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!

Lots of people are retraining due to covid.

[quote TheLastLotus]@pointythings has there actually been a point in time where earning minimum wage would’ve kept an entire family off the breadline?
Bearing in mind that NMW was only introduced in 1998[/quote]
Let's not forget that the 1998 NMW was a reintroduction, not an introduction. Because originally minimum wages were set sector by sector, and this was gradually chipped away at by the Tories, until the last remaining 26 sectors had their protections stripped away in 1993.

So there was wage protection in the UK before 1998, and I would imagine that before the insane house price inflation we have seen, it would have been possible in some sectors to live on one wage.

And there are no Tax Credits any more - apart from people who are still in the legacy system, it's all UC. And we all know how brilliantly that works for low-paid people, with its inability to handle long months in which there are two wage payments (which stops it being paid and forces a new claim to be made) and general configuration designed to make life as hard as possible for people on low pay.

@pointythings

Snookie00 it's 2021 and we are still perpetuating the myth that everyone could survive on a single wage with one parent at home, if only they were 'frugal' enough...

How ridiculous. It just isn't true. It's only when one half of a couple earns well enough that this is possible, and even then it's only possible in some parts of the country - not in the South-East, for example. If you earn NMW, there is no way you would be able to make your rent and your bills on one wage plus UC without living in poverty. It isn't about expensive holidays, second cars, luxuries and designer stuff - it's about being able to eat and heat your home, it's about things not falling apart when your washing machine dies (and no, most towns do not have launderettes any more!). The world has changed.

It's simply not true that if only one half of a couple works they have to earn good money to live.

As I said, quite a few couples in my village have only one wage earner and the majority are in minimum wage or slightly higher paid jobs.

One couple that I know well have 3 children, only the dad works and in a minimum wage job but with the benefits they get they get around £28,000. They rent a 3 bed semi, have 2 cars, full sky package, up to date mobiles, both smoke. That's hardly living in poverty is it?

lynsey91 where is this? Because where I am (East Anglia), the only way you would manage that is if you were in a council house and getting legacy benefits. I live in an area where rents are sky high because of the presence of two US air bases - the US funds housing costs for its airmen, local landlords know exactly how much funding they provide and set their rents accordingly so that local people are priced out. And there is as everywhere a massive shortage of affordable rentals.

It really isn't as simple as 'just be frugal' in much of the country. My husband and I weren't eligible for child benefit due to his nationality, we both worked and when our DDs were young, we were on the absolute bones of our arse and eligible for nothing.

Of course ultimately I'm glad I worked full time, because when things went tits up in our marriage it meant that I could support DDs by myself - silver linings.

I frequently play the "could we manage on one salary game" mentally. Not because I want either of us to stop working but because I want to be prepared should one of us ever lose our job.

We'd manage on my DH's salary but without any sort of luxury and definitely no saving or planning for the future.

We'd absolutely struggle if mine was the only salary coming into the house.

We don't lead extravagant lifestyles, only run one car.

One of us stopping working to be a SAHP would lead to an impoverished retirement. With over 25 years to go until then I'm not sure what state the state pension will be in so we're doing our best to save for that. Saving for a pension means working.

It's a sad state of affairs if a parent of an under 2 needs peer reviewed studies to convince them their child is better off with one to one care/their parents. Perhaps in such cases the child really is better off in a childcare setting...

The self-delusion is somewhat pathetic. I sent my second child to a childminder part time from 14 months. I didn't lie to myself that it was better for her but I did it for myself and for my sanity. It's obvious to anyone with eyes that children that age do better/get more interaction/are less stressed at home unless their parents are utterly shite which most parents aren't. It's so obtuse to deny it and as I said upthread does a disservice to children as policies on parental leave will never change if we can't even acknowledge it.

@Sunhoop

It's a sad state of affairs if a parent of an under 2 needs peer reviewed studies to convince them their child is better off with one to one care/their parents. Perhaps in such cases the child really is better off in a childcare setting...

The self-delusion is somewhat pathetic. I sent my second child to a childminder part time from 14 months. I didn't lie to myself that it was better for her but I did it for myself and for my sanity. It's obvious to anyone with eyes that children that age do better/get more interaction/are less stressed at home unless their parents are utterly shite which most parents aren't. It's so obtuse to deny it and as I said upthread does a disservice to children as policies on parental leave will never change if we can't even acknowledge it.

