AIBU to think one adult should be able to support a family with a full time job?

[Kendodd]

Talking about a normal size family, two/three children. Not talking about riches either, just an ordinary place to live and everyone well fed and clothed, all needs covered without state benefits. Any full time job as well, not just some fancy high paid thing.
I know for lots of people working really hard in full time jobs supporting their family just isn't possible on the money.

YANBU - they should be able to support a family.
YABU - they shouldn't be able to have a home and children on an unskilled job.

@Kendodd

They totally and completely deserve tax credits to be able to indeed support their family. Why should the tax payer fund low pay? I read once that the amount Philip Green spent on his third superyacht was equivalent to the amount of tax credits paid to BHS staff so they could feed their children. And the increase in Geoff Bazo's wealth, just during the pandemic would have been enough to give 900,000+ Amazon employees a bonus of over $100,000 each. Those figures might not be completely accurate, but they're close enough and you get the just.

People seem to think the low paid and benefits is something new. My husband joined the police force in the late 60s. For the next ten years it was common for officers with children to be claiming supplementary benefit and that was on top of family allowance (child benefit) and double rent allowance for a married officer.

It was also common for officers to have 2nd jobs.

Of course it should be though personally I think it would be ideal if both parents could work but less so a balanced mix of nursery, time with each parent and time together as a family. This is what my OH and myself are aiming for

@AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken

It’s so sad how worthless so many posters deem low paid workers as well as the jobs they do

Are you just shoe horning this statement in for dramatic effect or did anyone actually say this.

@Kendodd

Men get away with providing paltry CS and just walk away. There should be a massive overhaul of the system and they should be held responsible. Completely agree but think this is a separate issue. Two incomes should provide a better financial lifestyle. Bigger house, meals out, holidays etc. I don't think it's right that it should take two incomes to get by, that should be doable on one income imo.

What a bizarre argument. It takes two to create a family. Why should it take only one income to get the standard of living you expect in 21st century. Like others have said again and again, one income can support a family but you would need to dial back the clock to 1960s standard of living.

@sst1234

Not at all. People are basically saying, it’s tough shit that people in low wages can’t afford to pay for cheaper housing, basic healthy food, cheaper clothes, a little uk holiday once a year, because they should work harder for promotion or live in shared accommodation without families.
It’s a disgusting attitude.

I strongly believe that it should be possible for an adult who works full time, to earn enough to provide a basic but decent standard of living for a small family of three or four.

If you believe that low paid, unskilled workers should have to be reliant on state top ups, or that they should live in bedsits or in shared accommodation alone until they have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, I can only assume that you think they are not worth the same standard of living as the rest of us or that their jobs don’t matter enough to get paid an actual living wage. When in actual fact, they’re doing some of the most important work.

The question is “should” they be able to. Not “do you think there’ll ever be a time when…”

If you think they shouldn’t be able to, and it’s not because you think they’re worthless, why on earth would you not want that?

If I were in charge, I wouldn't allow people to own a second home that sits empty for large periods of time

If these houses were sold, then there would be greater supply, therefore house prices would fall, therefore more affordable housing

[quote AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken]@sst1234

Not at all. People are basically saying, it’s tough shit that people in low wages can’t afford to pay for cheaper housing, basic healthy food, cheaper clothes, a little uk holiday once a year, because they should work harder for promotion or live in shared accommodation without families.
It’s a disgusting attitude.

I strongly believe that it should be possible for an adult who works full time, to earn enough to provide a basic but decent standard of living for a small family of three or four.

If you believe that low paid, unskilled workers should have to be reliant on state top ups, or that they should live in bedsits or in shared accommodation alone until they have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, I can only assume that you think they are not worth the same standard of living as the rest of us or that their jobs don’t matter enough to get paid an actual living wage. When in actual fact, they’re doing some of the most important work.[/quote]
I don't think any of those things at all. I just think that, if there are two capable adults, both of them should work to support their families unless they can afford the luxury of one person opting out. It has nothing to do with them not being "worth" the same standard of living as the rest of us, whatever that means, because the default for many of "the rest of us" is also that both parents should work.

To be clear I absolutely believe that two parents earning full time minimum wage should be able to enjoy a decent standard of living... healthy food, a safe and comfortable home, opportunities to have fun with their children etc. I just think it's reasonable to expect both partners to work for that. For families where it isn't possible to have two incomes for whatever reason, then the state should step in to ensure that they too can still enjoy that decent standard of living.

@AlexaShutUp
But why shouldn’t one person be able to support a small family? That is what you’re arguing for. That they should struggle. That they should have to rely on benefits after working a full week.

We did when first married. We couldn't afford nice holidays, I had to scrimp around charity shops, couldn't buy the nicest food and so on. Only 1 old rickety car. Got a job and our standard of living soared. Nicer house with mortgage, kids had better lifestyles, less financial stress etc.

Like all things in life it's a compromise and the 'government' has more important priorities than supporting family life and the choices people make. If you choose to have 5 children you work to support them, not rely on social housing and handouts.

Saying that it’s acceptable for single earner lower waged parents to rely on (humanely administered) state top ups for a short period of time is not the same as saying that they “shouldn’t” be paid more.

