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!

Agree. People twist themselves in knots trying to justify their situations.

I'm not trying to justify anything. We all make choices which suit our individual circumstances and there is no need to insult people for making these choices. I never felt any guilt for choosing to work.

Suggesting that WOHP aren't raising or supporting their own children is pretty insulting.

In response to you making large, completely unverified claims about how ‘evolutionary biology’ demonstrates the benefits of being a SAHM. You seem very confused about whether we should learn from the past (mid20thc thought that mothers should stay at home with their children) or ignore it completely (18thc middle-class use of distant wet nurses, Ind Rev small children working in factories alongside their mothers) because ‘now we know better’.

Can't be arsed to attempt to educate you on really very basic stuff. Willingly misinterpreting my posts to suit your agenda, or just thick?

Either way I'm off to bake cupcakes with my toddler. Have a great day.

I think a balance is always preferable. Both parents working part time/reduced days and both having days when they're responsible for their DC, whether those parents are together or not.

I was a SAHM with a husband who worked insane hours and had a huge commute so he didn't see our DC from Monday to Friday Moreno or less. If he had changed jobs to work less hours closer to home would have meant a huge drop in income and me working wouldn't have made up the shortfall. I wanted to do this and was prepared to take the hit to our lifestyle but he wasn't prepared to do it so I had no choice but to SAH essentially. Although on the flip side he wouldn't have been great at home anyway so the DC were better off with me as I put a lot more effort in to parenting. I actually prefer the days he's not there as it's more harmonious and my eldest in particular battles against his "authority". With a partner who works as a team balance would be miles preferable but as I'm with someone who is somewhat rubbish with small children then they're better off with me doing the lions share. I should have chose more wisely but too late for that now!

@TheLastLotus

I don't think the OP's post is actually true. The median UK income is 30K. Meaning that your average Joe is likely to be earning at least this much. For a family of 4 outside London it's very possible to manage. Living frugally, no extras for the children etc.

But if both parents earn say 17K then you'll need their combined incomes.

Without any actual statistical data you can't claim that both parents needing to work is true for the majority of the population. That's the case if lower earners marry each other, but if you have one higher and one lower earner then the latter can easily afford to be a SAHP.

The truth is you probably need two working parents to be able to live comfortably, i.e. not scrimping and saving for every small thing, small luxuries like takeaway.

But there's never been a time where the MAJORITY of the population survived this comfortably on one income. Mothers at home made do by constantly mending old clothes, buying the cheapest cuts of meat etc etc.

So really OP's talking about a problem that doesn't exist.

Happy to be corrected with figures

I agree. A lot of couples could manage on 1 wage but, obviously, it depends on how much they earn, how much rent or house prices are in their area etc and what sort of life they want.

That was what this thread was meant to be about but it somehow seems to have become about whether children should have or need one parent to be at home with them.

It should be a choice whether both parents work full time, part time or one of them not at all and, as I said, most couples do have that choice.

I also agree that there has never been a time when the majority of couples could live really comfortably on 1 wage.

The OP by saying "both people NOWADAYS need to work" makes it sound as though in the past couples did manage well on 1 wage which is clearly untrue.

As I have already said, both my parents worked full time and yet we were far from well off. The fact that my parents went without food to feed the 3 of us is proof of that

I do think the role of a SAHP should be more valued - although I would say that as I have been one it does benefit small children and everyone knows it. I think by being afraid to insult working parents by acknowledging this fact works to the detriment of children. If we can't acknowledge that under 2's are (mostly) better off with one to one care, then we won't get the reforms we need to support parents to do so. Both parents that is, not just mothers.

@TheLastLotus

I don't think the OP's post is actually true. The median UK income is 30K. Meaning that your average Joe is likely to be earning at least this much. For a family of 4 outside London it's very possible to manage. Living frugally, no extras for the children etc.

But if both parents earn say 17K then you'll need their combined incomes.

Without any actual statistical data you can't claim that both parents needing to work is true for the majority of the population. That's the case if lower earners marry each other, but if you have one higher and one lower earner then the latter can easily afford to be a SAHP.

The truth is you probably need two working parents to be able to live comfortably, i.e. not scrimping and saving for every small thing, small luxuries like takeaway.

