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.

That it is normal to have to borrow hundreds of thousands/ mortgage lengths are increasing. The standard used to be 25 years now you can get mortgages for over 35 years.

yep it's become a pyramid scheme

Just about everywhere where there's full employment there's competition for housing. Obviously two-income households are going to outbid single-income ones. Single income households will be left with the smallest and worst accommodation. Probably only big enough for single people.

The solution is to build lots of housing in order to increase supply and bring down prices. That's still a long way from being a vote winner.

wage stagnation has been a thing for at least a decade & probably for another one since covid.

Interest rates are too low to make anything on savings but the gov can't raise them.

The solution is to build lots of housing in order to increase supply and bring down prices.

But look at the shite that does get built.

Was lifestyle much cheaper then? more people smoke & drank alcohol & went to pubs none of which is cheap.

Your emotive, or goady language in your OP isn't exactly looking for an open debate though is it ?

I agree with Jellycatspyjamas's point. Yes, you can argue about specifics, but the point is right.

I don't live in the SE. I live within a couple of miles of all the homes I have lived in. I can track property prices and I can track the earning of my profession. I am also constantly on Rightmove / Zoopla / local estate agents websites mainly because I love looking at houses but also because I have two nephews and one dc all looking to buy at the moment. In terms of multiples, and in terms of buying somewhere cheap first, things are the same now as they were when I bought my first flat. I'm not saying this is the case everywhere, I know it isn't, but it is definitely the case where I live. (The flat my sister first bought was up for sale recently). My dc's attitude towards working towards getting that first foot on the ladder is very different from mine all those years ago. In terms of the combination of trying to earn extra, (a bar shift or some babysitting on top of your day job) and in terms of trying to not spend, (literally, on so many things) and in terms of accepting you aren't going to be able to start off with a nice 3 bed semi in an area you want to live in.

I think YABU to think that only one adult should WOTH. If that is a choice that any family wants to make, then fine, but obviously part of that decision is a financial sacrifice, long term.

Was lifestyle much cheaper then? more people smoke & drank alcohol & went to pubs none of which is cheap

My experience was that drinking at home was occasional rather than regular. Pub-going was only at weekends and then only for drinking, not for meals.

Pub opening hours were restricted (closing time was 10.30pm except Saturdays when it was 11.00pm and they weren’t open during the day except a couple of hours over lunchtime) so less time to spend a lot. No cocktails, no wine, no Prosecco!

Champagne was only for weddings and even then it was often a cheaper alternative. Weddings were nothing like weddings now. Most people could not have afforded a modern wedding.

I don't think drinking at home could have been the norm because there was thousands more pubs in the past.

No cocktails, no wine, no Prosecco!

I'm not sure why the type of alcohol available is relevant but surely cocktails were bigger in the past too.

Champagne was only for weddings and even then it was often a cheaper alternative.

I don't think most people today quaff champagne regularly?

Weddings were nothing like weddings now. Most people could not have afforded a modern wedding.

I'm also unsure why wedding costs are relevant?

In terms of multiples, and in terms of buying somewhere cheap first, things are the same now as they were when I bought my first flat. I'm not saying this is the case everywhere, I know it isn't, but it is definitely the case where I live.

Surely the op is talking statistically though?

I don't think anyone has a God-given right to a salary sufficient to support five people plus a mortgage.

People my age (50+) need to stop banging on about PCP, phones and avocados.
I bought a house 30 years ago for 3 times my graduate salary. The same house today is 20 times my graduate salary. I saved a 5% deposit while paying a car loan and rent. It was 3 months salary.
Assuming you could still get 3 times salary as a mortgage now, even if salaries have doubled, you'd need 5 years of salary as a deposit.
It really isn't a case of cutting your cloth.

Sorry. 10% deposit not 5%

@PastMyBestBeforeDate
Depends where you live.

£70k "northwest is a 3 bed semi. With a garden.

£70k down south ie london area. Well. It's a studio if your lucky.

I think yabvu to suggest that a “ normal” family consists of two adults. I support two dc with one wage and we are a very normal family thank you.
To answer your question you have to cut your cloth accordingly. I’d love a bigger house but my mortgage is currently £740 a month and I can’t afford any more so a big standard 3 bed it is.

@NailsNeedDoing

You think ANY full time job should be enough to fully support two adults and up to three children? No, that’s ridiculous.

A full time minimum wage job should be enough to support one adult.

But by this argument anyone who is in a low paid job should not expect to be able to have children or a family. So families become the preserve of the well paid do they? Those on minimum wage aren’t working for themselves , you know. They are working for someone else who is benefiting from their labour and no doubt enjoying a good standard of living

Unless they are receiving credits and are in a council house or housing association small property on a general role such as unskilled job they absolutely wouldn't afford to securely provide for their family. It takes a simple google search of credits indeed search of basic salaries and search of housing prices on right move to realise this...