But FWIW I do think that paying every single worker enough to comfortably support a family of four or five would unbalance the economy in favour of single people incalculably, and probably also have negative effects on the women incentivised to stay home. I don’t think it’s ever been the case in the UK.

[quote AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken]@AlexaShutUp
But why shouldn’t one person be able to support a small family? That is what you’re arguing for. That they should struggle. That they should have to rely on benefits after working a full week.[/quote]
Because it’s not the 1950s anymore when only 50% of the population was working outside the home. Things have moved on. It is ok for to expect both parents to earn and parent.

[quote AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken]@AlexaShutUp
But why shouldn’t one person be able to support a small family? That is what you’re arguing for. That they should struggle. That they should have to rely on benefits after working a full week.[/quote]
No, I'm not arguing that anyone should struggle. I just think it's really odd to expect that minimum wage should be enough to support not only the person who earns that salary and a fair contribution towards the cost of their children, but another non-working adult as well.

It takes two to start a family, so why wouldn't both parents expect to work to support that family? I have already said that there we need better systems in place to pursue non-resident parents for child maintenance, and I would like to see much better state support for those who are widowed or where one parent is unable to work due to disability etc.

I just don't understand why anyone would expect to be able to afford a SAHP with one parent on minimum wage.

But FWIW I do think that paying every single worker enough to comfortably support a family of four or five would unbalance the economy in favour of single people incalculably, and probably also have negative effects on the women incentivised to stay home. I don’t think it’s ever been the case in the UK.

If everyone was paid enough to support a family of 4 or 5 the costs of goods and services would probably go up dramatically.

Childcare costs in particular would go into an accelerating spiral. Eating out would be the province of the very rich, but maybe that’s acceptable. Elderly care costs would explode - the government would save on top up costs for the minority of employees but double the salaries of all of them.

Why are we comparing to 50 years ago?
For a start a lot of "tech" wasnt invented but that doesnt neccessarily mean it's an optional luxury that you could easily live without. Ok you dont need the latest iphone, air pods or a macbook for each member of the household but most households would struggle without wifi and at least a smart phone or laptop. So many services are only accessible online, or more difficult to do in another way.

What's clear from this thread is that plenty of posters have absolutely no idea of the levels of poverty in the UK. Saying things like people these days aren't willing to go without 'luxuries'. What do you mean like food and a place to live? Do you know how many food banks there are in the UK? Perhaps you find that level of poverty met with charity 'uplifting' as some Tory MPs do?

Not really. Not unless the single earner earns an absolute shit load. It's not 1950 and almost every household has to have two earners now

@Kendodd

What's clear from this thread is that plenty of posters have absolutely no idea of the levels of poverty in the UK. Saying things like people these days aren't willing to go without 'luxuries'. What do you mean like food and a place to live? Do you know how many food banks there are in the UK? Perhaps you find that level of poverty met with charity 'uplifting' as some Tory MPs do?

Hear hear. It’s so depressing.

Ah well, so long as they’re all ok, eh?

@Kendodd

What's clear from this thread is that plenty of posters have absolutely no idea of the levels of poverty in the UK. Saying things like people these days aren't willing to go without 'luxuries'. What do you mean like food and a place to live? Do you know how many food banks there are in the UK? Perhaps you find that level of poverty met with charity 'uplifting' as some Tory MPs do?

This kind of poverty also keeps people trapped. While ever it takes two adults plus benefits to keep a roof over people’s heads and food in their bellies, they can’t take a few years out to retrain or get a degree for example.

I’m genuinely shocked at how many people are happy that the poorest paid people in our economy struggle so much to survive or escape because it’s “not the 1950s anymore”

What's clear from this thread is that plenty of posters have absolutely no idea of the levels of poverty in the UK. Saying things like people these days aren't willing to go without 'luxuries'. What do you mean like food and a place to live?
Luxuries my eye. Have you ever looked in a struggling single mother's fridge.
My friend always has butter, milk, yogurts, pasta sauces and the other shelves are bare. Few bags of pasta in the cupboard only one shelf required in the freezer she has a tiny box freezer with spare room.
I've seen inside many of these.
I watched an interesting documentary on food banks in the UK, they're a life saver, the excitement of the DC because they received jelly, veg, beans, a full bags of food brought the type excitement a trip to Disney land would.

@EmeraldShamrock

What's clear from this thread is that plenty of posters have absolutely no idea of the levels of poverty in the UK. Saying things like people these days aren't willing to go without 'luxuries'. What do you mean like food and a place to live? Luxuries my eye. Have you ever looked in a struggling single mother's fridge. My friend always has butter, milk, yogurts, pasta sauces and the other shelves are bare. Few bags of pasta in the cupboard only one shelf required in the freezer she has a tiny box freezer with spare room. I've seen inside many of these. I watched an interesting documentary on food banks in the UK, they're a life saver, the excitement of the DC because they received jelly, veg, beans, a full bags of food brought the type excitement a trip to Disney land would.

And yet the majority of posters think this is fine because it’s their fault for not working hard enough to get a better job and not having two adults in the home.

It’s sickening.

Perhaps people who can't buy basics like food should be focusing on their education, careers and employability, and postpone childbearing until those things bear fruit.

And how do you propose they access this time machine?