To think I shouldn't have to work a second job to make ends meet

[drusillabee]

I am a teacher working 4 days.

DH has a clinical role in NHS.

Our household income is about 80k. Pretty decent until you factor in rising costs of everything plus childcare.

We have 2 DC under 3 and omg nursery costs are so expensive. I'm on MAT leave for another month and I'm having to go back sooner than we anticipated due to rising costs and basically having run out of money since I won't be getting any SMP.

I just am so sad that I've worked since I was 16, essentially paying into the system for the last 10 years and feeling like I have nothing to show for it.

I've worked my bloody arse off in inner city schools with kids that come from awful backgrounds to help them get out of the cycle of benefits they were born into. The government haven't paid me (or other public sector workers) a penny extra for going above and beyond every single fucking day.

And when we do need a little helping hand, we get jack shit. Nurses got a clap. Teachers got a pay rise but more workload to go along with it.

And then when women go on MAT leave we're given hardly anything to bloody survive that forces to return to work after 6 months slogging for the government that are relying on basically free labour.

My 2 year old asked me to buy her an ice cream today and I'm so grateful that I managed to distract her with the snacks I brought from home because I have £6 left in my bank account till Tuesday.

I go back to work in a week. My youngest daughter won't even be 9 months. She refused a bottle and is exclusively breastfed. She doesn't even take expressed milk from a cup. My heart is breaking at thinking how she's going to go a whole day without me.

I can't even do anything else that I can leave teaching for more flexible hours and better pay. Tbh I love teaching, I just hate that I have to return so soon on a shit salary for the job that I do.

So on top of that, I'm having to look for a weekend job so we can do more than just pay the bills.

@ToK1

In all, the employment rates of women in work increased during the First World War from 23.6% of the working age population in 1914 to between 37.7% and 46.7% in 1918.

https://www.futureofworkhub.info/comment/2021/7/6/women-in-work-a-brief-history-of-women-in-the-workplace?format=amp

And today

The female employment rate was 72.3% in October to December 2022
^^
Women are still more likely than men to be working part time. At the end of 2022, 37.8% of women in employment were working part-time (13% for men).

So of the 72.3% employed, that gives 27.3% part time and 45% full time…. So we still have 55% of women taking the greater share of child care, reduced wages and getting “patted on the head of a night” as you put it.

Not saying it is aspirational, or that full time work is. But those are the stats.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06838/SN06838.pdf

@Robinni

Yup.

None of those states say that it was ever the case that no women worked. Or that a single income could always support every family.

The fact we're still stick with sexist ideals that mean a large proportion of women go part time doesn't make it true women never worked in the past or that that should be the ideal

It's certainly not mine

@ToK1

It maybe existed for a select few wealthy or middle class people for a few years but throughout history women have always worked. They had to.

I was only pointing out that this statement isn’t correct.

100yrs ago 75% of women did not work, and they did not have to.

Now 55% of women work in a part time capacity or not at all, because they do not have to.

The majority both in the past and now.

Not my ideal either but I can respect others preferences even if they are different to mine.

@Robinni

75% of women did not work, and they did not have to.

That's debatable at best

You can respect sexism if you want. I don't

No you shouldn't have to be living like this. It's a disgrace. Life is total shit in the UK for everyone apart from the super rich. But at least you're working and not on benefits. These people are literally starving. I suppose your personal hell won't last forever, not much consolation, but you will get better off.

Typical Tory voter reply

Times are very tough and I sympathize, but I do suspect that the OP is not exactly living hand to mouth. The two mornings in nursery for the 2 year old "to give me a break" is a luxury. The cost of that would be the same as what OP would earn on a Saturday. I'm sure there are other ways OP could cut back too. I'm laughing at the "sky rocketing" food bills for the 9 mo th old. Wait until you have 2 teens!

A lot of those women were housewives and in the days before electrical appliances and ready meals /online shopping /etc I imagine being a housewife very much felt like work.

How many holidays did women go on 100 years ago? How many cars did they run? Could they afford to sufficiently feed their families? