options we do in 2021

No the reason my parents didn't go on foreign holidays or have new cars etc is because they could not have afforded them.

We only had a couple of very cheap UK holidays and, as I said before, my parents went without food to feed me and my 2 siblings. That was with both parents working.[/quote]
They probably could have if they were raising children now though. Up until recently you could get a flight to Spain for £24.50.

And you’re wrong if you think poverty is less of an issue now - again, read the article I posted earlier. Many more children are living in poverty in 2021 than in 1971.

We are skint most of the time but I much prefer being a full time mum than having an expensive mortgage and holiday abroad every year etc

I wonder what the children would prefer. Most as adults who missed out on many things as a child wanted those things rather than a parent who didn’t work in my friendship circle. You don’t get to go back and repeat childhood with all the experiences you’ve missed out on.

*@name674398 That's subjective though, I personally think having a bedroom each is really important especially for teenagers. I think travel is a really important and wonderful part of living life to the fullest and my most favourite thing about being a parent is taking my children to different countries and giving them amazing experiences. No they aren't strictly "necessary" but how much in what we do in life is just necessary? We could go back to the caves if it's just about survival.

No moaning here though, DH and I love our careers and we ensured we did jobs we enjoyed and would bring in good money for us to also live the life we want to live outside of work, without begrudging work itself. I do not believe one of us needed to stay home to raise well balanced and loved children, DH and I were raised in happy homes with working parents, so as they say, proof is in the pudding. Just as you say much of what people want isn't necessary, I also believe having a SAHP isn't necessary. It's just another option.*

A child having their own bedroom is nice but hardly necessary. I shared a bedroom with my 2 sisters until I left home at 22. None of my friends had their own bedroom unless they were an only child.

Even today many many children do not have their own rooms and it is only on mumsnet that such importance is put on this. The majority of my neighbours have 3 children or more and our houses only have 3 bedrooms so, obviously, their children have to share.

You don't want to be a sahm but the thread is meant to be about parents having to work to afford to run a house. That is just not true in so many cases.

*@Pumperthepumper They probably could have if they were raising children now though. Up until recently you could get a flight to Spain for £24.50.

And you’re wrong if you think poverty is less of an issue now - again, read the article I posted earlier. Many more children are living in poverty in 2021 than in 1971.*

But the thread is meant to be about the fact that supposedly both parents have no choice but to work in order to afford a house, pay bills, buy food etc and that that was not the case in the past.

As I said, both my parents worked and yet still had very little money. They could not have afford a flight to Spain if they could not even afford enough food to feed us all could they?

So do all the children living in poverty have parents that both work? I am not suggesting there are not children living in poverty but it should be less now when there are benefits to be had. There were no benefits when I was young apart from child benefit and you didn't get that for your first child.

I totally get that in some cases both parents have to work but that is far from always being the case.

People could choose to have less material things, live in cheaper areas, live in smaller houses, have less children, go on less holidays etc.

Most couples have a choice as to whether both of them work or not. To choose to work to be able to afford all the unnecessary things is fine but, as I said, don't then moan about it

perhaps that should be if you aren't prepared to make sacrifices, don't have kids

I'm prepared to make plenty of sacrifices. My mental health isn't one of them (they already took my physical health).

Surely it depends on the type of lifestyle you want?
I appreciate costs vary across the country but generally if a family settled in a smaller terrace while their children were young, had 1 car instead of 2, no sky subscription, foreign holidays etc, then most families probably could have 1 stay at home parent.
The issue these days is everyone wants bigger, better, smarter, more.
Priorities and compromise.
The reason our parents were able to do it was because they knew the difference between luxuries and essentials.

So do all the children living in poverty have parents that both work? I am not suggesting there are not children living in poverty but it should be less now when there are benefits to be had. There were no benefits when I was young apart from child benefit and you didn't get that for your first child.

I think you're talking about the difference between absolute poverty and relative poverty. There is less absolute poverty than years ago but more relative poverty. And yes, relative poverty is very present in 2 working parent households.