But there's never been a time where the MAJORITY of the population survived this comfortably on one income. Mothers at home made do by constantly mending old clothes, buying the cheapest cuts of meat etc etc.

So really OP's talking about a problem that doesn't exist.

Happy to be corrected with figures

I’ve posted articles throughout the thread that show how houseprices have outstripped wages, and how we’re now closer to the poverty levels of the early 1900s that kickstarted the welfare state than ever before. Loads of figures in both articles.

@name674398

If couples want to both work when they have children that is, of course, fine but so many moaning that they have no choice when it's just not true.You don't have to have a house with enough bedrooms for each child to have their own. You don't have to have the full sky package with cinema and sports. You don't have to have the most update mobile phone. You don't have to have expensive holidays every year.

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.

YOU think having a bedroom each is really important but others don't. Some may think it important but just be unable to afford it.

You can afford it by both of you working but you both WANT to work. That is not what this thread is meant to be about.

The OP is saying that both people need to work nowadays to afford a household and that is just not true. It all depends on what you want with regard to housing, cars, phones, holidays, eating out etc.

I assume if you thought having a SAHP was really important then one of you would be staying at home and, if necessary, cutting back on things

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss. Some SAHMs trot out the “future doctors” card as they need to sell the myth that they are offering an advantage to their kids which working parents simply can’t provide. By arguing that their children will be better because their mum sacrificed herself for them. It’s untrue but you can see why they do it as otherwise they’d need to accept that it’s for their benefit rather than the children.

@lynsey91 did you read the articles I linked to? I’m sorry to be a bore about this but you’re wrong.

@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.

This in spades.....

I became a stay at home mum as I had nobody at all to care for the children in the holidays or when they were ill or anything. The children Starting school caused more problems than it solved for me and in the 90s wraparound care did not exist at school.
The women I know who have fared better are those that had had family doing it all for them. Including one lady I knew whose mum in law came to their house every day and did everything whilst she worked! She really did have it all and is probably now retired with a nice pension.
It is what it is, but it's also an uneven playing field sometimes too and childcare isn't always easy to find that's affordable.

@Sunhoop

I do think the role of a SAHP should be more valued - although I would say that as I have been one it does benefit small children and everyone knows it. I think by being afraid to insult working parents by acknowledging this fact works to the detriment of children. If we can't acknowledge that under 2's are (mostly) better off with one to one care, then we won't get the reforms we need to support parents to do so. Both parents that is, not just mothers.

Do you have evident to support this?

Actual, peer reviewed evidence that categorically states this?

Most of the evidence I have seen states that the quality of childcare is key. Putting young children in poor quality childcare can be detrimental but using high quality childcare can be beneficial.

It is insulting to say these things about parents who work because you're making huge assumptions. Even though both myself and DH continued to work full time we have such flexible jobs that we get to spend huge amounts of time with DS. For us, we were providing him with the best of both worlds - I know that's not the case for everyone but it's how many of our friends operate too.

And it's never going to be about parents - this will always impact mothers. This last year showed us that!

My parents both worked - the huge difference for them was the cost of housing was much much less than now in comparison to an average wage (they’d paid off their mortgage by the age I am whereas mine is still enormous) and that they had no childcare costs at all - because their mothers didn’t work and looked after the children. No day nursery, after school club or breakfast club or holiday club. It saved them a fortune. They also benefited from big inheritances when our grandparents died again due to the massive rise in house prices. Enough to retire early. But they now want to enjoy themselves and wouldn’t dream of doing the same for their kids.
I like working, and I like the example it sets my children, and I like the extra income. I fully intend though that I will help my kids financially and by looking after my grandchildren, in a way that my parents will never do. Bitter? Slightly. Both me and my husband had amazing relationships with our grandparents but our own kids will never have the same experience.

@Sunhoop

I do think the role of a SAHP should be more valued - although I would say that as I have been one it does benefit small children and everyone knows it. I think by being afraid to insult working parents by acknowledging this fact works to the detriment of children. If we can't acknowledge that under 2's are (mostly) better off with one to one care, then we won't get the reforms we need to support parents to do so. Both parents that is, not just mothers.

