Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

701 replies

Lowef · 30/04/2021 19:24

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!

OP posts:
Linguaphile · 02/05/2021 08:24

Haven’t RTFT, but I am inclined to agree that the fact many households now have to have two earners to survive is not great. It’s the two income trap that Elizabeth Warren discusses in her book of the same name. The biggest problem with it, to my mind, is that it does really increase financial fragility for families because double the number of regular paychecks are needed to sustain daily life, whereas before, two working parents meant having a whole extra income stream on top of what it took to meet basic needs (which increased stability). In her book she discusses bankruptcy among families and how it has gone up under this model as the market has adjusted to the two income model. She gave a really interesting lecture about 15 years ago on the subject if anyone is interested to give a listen.

Blankscreen · 02/05/2021 08:31

It's due to housing costs that most families now have to have both parents working.

If mortgage companies had only ever taken one salary into account then prices would not have got so out of control and we would not find ourselves in this situation.

Wabe · 02/05/2021 08:39

@Blankscreen

It's due to housing costs that most families now have to have both parents working.

If mortgage companies had only ever taken one salary into account then prices would not have got so out of control and we would not find ourselves in this situation.

Like the period up until very recently when single or widowed women couldn’t get a mortgage without a male guarantor?
Rah88 · 02/05/2021 08:44

Yep it’s because of the astronomical cost of housing relative to wages. Lots of hardworking people struggle and are made to feel like crap because they will never be able to afford a house or even a flat to buy. There is very little rentable social housing (thatcher sold it off- and much of it is being privately rented out now at a massive cost to councils) so people are stuck in the private rental cycle. It’s tragic when you think about it.

LunaTheCat · 02/05/2021 08:46

@SnackSizeRaisin

Society does not value the stay at home parent.

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

That’s a bit rough ! Stay at home parents contribute heaps! They’re often the school helpers, volunteers, helping older parents... to equate usefulness and value to society as being in paid work is terrible ! ( and I say this as a childless woman)
Freddyfuzzbear · 02/05/2021 08:53

@wabe I've not misunderstood anything. Support with child rearing from matriarchal family when humans evolved is hugely different from leaving your infant in daycare while you go off to work.

chocolatesweets · 02/05/2021 08:54

A stay at home mum does not just benefit her own family. Misconception. So if I stay at home , help my own family , my son for example becomes a doctor - does he only serve me because I stayed at home with him or does he serve society? Exactly.

G5000 · 02/05/2021 08:55

except when humans were evolving mothers wouldn't leave their children with strangers to go to work

My ancestors from a couple of hundred years ago most likely gave birth and went back to working the fields as soon as physically possible. Baby was indeed either taken with them or left in care of other relatives/older siblings. By age 3-4, the children were working themselves. Sitting at home baking cupcakes and making memories they certainly were not.

Freddyfuzzbear · 02/05/2021 08:56

I'm not judging mums who have to or want to put their infants in daycare. But it simply is not true that having a SAHM at least in your early years is of no 'benefit to child'.

Freddyfuzzbear · 02/05/2021 08:57

@G5000

except when humans were evolving mothers wouldn't leave their children with strangers to go to work

My ancestors from a couple of hundred years ago most likely gave birth and went back to working the fields as soon as physically possible. Baby was indeed either taken with them or left in care of other relatives/older siblings. By age 3-4, the children were working themselves. Sitting at home baking cupcakes and making memories they certainly were not.

Humans didn't evolve a couple hundred years ago. HTH.
Frazzled2207 · 02/05/2021 08:58

I think it’s more to do with people’s expectations of quality of life tbh.
People now expect a car each, a bigger house, regular foreign holidays, new clothes, frequent eating out, expensive days out
None of those things were normal when I grew up.
Now they are but out of reach for most families unless they have two incomes.
We are lucky enough manage on one income mostly but it’s way above the national average.

IceCreamAndCandyfloss · 02/05/2021 08:59

@chocolatesweets

A stay at home mum does not just benefit her own family. Misconception. So if I stay at home , help my own family , my son for example becomes a doctor - does he only serve me because I stayed at home with him or does he serve society? Exactly.
A parent wouldn’t have needed to stay at home for that and given you don’t start studying medicine until an adult I would credit the person not the parents with the achievement.
Freddyfuzzbear · 02/05/2021 08:59

Also, holding up standards of care for children from a couple hundred years ago as an argument against being a SAHM is bizarre.

Freddyfuzzbear · 02/05/2021 09:01

Ya know....a couple hundred years ago when workhouses were around and the "children should be seen and not heard" was all the rage.

Wabe · 02/05/2021 09:03

@Freddyfuzzbear

Also, holding up standards of care for children from a couple hundred years ago as an argument against being a SAHM is bizarre.
But you’re the person bringing up evolutionary biology as an argument for the benefits to children of having a SAHM.
G5000 · 02/05/2021 09:07

Also, holding up standards of care for children from a couple hundred years ago as an argument against being a SAHM is bizarre.