@lynsey91 I said it's not "necessary" but is everything you do "necessary"? Are presents at Christmas necessary? A pudding with Sunday lunch? Most of what we do in life isn't "necessary" but to a level we want, for me I would not have had a second child if I could only afford a 2 bed house. My bedroom was my sanctuary, I think teenagers especially should have space, they don't NEED it but I WANT my child to have that, not saying every child needs it but it's what I wanted my children to have and as such I've had the number of children that fit within the financial abilities DH and I have. What's a hard line to you isn't to me, I do not believe it is necessary to stay home with children and as such I won't make the sacrifices you are describing for it, for other people they will sacrifice house size, holidays etc to stay home, everyone has different opinions on this, yours will not be the same as everyone else.

The reason our parents were able to do it was because they knew the difference between luxuries and essentials

This is such a sweeping moronic statement. "Our parents", are you so devoid of life experience you really think you can surmise that for everyone?

[quote lynsey91]*@Pumperthepumper They probably could have if they were raising children now though. Up until recently you could get a flight to Spain for £24.50.

And you’re wrong if you think poverty is less of an issue now - again, read the article I posted earlier. Many more children are living in poverty in 2021 than in 1971.*

But the thread is meant to be about the fact that supposedly both parents have no choice but to work in order to afford a house, pay bills, buy food etc and that that was not the case in the past.

As I said, both my parents worked and yet still had very little money. They could not have afford a flight to Spain if they could not even afford enough food to feed us all could they?

So do all the children living in poverty have parents that both work? I am not suggesting there are not children living in poverty but it should be less now when there are benefits to be had. There were no benefits when I was young apart from child benefit and you didn't get that for your first child.

I totally get that in some cases both parents have to work but that is far from always being the case.

People could choose to have less material things, live in cheaper areas, live in smaller houses, have less children, go on less holidays etc.

Most couples have a choice as to whether both of them work or not. To choose to work to be able to afford all the unnecessary things is fine but, as I said, don't then moan about it[/quote]
So do all the children living in poverty have parents that both work? I am not suggesting there are not children living in poverty but it should be less now when there are benefits to be had. There were no benefits when I was young apart from child benefit and you didn't get that for your first child.

They do, yes. Again: read the article. The welfare state was introduced in the early 1900s because people were so appalled at the level of poverty in the UK and we’re now closer to that level than we ever have been before.

People could choose cheaper houses, have no luxuries, have fewer children and fewer holidays and still be worse off now than your parents in 1971.

Most couples have a choice as to whether both of them work or not

Again: completely untrue. Read the articles. We currently have a wage/housing discrepancy that has never been seen before in Britain. You’re believing too much of what Piers Morgan is paid to make up over actual facts.

One question - why is it we need to stop the Disney in Florida culture and just be "Mums" - why don't Dads just be "Dads" - why do you automatically assume that it's the Mothers role to give up her career and not their fathers? You are perpetuating the gender inequality which I see in my workplace with comments like that - and frankly I'm tired of it!! I am a fulltime working parent - my husband is also - and we also have 3 lovely children (people always remark how well behaved and confident they are) - and are making lovely memories for them for when they grow up. And you were with your kids 24/7 - so no nights out - no catching up with your Mum friends - no time away at all? But fine for them to just see their Dad after work? Do you not see what you're doing here? And I make sacrifices every day for my kids by going out to work - dealing with work pressures and stress and that's all for them and their future - to give them the best start in life..... and why are foreign holidays deemed to be the root of all evil and the reason why all us Mums are spending all this time away from our kids - I view trips abroad as enlightening for my children - they see different places - experience different cultures - learn different history - meet people who are different to them..... for them that is a great experience - my kids love to travel to new countries and are always excited by our trips...... and please don't feel sorry for working Mums who may miss one itty bitty thing which their kid did at nursery - if we all took that attitude we would never let them out of our sight - day or night - for fear we would miss out on anything - I'm quite sure I've missed out on loads of stuff my kids did - but I do now also - every single day they are at school and I learn this more and more when I attend PTA's and their teachers tell me of all the things they said or did in their class - so if I took your stance - I'd have to sit at the back of their class every day to make sure I wouldn't "miss" anything. Spending more time with your kids does not necessarily make their lives more interesting automatically or mean that you love them any less if you don't.

@angela99999

I was so lucky to be able to stay at home for 13 years, from the time I had my first child until my fourth child started school. We didn't have a huge amount of money but lived simply, very few holidays, an old car, no eating out and so on. I think peoples' expectations now are higher, they feel hard done by if they can't have a foreign holiday, meals out and other treats - because treats is what they are, not necessities.