You sound lovely and not at all judgemental ...🙄

lynsey91

When exactly in the past was it "quite possible for everyone to support their family on one wage

I grew up in the 60s/70s and in a street of 50 houses there were only about 5 houses where both parents worked
I can only think of one woman who went out to work after she got married and I only remember her because of how strange it seemed at the time and it was the talk of a lot of the women in the street that her husband couldn’t afford to keep her at home. She too gave up work as soon as she had a baby.

I think maybe it was different areas had different expectations.
Holidays were in a Blackpool boarding house or fruit picking with the whole family.
Money was always very tight for us but for a few children in the road they seemed to have a very nice life. Nothing flash, rented council house, no car or anything but they seemed to be comfortable and have everything they needed on one income.

But again, @Bythemillpond, studying one street isn't going to give a reflection of society, as most people in any one street are likely to be from the same demograph.

I can tell you that I too grew up in the 60s and 70s and it certainly wasn't the case that it was unusual for both parents to work. However, I can only assume from that, that the families in my road commonly had two parents working, and not that it was the same a mile away in the next part of the City, or 100 miles away in another town or City.

BackforGood

I was just giving the people I knew in my street as an example. We moved around the area and because at one stage had a market stall and then a shop we knew a lot of people from different areas and it was the same everywhere not just one street.

@Bythemillpond maybe it was like that in that town? But I’m sure there were plenty of other situations there you weren’t aware of. The women trapped with financially abusive husbands and who could not leave as even if they got a job they would earn a lower rate. And what about on those market stalls? Were there no women in family businesses? Things are always as you perceive them.

I grew up in the 60s/70s/80s. Both parents worked - mum slightly reduced hours and juggled a bit. We didn’t live in a council house, they owned it on a mortgage, had a foreign holiday each year and two cars. We were happy - most importantly - and loved! I didn’t feel neglected. I was proud of both parents.

NOT always as you perceive them!

Again, it can't be that bad now where single parents manage to make ends meet, even if it's a struggle. Just a few decades ago, most children of single parents lived in condition that we'd now consider to be destitute. People always think the time they live in is terrible, but when you look at it objectively being alive in 21st century Britain makes you one of the 0.01% luckiest of people who have ever lived.

I find it very sad. When dd was 6 months I went back to work ft because I wanted to prove to the world I could do it all.
My hours were very long and so were dh. The nanny had dd from 6:30am-7:30pm+ and by the time I got home every evening dd was in bed so dh and I would see her mainly at the weekends.

Each weekend we looked like a right pair of fools. It was like we had a newborn each weekend we were useless as we'd be exhausted from no sleep, work and not really having a clue doing only two days a week care for dd

Fast forward to school years and my job was extremely stressful. I began to get ill stop eating and I was very unhappy. We worked out how to cut everything back and I stopped working altogether.
I thought I loved my work, I thought I had something to prove, I thought I preferred it to looking after dd. I was so wrong. We kept the nanny for a while as I was actually too scared to take dd on ft. I thought I found her too difficult. Eventually I just found myself going from not enjoying looking after a baby to taking over and absolutely loved every minute.

I'm now pt and wish I could be a sahm. Unfortunately we also want to buy a house and the way prices have gone it's looking like I may have to go back ft. I'm dreading it. I help dd now 7 so much with school hw and trips out and we spend fantastic summer holidays meeting up with friends and day trips together. I am grateful for the time I've had but I'd love to be a sahm for a longer time. I'm hoping flexible working has helped some parents be at home more, I didn't know I liked being at home until I ended up quitting my job abs I wonder how many parents are in this boat. I can't believe what I already missed out on tbh.

But even the thought of my mum waiting at home to bake with us when we got back from school - makes me shiver.

Fine if it's what you want - as long as you're not trying to lock anyone else in your pastel covered prison with you.

@BustPipes strange analogy. I enjoy baking and certainly don’t live in a “pastel coloured prison”.

Well, I was born in the 1950s, and was always told my mother stopped work for 6 weeks when I was born. So, some mothers have always worked. (ie 2 parents worked, and specifically the mother)
The difference is the nature of the work. My mother worked in a low paid factory job.
I think what you mean, is the kind of middle class jobs that were not available to many women in the past.
It is also quite a responsibility for all the earning to be placed on one person, usually the father.
We were very poor, while I was growing up, and this was partly down to my father having sick time, which in those days, was unpaid.

