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!

As a civil servant in my 50s I have worked with people 20+years ago (men) who raised a family and afforded a normal family house on a single salary. Today? LOL

Lots of single people buy houses so clearly you don't need 2 salaries for that. What does a wife and children actually cost? A bit of extra food. Everything else is luxury really.

I think it's great that many women's lives don't amount to baking buns, cooking and housework. My mum worked a mix of part time, full time, from home, contracting through my childhood and I remember loads of good times. And she was a role model, a fulfilled individual person, even at times frazzled and tired. And now we're grown up she and my dad have been able to afford their dream home by the sea and renovate and now spend lots of time with their grandchildren.

I was at SAHM mum until DD was 18 months and hated it. Constantly trying to find ways to fill the day.

Work goes both ways. Yes it can be hard and tiring but it can also be fulfilling and a way to use your brain, not to mention financial independence that many women are left in the shit because they don't have.

Haha...who said equality! Equality just means women now have to pay half and still work out all the home shit. No man ever sat at his desk wondering what Emily was going to be for world book day- women have been well and truly shafted!

@SnackSizeRaisin

As a civil servant in my 50s I have worked with people 20+years ago (men) who raised a family and afforded a normal family house on a single salary. Today? LOL

Lots of single people buy houses so clearly you don't need 2 salaries for that. What does a wife and children actually cost? A bit of extra food. Everything else is luxury really.

Like heating and electricity and water and clothes? All luxuries?

YANBU OP, although I think a better set up would be flexible working for both parents. And I think house prices are the main cause.

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.

It would be great if both parents had the freedom to choose not to work at some point, at different times. Whether that meant going to uni, following a passion, or being at home for the kids, etc.

This sort of thing should be possible without having to live in a tiny one bedroom flat, you know? There's no way we could afford to buy a small 3 bedroom home without 2 professional-level incomes. It makes no sense.

I think @snacksizeraisin is spot on. If people are willing to live a 1920s type existence then they can probably do that on one wage.

But it is also a mistake to think that having a non-working wife was universally affordable historically. There were lots of women working in factories, other homes, taking in washing etc. Many women had to contribute economically, even to maintain a lower standard of living.

I work full time condensed over 4 days do does my husband, we garden with DS, grow fruit and veg, bake with him, eat family meals most nights. I have no interest in sewing or darning. We have job where pay isn't as high as it would be in the private sector but flexibility is good and we get generous annual leave and good pensions. DS has swimming lessons, gymnastics and rugby tots, loves his nursery and the day he spends with one of his grandma's, something I remember very fondly from my own childhood and am still very close to my grandmother. I don't think the life he has is sad, I also don't think it's sad that I've been able to have a successful career which challenges me in ways staying at home wouldn't, or that DS will grow up knowing women are as capable and valuable as men.

Lots of things in life are all about choice:

• having children
• choosing a job/career that requires you to live in or near a city or other expensive area.
• choosing to stay renting in London/the SE in order to be near family, as opposed to moving and being able to afford a mortgage elsewhere.
• choosing a lifestyle that requires both parties to own and run cars.

I live in a cheap area and lots of families have SAH parents. Because it's affordable. But nobody wants to live here. It's an area that often comes up on those threads about shit towns. I've heard it described as a dump, a shithole, a dead end town etc etc.

But it's five minutes from the sea, the people are friendly, the work-life balance is fantastic and day-to-day living is cheap and affordable.

I work 20-25 hours a week and DH around 30-35.

Well, I’ve never taught my child to sew. I did teach her that a pillow case makes an excellent pre-sewn base costume, and that fabric glue exists. I tried with knitting, but I’m hopeless at it so can’t say I inspired her much.

However... despite being a full time worker, I’ve baked and cooked with her loads. I’ve gardened with her. Taught her about star constellations, how to pitch a tent, how to make a campfire. Made warm cookies for her friends coming over.

I only work 5 days out of 7 - so on the other 2, plus the evenings, I do loads with her.

I would take a good look at what is making you busy, and see if you really want to do it!

You’d only be on the bread line with one person working if the working parent was a low earner.

Plenty of people don’t work and can afford to stay home as their partner brings in enough,

And you can’t work seven days a week, you must have evenings and weekends to do things with your kids?

It used to be one member on an average income would be ok running a household - just enough to live comfortably with a modest lifestyle - now you'd be on the breadline.

Well perhaps if people didn't have mobile phone contracts, subscriptions to Netflix or Amazon prime, 2 cars per family or buy cars on finance, go on holiday....they still could. The definition of a modest lifestyle is what has changed, not how much it costs. Even the poorest people have mobile phones and TV subscriptions. You only have to look at the crazy reaction to the free school meals provision. A few years ago people would have been happy to receive any food, now they all want to choose exactly what it is because normal every day foods are not good enough. Expectations have changed hugely as a result of government policy to get us all to spend more and advertising from big business.

I agree. It's very depressing. The Blair government really kicked it off and things have never been the same since.

It was (and still is) dressed up as freedom and equality for working mothers. In reality lots of people are in dull low waged jobs that they hate, whilst their children are with strangers from early in the morning until the evening. That's too long for many children - it's exhausting for adults, let alone a child.

Time with children, quality family time spent together, is such a brief precious period, gone before you know it.

It's a major contributor towards the housing crisis too. We've gone from only needing X 3 and a half a single salary mortgages to out of control 4/6/7/8 or more X salary. Single people (with or without children) increasingly locked out, and even two income families are struggling.

It should always have been only one parent full-time. Either parent - mother or father.

My experience is the opposite of yours OP as when I was growing up (1980’s born) my mum was hardly around at all because she had to work 9-5 Mon-Fri.

I know she had no other option but I really feel sad that I didn’t have a more present mother figure.

I have two children and reduced my hours to 25 hours so I could be around for them in the way my mother couldn’t be, though I know that’s not an option for a lot of women.

It’s pretty crap really.

I think more than both people working (which could be seen as a positive) it is a shame that both people working fulltime doesn't even a) mean you can afford to buy a house and b) people are working so bloody hard there is no time for anything else

My parents both worked, but they had the sort of jobs that left you with some energy and time to enjoy life afterwards.

Everything is too hard, and working hard is no longer enough to secure you a decent (not lavish) life. I have friends who work really, really hard and still can't quite make it work. Things have gone wrong somewhere for sure.

Lots of single people buy houses so clearly you don't need 2 salaries for that.

Not family houses usually. My single friend is a high earning teacher (50k plus) and can just about afford a 2 bed where she lives in the North-East. She's selling a 1-bed flat. My neighbour is single and has 2 lodgers to be able to afford his house.

I know everyone goes on about interest rates in the 80s etc. making the repayments high, but the fact is that my mum and dad only needed to sell their £40k bungalow and borrow 2x my dad's salary of £25k to buy the detached 4 bed they currently live in. Even with an inflated deposit of 40%/£120k you'd need to borrow £280k now, which requires an income of about £60k. There aren't many households with that income with only 1 person working in their town!

My dm was home while I was in primary school, but it was a penny pinching time of 1 coal fire, one paraffin heater in the bathroom, 2 holidays my entire childhood and they were cheap, nothing new in the house and nothing extra for treats. We had good plain food and were never hungry, but no tv or car and the only independence dm had was the family allowance. Things improved when she got a part time job, and she wished she'd done it sooner.

Well perhaps if people didn't have mobile phone contracts, subscriptions to Netflix or Amazon prime hello daily mail subscriber - your sum can total less than £50, hardly a months salary. In fact the things you describe are cheaper than they were in the 90s- a BT line rental & aol dial up was extortionate.
Luxuries have become cheaper/ greater competition etc - non negotiables such as rent/ travel/ heating etc have all far out risen wages.

I think you're right to a degree, but I also think (certainly where I am, very middle class area where many are concerned about keeping up with the Joneses) that there's a lot of families who could do just fine on one salary, but because they want the big detached house and the nice cars, the 2-3 holidays a year and possibly the fee-paying school, both parents work, and often long hours.

Personally if/when DP and I have children I'd rather we have a more humble home & lifestyle if we're able to manage with one of us working and the other one either at home or working part-time.

Like heating and electricity and water and clothes? All luxuries?

A large proportion of heating and electricity is for luxury use, yes. Central heating is a new thing, 40 years ago you only heated one or two rooms and wore a lot of clothes in winter. A lot of electricity goes on electronic entertainment devices. Anyway the cost of bills isn't doubled for more people in the house. Most clothes are also luxury purchases. Adults can wear the same thing for years and children can wear hand me downs.

Women (rightly) wanted equality and to earn on a par with men.
We largely have that now - with exceptions.

People's expectations change as their income changes. Things like washing machines, which were considered luxuries not so long ago, are now essential.

I don’t think so personally. I like have the independence of working. I like not being the default parent. I like the challenges and self-respect working brings. I like being stretch intellectually and having something interesting to talk to my husband about. I like bringing in a salary, abd knowing that if the worst happened, I wouldn’t be shafted financially. My SAHM told me never to depend totally on a man’s wage and I think it’s great advice.

@SnackSizeRaisin

It used to be one member on an average income would be ok running a household - just enough to live comfortably with a modest lifestyle - now you'd be on the breadline.

Well perhaps if people didn't have mobile phone contracts, subscriptions to Netflix or Amazon prime, 2 cars per family or buy cars on finance, go on holiday....they still could. The definition of a modest lifestyle is what has changed, not how much it costs. Even the poorest people have mobile phones and TV subscriptions. You only have to look at the crazy reaction to the free school meals provision. A few years ago people would have been happy to receive any food, now they all want to choose exactly what it is because normal every day foods are not good enough. Expectations have changed hugely as a result of government policy to get us all to spend more and advertising from big business.

I sensed you were one of the ‘if millennials stopped eating avocados they could buy a house’ type.

People need wifi these days, even to apply for benefits you need access to the internet and a smartphone. TV subscriptions are massively more cost-effective as a form of entertainment if you’re poor than days out - Edinburgh Zoo is the best part of £100 for a family ticket now, and that doesn’t include food or transport.

And housing is the least affordable for this generation than it ever has been before. Let’s not pretend that people could buy a house if they cancelled Netflix.

@OnlyFoolsnMothers

Haha...who said equality! Equality just means women now have to pay half and still work out all the home shit. No man ever sat at his desk wondering what Emily was going to be for world book day- women have been well and truly shafted!

If that’s how it is you are doing it the wrong way Equality. .. the clue is in the name

People can still live how the previous generations lived, on just one income. They’ll just have to live the same way. You know, without the smartphones, Netflix, holidays abroad in sun, fast fashion and takeaways.
These comparison are totally pointless because you are mot comparing like with like.