Or maybe consider that you’re in a relatively privileged position and that there are plenty of us who have no foreign holidays, an old car, live in cheap accommodation etc and still need two wages coming in to cover it.

We do pay £7 a month for Netflix though, which is one of those high expectation luxuries that has been mentioned a few times on this thread!

And interesting that you feel sorry for those working Mums who when they pick their kids up from nursery (because again why would it be their Dad's picking them up - even in this case where both parents are working) - but you haven't once mentioned all the moments their Dad missed out on? You didn't once mention your husband here in any of this! Are his feelings not equal to yours? He is their Dad after all - does he not need to have the same memories - witness those same moments? Be with them 24/7? Why is it that we put Mums memories of their children's early years above those of their fathers? Or rather why do we feel sorry for working Mums who may miss out on those memories - but not the Dad's? Or rather try to guilt Mums because they may miss them - but not Dads! I work in a male dominated environment and never once have I heard a "working dad" express a worry that he is missing out on his kids early years or any years in fact - to the contrary in addition to a long days work they often go for drinks until long after their kids have been put to bed - without a trace of guilt! And until we start to view the world in this way - nothing will ever change! Your attitude is typical of that which is holding back true change and what makes it worse is that you are a woman!!!! Please think about what you're saying before your stereo type a parents role!!! In my eyes - and through what has been a great marriage experience - I see my husbands role as equal to mine - and my career as equal to his!! Maybe you should consider doing the same.....

People posting on those threads about how mother's love is all you need must live in a very different world than I do. Because money makes a massive difference in mine and being skint and barely managing is not pleasant. Will the children really be so thankful for those freshly baked cupcakes when they will be missing out on so many other things because parents can barely afford the essentials? I'm not talking about Disney trips, but maybe moving to somewhere else when the local school is failing. Hiring a tutor, sending them abroad for an exchange year. Being able to afford extracurricular activities they are interested in. Or just having your parents not stressed about how they can feed you and stressing that an unexpected bill would blow the budget again.

@TheLastLotus

Apart from the fact that poor women have always worked - it wasn't that familes could AFFORD to have one person working. It was that there were no opportunities for women to work. Professions such as teaching, secretarial work, telephone operator etc required women to give up work when married. What naice job was the woman supposed to do if married to a middle class man? If they were short of money the women made it work by darning clothes etc. behind the scenes. but they stil ddnint have the option.

Although in many northern industrial towns, it was the women with their not very socially acceptable factory jobs that brought in the regular incomes, as the men often experienced bouts of unemployment.

Hard lives, made possible on the back of women working.

That's because a stay at home parent is generally not contributing to society. It's only of value to their own family. Nothing wrong with being a stay at home parent, but it's of no value to society in general

And it’s posters spouting offensive rubbish like this who are part of the problem.

I totally agree OP. I would give anything to be a SAHM - there’s no job in the world I would rather do than be at home having precious time with my DC. Sadly we can’t afford it

I am a SAHM through choice, but live well within my means, don't care about going out socially, not materialistic etc. It does help that I live in a part of the UK that is affordable 🤷🏻 life is what you make it.

@CirclesWithinCircles

I think the premise of this thread is sad. As if women have nothing to offer in the workplace that could possibly be equivalent to raising children. It makes you wonder what the point of raising girls is at all, if the best fate that can await them is settling down and having and raising children.

Think of all those brilliant women doctors, scientists, chemists, artists, human rights lawyers, etc - but the OP thinks that just because they're women, they'd be better not bothering.

No one suggests that people are better not bothering at all. There is how many working years as an adult? I worked 4 years have now been a SAHM for 8 years and will return to the workplace again next year when my youngest is settled in school having already planned to retrain from this year when youngest starts school. I still have around 35-37 working years left, I have plenty of qualifications under my belt as well so of course there's a point to bothering because you can be a SAHM and also have a successful career in a lifetime.

I wonder what the children would prefer. Most as adults who missed out on many things as a child wanted those things rather than a parent who didn’t work in my friendship circle. You don’t get to go back and repeat childhood with all the experiences you’ve missed out on.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss are you saying kids need a big house, lots of money and holidays abroad to have a good childhood?