How would you feel if the standard household was single income again?

[Omydearehert]

Not necessarily the man working. How would you feel if a single income was enough to live off of and became the standard again?

Both my grandmothers work, as much out of choice as necessity
One was a farmer, so not working in some capacity wouldn't have been an option, but my other grandmother did it for the enjoyment of working, despite it meaning she suffered constant racial abuse. I don't really know enough about their finances to know if the money was necessary or nice to have.

I'm not sure there was ever truly a time when one middling income was enough to comfortably support a family though. Yes, people got by, but I doubt it was an active choice for so many women to be SAHM, so much as the consequence of no childcare options, deeply sexist workplaces, and a societal expectation of them doing all the domestic drudge

It depends on circumstances. When my husband and I first lived together, first got married, we would not have been able to afford much at all on a single income, maybe a room in a shared house between us, we needed two incomes. Now we both have reasonable incomes and in reality we would be very comfortable even with just a single earner, but we both love our careers and neither of us would want to give them up.

A two income household also gives a lot more security, if one partner gets ill, loses their job, or even dies, they still have the second partner's earnings to fall back on. My husband and I both having careers gives us far more security as a family, even if I hated my job I can't see me being willing to give that up.

I do also know some women who would very much like to not have to work, to be a "lady who lunches", I am sure we all know a couple or two where the woman married for money and a comfortable life rather than love. There are also some men who sponge off a successful wife, although they are fewer of them as most women are far less tolerant of that kind of behaviour.

Unless you had a high income and were able to fund 100% of childcare out of income or had family to provide childcare you didn't work. It wasn't a bad thing.

Not a bad thing? For women, let's face it, it was mostly women, to be forced out of the work place if not rich enough? You really don't think that's a bad thing? You can't see the pitfalls there for women or society at large?

@onlychildhamster

I would still work. You never know what might happen - bereavement, disability etc and even with insurance, its better to have backup income.

There was a reason why widows were considered vulnerable in the past.

And so many widows are still vulnerable - more so since the government did away with Widowed Parents Allowance

@Pemmican

As PP have said, my working class foremothers have always worked. My dad's wage as a factory hand would never have been enough to feed, clothe and house two adults and two children and I'm frankly bemused at how many people seem to assume differently.

This. I think there were times post both wars when the social drive was to get women out of the workforce so that there would be peacetime jobs for men, but people who do family history research will see the proof on the birth and marriage certificates and census information. If you were working class, then both parents worked.

I’m a single parent and quite frankly I don’t want another relationship so I’d be happy if I could live comfortably off of one income.
I want to be able to provide nice things for my son as he grows up, but I have no desire to be in a relationship.

That would be great as a single working parent who doesn’t receive any maintenance from the dad.

If I was in a relationship though I would still work. He could give up work I guess, but I never aspired to be a stay at home mum, it’s not for me.

When my Mum & Dad married her income wasn't counted towards the mortgage.

A Winter coat had to be saved for.

Bought cake was a treat!

I think people expect/want more now.

2 cars, phones, wifi, Netflix etc-it all obviously adds up.

DH and I would still work, it's about far more than the money. In fact we could live fine on a single salary now.

I’d love it - we’d both be part time and have a better work life balance.

It’s a class thing and it amazes me that some young people now think there was a time when the great mass of women stayed at home. I grew up in the 70’s and most women in my lower middle class Manchester suburb worked. Teachers, cleaners, shop workers, quite a few secretaries, admin. Looking at my family tree all the women worked in factories, mills, in kitchens. We were latch key children. By the time we left to walk to school our parents had both left for work. We left the key in the empty washing machine in our back porch and whoever was home first let themselves in. Parents got home about 17.30-18.00. I knew a couple of people at school whose mothers didn’t work but they were ends of a scale. Very poor or would be considered very well off.

@diddl

When my Mum & Dad married her income wasn't counted towards the mortgage.

A Winter coat had to be saved for.

Bought cake was a treat!

I think people expect/want more now.

2 cars, phones, wifi, Netflix etc-it all obviously adds up.

Obviously people spend more on non-essential consumer goods now than they did 40/50 years ago. But the idea that it all goes on phones/Netflix/cars etc is a bit of a fallacy and quite a damaging one.

It's just not true that if we spent less on consumer goods we could live more comfortably on one income. This whole narrative to me has unpleasant overtones as it's a quick jump from that to saying working mums are only doing it out of greed (I'm not saying you're saying this but its an unhelpful piece of rhetoric).

I'm a single parent (and a relatively high earner) with high outgoings but the vast majority of this goes on housing and costs relating to my DD's childcare and education. I'm fairly sure that would be the same for most double income families. It's housing that's the real killer. And yes, you pay more for housing in big cities and in the South East but not all of us can decamp somewhere rural and cheap.

As a general rule women don't decide to work because they want to buy mobile phones and clothes, they do so either because they need to support the household finances or because they want financial independence.

@user1497787065

Sounds good to me. No need for government funded childcare so no need for NI and tax increase to fund social care!

My DC are in their 30s so there was no funding for childcare when they were young. Unless you had a high income and were able to fund 100% of childcare out of income or had family to provide childcare you didn't work. It wasn't a bad thing.

oh yes the SAHP DID work if they could! Historically across the UK there were all kinds of cottage industries and jobs that (mainly women) did at home. making lace, tweed, buttons, mending and altering clothes, various kinds of other piecework, providing cheap childcare, going out to work at jobs in the evening when the main breadwinner was at home. I can't really comment on the 90's...I know that the childcare market has changed. Its more regulated than it was and parent expectations have changed which has put the price up.