Being at home with your children means you can give them one to one attention - just as beneficial as giving school age children personal tuition. That's just logical. I repeat - not everyone is in the fortunate position of having a choice as to whether to work in paid employment or to be a SAHM. But if you have that choice, remember that although others can build bonds with your children, no one will love them like you do. Yes - there's an awful lot of boredom at different stages, but just like I told my kids, boredom is an attitude of mind. Do something about it. Do something for someone less fortunate and involve your kids in it to give them a social conscience from early on. Run a mums and tots group. Learn a skill, a language or something that stretches your intellect so your children see that you have brain cells and an interest in the wider world. Show them that being a stay at home parent is every bit as valuable and life affirming as clawing your way up a corporate ladder. Sorry for the rant. But sometimes I got tired of the attitude I occasionally faced because I chose to be a SAHM - as if I had lost my intellectual abilities entirely because I wasn't in paid employment!

DelBocaVista I'm a full time working mother and even I know that peer reviewed research is very clear that until 2 children benefit massively from having the primary care giver do most/ all care. I'm off to work now but I'll try and pull out links later. They definitely exist as I've read them! And then disregards them!

@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

This was on the first page - I haven't scrolled through the rest, but anyone who believes this is seriously delusional and needs to read "Invisible Women". Some forward thinking societies are actually trying to include "stay at home" value within their GDP figures.

There is your value.

I was brought up in the 1950s. My dad had a basic wage job. My mum didnt work. . We didnt have a car or holidays only had new clothes at Christmas and Whit. (This was a thing in those days Whit Week everyone had new clothes for the Whit Walks). Mum was always there when we got home from school. She baked with us and was a typical 1950s mum. If I could go back to those days and choose whether I would rather have had holidays and new clothes or a mum at home, I would still choose having my mum at home. I myself always worked and we did have lots of holidays and a nice home. My daughter doesnt seem to have suffered from me not being there all the time. She was a happy independent only child who made friends easily. She has three children now and she didnt work until the youngest was 9 years old. Her children had her there until they could be more independent. They are nice well adjusted children. So thats all three scenarios. There isnt a right or wrong way is there?

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

When we went for our first mortgage the first bank we visited it was 1.5 times the higher income and 1 times the lower and we needed to put 50% down to get the cheapest studio flat in the area.
Most people we knew couldn’t afford to buy so were living at home well into their 20s

I think it is the case of what came first higher multiples or higher house prices.

I know we shopped around and found a company that did 2.5 times the higher and still once time the lower which meant things were a lot easier to buy and we had that deposit saved

@Pumperthepumper since you’re not the OP I can’t find your posts. Feel free to repost them if you want to

[quote TheLastLotus]@Pumperthepumper since you’re not the OP I can’t find your posts. Feel free to repost them if you want to[/quote]
On poverty:

www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blog/how-poverty-modern-britain-echoes-past/

Read this thread and realising my husband has never made cup cakes with our children.

OMG back to parenting school for him.

[quote TheLastLotus]@Pumperthepumper since you’re not the OP I can’t find your posts. Feel free to repost them if you want to[/quote]
Property prices: www.propertyreporter.co.uk/finance/uk-house-price-growth-outpaces-occupants-salaries-over-the-past-decade-by-nearly-3-to-1.html

Property prices over the last 175 years: www.schroders.com/en/uk/private-investor/insights/markets/what-174-years-of-data-tell-us-about-house-price-affordability-in-the-uk/

We both work almost full time purely for security as we would be stuffed if one of us lost out jobs as both our jobs are precarious.
When we had four kids under seven we worked around each other, me doing nights and weekends and him doing 9-5, so there was pretty much always one of us with the kids.

@dotdashdashdash

DelBocaVista I'm a full time working mother and even I know that peer reviewed research is very clear that until 2 children benefit massively from having the primary care giver do most/ all care. I'm off to work now but I'll try and pull out links later. They definitely exist as I've read them! And then disregards them!

I've done some research on this and it's really not as clear cut as some people on here are suggesting. Some studies find little or no adverse effects but some positive benefits.

Things that do have a notable impact:
Quality of childcare
Poverty
Education level of parents

To be honest I I think that many could live on one salary but see what they could afford if both worked and want that lifestyle instead of the single income one. They wouldn't always be on the breadline, though of course that is the situation for some.