@Kendodd

I don't think it's possible anymore.

I know it's not possible.
The question is whether it should be possible or whether we are ok with it not being possible.

Why. Should it? So that someone can be a STAHP?

But by this argument anyone who is in a low paid job should not expect to be able to have children or a family. So families become the preserve of the well paid do they? Those on minimum wage aren’t working for themselves , you know. They are working for someone else who is benefiting from their labour and no doubt enjoying a good standard of living

How many children is "enough" to satisfy this right that you believe everyone has? One? Two? Five? Ten? Why that number? And since the creation of children generally requires the participation of two adults, why shouldn't the general expectation be that both adults participate in paying for them?

The human race is in no danger of extinction. Or if it is, that threat comes from the consequences of continued overpopulation, not from people foregoing parenthood because they can't afford it. Society doesn't benefit from encouraging a population explosion among minimum-wage workers or anyone else.

£70k down south ie london area. Well. It's a studio if your lucky.

err maybe a parking space

£70k "northwest is a 3 bed semi. With a garden.

which areas? that surely can't be the average.

As a single mum, I manage it. I never married so no divorce settlement, no family support. I'm on standard rate tax, in the south east but pay mortgage, bills, DS' costs, car.
DS has his own room, plenty of clothes, two sport hobbies, good home cooked food. We are lucky

BUT that doesn't include expensive foreign holidays, pay TV, alcohol, gym membership, eating out every week etc. Outside of London I'm not sure housing is always the problem, lifestyle is.

My finances only feel tight when I have a partner and he wants a bottle of wine every night or when DS was little, £50 an evening for a baby sitter.

The human race is in no danger of extinction. Or if it is, that threat comes from the consequences of continued overpopulation, not from people foregoing parenthood because they can't afford it. Society doesn't benefit from encouraging a population explosion among minimum-wage workers or anyone else.

I think you are getting ahead of yourself. That poster made a valid point about whether only "rich" people have dc. For one if they did who would do all the minimum wage jobs? I don't think having a discussion around living costs & wages encourages a population explosion & the UKs population is expanding because there are more older people living longer, birth rates are already very low.

It should be possible, in theory, but in reality it's become increasingly difficult over the past 40 years in the UK.

Prior to 1979 wages grew hand-in-hand with prosperity. After 1979 that stops, and despite prosperity still climbing, the growth in wages tails off. It's almost as if something significant happens at that point in time.

The UK is still prosperous post 1979, but the profits are not going into the hands of normal, working class people to the extent they were previously. 'Trickle down' is a complete and utter myth.

So people can afford 'mod cons' now. People in the 70's couldn't buy 'mod cons' because by and large there were far less of them invented and on the market available to buy. Great, you have an iPhone, the kids have xboxes, and so on, but you can easily function without all that stuff. Can you afford to buy your 3 or 4 bedroom home on a single salary?

By the way, we are the only country in Europe that has experienced economic expansion since 2008, and absolutely no increase whatsoever in salaries. We are being utterly conned by the charlatans we elect to run the UK.

@sayanythingelse

It SHOULD be but it isn't.

My mum never worked after having children and we lived comfortably on my dad's salary working in a factory. We had a nice house, holidays abroad and never wanted for anything.

DH works 60 hours a week and I've just cut down to 20 to make childcare easier. We lived in a rented house because even though we have a deposit, we don't earn enough between us to get a big enough mortgage for a 3 bed semi.
We live comfortably but we don't have money for extras now I'm part time. We could never live a life on one salary like my parents did.

I agree. My parents were married in the 40's and Mum never worked from the day she got married . We had a very comfortable life on Dad's wage as an electrician, holidays, nice home etc.

I got married in the 80's and I always worked full time as a nurse, DH as an army clerk. I only had the minimum time off when the DCs were little. We had the basic house, very few holidays, state education for the kids. Bought our first house when we were both 40.

"Should" is a good word but it doesn't really mean much. And your suggestion of mass social housing wouldn't suit many people.

@rottd

The human race is in no danger of extinction. Or if it is, that threat comes from the consequences of continued overpopulation, not from people foregoing parenthood because they can't afford it. Society doesn't benefit from encouraging a population explosion among minimum-wage workers or anyone else.

I think you are getting ahead of yourself. That poster made a valid point about whether only "rich" people have dc. For one if they did who would do all the minimum wage jobs? I don't think having a discussion around living costs & wages encourages a population explosion & the UKs population is expanding because there are more older people living longer, birth rates are already very low.

The thread isn't about whether those making minimum wage should be allowed or practically able to have children. It's about whether minimum wage should pay enough to support a partner, multiple children, and a house on just that one salary. It currently doesn't, at least not without government assistance, so everyone who currently does minimum wage jobs would still do them.