It’s an interesting question but definitely moot because we’re heading for a period of major price inflation. I think a lot of people will be concerned about whether two incomes can support their households.

I think it would be infinitely better for Society if 1 person could run a household on 1 income or 2 or more on part time incomes, yes.
Far more balanced.

@MsPavlichenko

It’s a myth that has been used to both keep women’s wages down (pin money) and encourage the narrative re women’s role providing the bulk of domestic labour. From the Industrial Revolution onwards women worked outside the home as well as within it.

And of course long before the Industrial Revolution women ran cottage industries and farms etc. Women have always worked.

I wouldn't like it - we're not in the 1950s anymore and we don't need (mainly) mothers being dependent on (mainly) fathers.

It's better for both parents to work part-time than one not to work at all and the other to work full-time.

@LiamGallagherIsHot

I doubt many women would want to be stuck at home as bored housewives anyway.

OP did say not necessarily the man working. I’ve never been a ‘stuck at home bored housewife’ despite not working. There lots of things to do and get involved in.

Yup. I'm currently unemployed, and though job-seeking is consuming a certain amount of my time, I'm having a cracking time, and my husband is enjoying it too, because I love cooking, and am ready to go at the drop of a hat for things he wants to do.

For example, when I'm working, I'm more bothered by him, say, watching the football at home because I only have so much free time. But because I can do whatever I want whilst he's working, I'm happy to sit through it.

It's a cliche, but only boring people get bored. At least regularly, anyway.

As a single income, but 2 adult and 2 children family it is already possible, but not easy. But we bought a house 10 years ago, we could not do that today.

I'd really like to see a return to family taxation. The lack of transferable personal allowance and high earner child benefit charge really hurt us. The alternative is all of the second parent's wages being spent on childcare and not seeing the children.

Also housing costs are just too high. I'm hoping the Chinese housing crash will ripple across the world. It'll be painful, but a correction is needed.

No need for government funded childcare so no need for NI and tax increase to fund social care

Government funding for childcare is very limited - it doesn't scratch the surface of social care and the NI rise is also for the NHS.

I would have still worked, despite hating my job as I liked the fact that I was financially secure. I liked not being totally dependant on my husband, so if my marriage failed i could still support myself.

Plus I'd studied for so long it would seem a waste of my qualifications not to work

@diddl

When my Mum & Dad married her income wasn't counted towards the mortgage.

A Winter coat had to be saved for.

Bought cake was a treat!

I think people expect/want more now.

2 cars, phones, wifi, Netflix etc-it all obviously adds up.

I agree with this to an extent - I think this is definitely part of the reason why my nan was able to stay at home whilst my grandad was a miner.

However, I think we can't ignore that not having phones/internet access isn't exactly an easy choice to make - having access to the internet is often crucial for applying for jobs, accessing services, and also for children to not feel left out with their peers.

Also with cars, again maybe someone will know more about this, but anecdotally my mum tells me that our local public transport was way better in her day - hourly buses until 11pm they stop at 5pm round here these days and they're definitely not hourly anymore! It seems like we've gone backwards in this regard. So not having access to a car is definitely really difficult in some areas.

I think life is generally more expensive now than it used to be.

Don’t forget that a SAHM had a much larger workload 50-30 years ago. Much more manual work with less technology making tasks easy.

Childcare was less available, women cared more for elderly relatives, no Internet shopping.

My mum never worked when I was a child but I remember her being on her feet a lot with housework and chores.

DH has an income we could live on, so you could say I work so we have bigger luxuries but I also work because I prefer it to doing housework and enjoy the mental stimulation and being away from family.

Ideally we both would reduce our hours and it may happen in 5-7 years depending on DD’s need for paying for college.

When was this time when all households were single income. My mother always worked, my gran always worked, at least one of my great grandmothers always worked. Might not have been a standard 9 - 5 Monday to Friday job, might have been cash in hand but it was paid work.

Growing up in the 50s all the families I knew had both parents working if there were 2 parents.

@minatrina
"Also with cars, again maybe someone will know more about this, but anecdotally my mum tells me that our local public transport was way better in her day - hourly buses until 11pm shock they stop at 5pm round here these days and they're definitely not hourly anymore! It seems like we've gone backwards in this regard. So not having access to a car is definitely really difficult in some areas. "

Can't comment on cities as i don't know what the transport services are like there now, but there are two sides to this. Rural bus services have never been great here in my part of the south. I well remember going for a job interview 30 years ago. If I got the job, we could afford for me to have a car but not if I didn't so I had to get a bus there (45 minute journey by bus but only 25 by car) Except when I got to the bus stop (15 min walk) the bus had been cancelled...and that was the bus for the morning, not another until early afternoon. I phoned DH who was able to get out of work to take me to the interview but not wait to bring me home...and yes the return bus I had planned on getting was acncelled as well so I ended up going to the bank to draw out enough cash to get a taxi home which was megabucks. I later found out this was not unusual. The only reliable service was the early bus to the local city and the end of working day bus from the city to the village and environs.
The knock on from this is that you didn't live round here at working age unless you drove and therefore no consideration was given to public transport use when building new housing. I used to live in Surrey and it was the same there. Great links to London and Guildford once you were at the bus stop or the train station but dire links to get you to the bus stop or station.