It's obvious to anyone with eyes that children that age do better/get more interaction/are less stressed at home

I don’t know - I read lots of posts on Mumsnet by people who say their children really benefit from a childcare/nursery setting. The interaction with other kids, trying new activities that they may not do at home and learning to be independent from mum and dad must surely be a good thing? I ask because I’m considering sending my DS to a childminder for a couple of days a week but am torn. He’s 13 months.

We had our DC early 70s, I was at home til the younger one was about three, then I temped in jobs, similar to zero hours contacts, and pretty low paid. I also went to night school as I'd no O levels. Those helped me into permanent jobs.

I worked full time after a couple of years, DH was able to be flexible and was home for school finishing. We were never able to save much, we ate ok, and managed to pay the mortgage, but there were few luxuries. I worked with some women who still saw their income as 'pin money', not necessary to support an already good lifestyle, and I was quite envious at times. I suppose one good thing was the example we gave our children. Both hard workers, both successful in their chosen fields of work, and both in two working parent families, but both much higher earners than we were.

I've had twins and couldn't afford to work for 3 years. We live in wales and had help to buy a house from family, and we struggled on one wage. It was also difficult to look after the twins when they were infants and toddlers.

Now I can afford to work and have a PT job and childcare is paid for - it is heaven! And much much easier on us. For example, a day of childcare is around £110 and I earn about £80 a day from my part time job. Working is much, much easier than looking after them all day. I call the days I work my rest days.

The flip side of this is that, if you're not in a couple, managing a decent lifestyle on one person's earnings is pretty hard, especially if you have children or other dependants.

So YANBU

@pointythings

lynsey91 where is this? Because where I am (East Anglia), the only way you would manage that is if you were in a council house and getting legacy benefits. I live in an area where rents are sky high because of the presence of two US air bases - the US funds housing costs for its airmen, local landlords know exactly how much funding they provide and set their rents accordingly so that local people are priced out. And there is as everywhere a massive shortage of affordable rentals.

It really isn't as simple as 'just be frugal' in much of the country. My husband and I weren't eligible for child benefit due to his nationality, we both worked and when our DDs were young, we were on the absolute bones of our arse and eligible for nothing.

Of course ultimately I'm glad I worked full time, because when things went tits up in our marriage it meant that I could support DDs by myself - silver linings.

I live in a village on the Lincs/Notts border.

Houses are cheap here as are rents. Not sure why as it is a nice area and there seems to be plenty of work.

House prices have barely risen in the last 15 or so years. If I look at house prices on Right Move quite a few houses are now worth less than they were in 2000.

@Germolenequeen

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

Except that they could be raising the doctor fire fighter police officer etc. etc. who might save your life one day 🙄

But so could children of the parents who go out to work (and pay taxes)

Some thoughts.
Why do some posters keep saying that in the past, many women were trapped in loveless marriages because they didn't have financial independence? Are they watching too many TV dramas? My dad gave my mum his wages and had 'pocket money '. And no. He wasn't a weed. My mum enjoyed doing the finances. He didn't. My mum was mainly a SAHM and had lots of interests so she was never bored but thought being a SAHM was important. We were by no means rich. I didn't know this, but she washed my single school shirt overnight so it was dry for the next day and I thought it was normal to eat a lot of eggs and chips. Lots of my friends had the same diet and didn't go on holiday.
Never having experienced it, I have a question. What happens to children of working parents when they let themselves in after school? In winter, do they go in to a dark, empty house? Perhaps the vast majority of latchkey children are sensible and / or happy to do this, but what about those who would rather hang round with less sensible friends because they want some company? In a way, I think it's just as important for grouchy teenagers to have someone at home when they go home after school.

pointythings the particular area I live in the northwest is expensive, you'd be hard pushed to afford to live here on a single wage. But 3 miles away, you cross in to a different local authority and houses are much more affordable so living well on a single (low) income is much easier as most people's most significant cost is housing. The payoff though is that difference in area is huge and the cheap area has much worse schools, higher crime and drug use rates. But if you really want a SAHP it's just 3 miles difference!

@wantanotherdog again with the fallacies... the lack of logical reasoning here is astounding
Just because your father was a good 'un doesn't mean everyone was.
As women had to stop working after marriage (for nice middle class jobs anyway) they became financially dependent. How is hard to fathom that one person controlling the money means that if they were stingy/selfish etc they could easily deny it to the other person?

Also-
My friends who had SAHM got home, had food etc and went straight up to their rooms. Or watched TV.
Latchkey kids do EXACTLY the same thing.
Don't see how a mum (whom grouchy teenagers consider too 'uncool' to hang around with anyway) counts as company