It is bizarre to claim that being a SAHM and dedicating your days to fingerpainting is the way the nature intended, when this has literally never occurred except for a very short time and for certain classes only. Not much in my day to day life is the same than when humans first evolved.

chocolatesweets · 02/05/2021 09:11

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss no you dont have to stay at home but someone has to do the work. The work is there and it's undervalued - not matter who does it. Nursery workers get paid minimum and stay at home mums don't get paid at all. 🙄

G5000 · 02/05/2021 09:15

Well if we are now talking about evolutionary biology, in Stone age, 1 man would pass their DNA to 17 women. I'm doing it all wrong..

Wabe · 02/05/2021 09:16

@G5000

Also, holding up standards of care for children from a couple hundred years ago as an argument against being a SAHM is bizarre.

It is bizarre to claim that being a SAHM and dedicating your days to fingerpainting is the way the nature intended, when this has literally never occurred except for a very short time and for certain classes only. Not much in my day to day life is the same than when humans first evolved.

This. And I’m not ‘arguing against being a SAHM’ in the slightest, only pointing out that — contrary to what a lot of posters appear to think — the idea of having a mother not working outside the home for the purpose of devoting herself to her children is a tiny, recent blip in human history, not something that has existed throughout time and only been disrupted by feminism and house prices.
Eyjafjallajokulldottir · 02/05/2021 09:25

@Lowef

for those of you where you both work FT and are happy with this, don't you feel frazzled, aren't you knackered?! I dont have the energy or the mindset to be playing/ baking or whatever with the kids or even doing anything for myself even. I cant cram everything into a weekend - i just need to chill out and switch off too.
No not at all. Both me and dh work full time from home. So can take kids to and from school. I start about 7am so I can stop when the kids are home from school. As long as I work my hours my boss doesn't care when the work is done. This means we're both available for the kids after school. Still wouldn't bake with them though, can't stand baking!
crossstitchingnana · 02/05/2021 09:30

Yes, in the last babies would have gone in the fields with mum or left with family. Not left at a nursery with low paid, often young, strangers.

mermaidsariel · 02/05/2021 09:31

@Frazzled2207

I think it’s more to do with people’s expectations of quality of life tbh. People now expect a car each, a bigger house, regular foreign holidays, new clothes, frequent eating out, expensive days out None of those things were normal when I grew up. Now they are but out of reach for most families unless they have two incomes. We are lucky enough manage on one income mostly but it’s way above the national average.
Yes that’s so true. Forgin holidays, the latest gadgets , new clothes were rare. I remember when TV sets were rented. People made do and mended stuff. Eating out was a very occasional treat. No takeaways either.
HeavyHeidi · 02/05/2021 09:32

I don't think I'm that materialistic, but being poor even as a child is no fun. Sure I didn't know anything about bills or grocery shopping budget, but I knew about never getting anything new and nice as we couldn't afford it. Third-hand worn out shoes from cousins. Freezing house as we couldn't afford to heat it, where I was getting dressed under covers in the morning, as it was too cold to get out of bed. Seeing other kids getting new bikes, doing activities, going to places, travelling...yeah I was jealous. And I'm not talking about Disney only - when we were teenagers, a friend was sent to a language immersion summer camp abroad, I still remember how I wished this was me, but understood that this will never happen.

I didn't really think about it this way, as mum was just.. home, so it didn't occur to me that she would be able to do anything about finances. Her working could have made quite a difference though and it would not occur to me to be a SAHM if we were in similar situation financially.

Frazzledmum123 · 02/05/2021 09:33

I totally agree OP, I would give anything to be a SAHM. I only ever wanted the old fashioned lifestyle that I had growing up, I have never been interested in a career. I'm fortunate that I can work pt, my husband's hours means he is around a lot more for the kids than most dads can be and I have a very tight nit family of sisters, parents and PIL who all help each other with childcare too so I know I am extremely lucky but I'm currently on a short break from my job and I've loved getting to experience being a SAHM for a bit.
On the flip though, my 4 year old dd was talking the other day about her future(!) and how many children she wanted and then what job she was going to do too and it did make me suddenly feel a bit of pride that by working I've set an example to her that her life can be anything. She was thinking about what would make her happy and it wasn't just having kids and so I'm glad that the world is in a place where she will get that option, it may be a career will be very fulfilling for her

newstart1234 · 02/05/2021 09:42

It’s only in the last 70 years or so that woman have had the choice of having children or not. I’m not sure evolution has any relevance in this. Woman used to have babies because of their biology and now we can, or not, for whatever reason.

I also think it’s sad that more parents don’t have the choice to have a sahp. I’m not sure that, in today’s society, evolution comes into the equation but rather the economics of, imo, the housing situation (no council houses and insane prices to buy).

Swipe left for the next trending thread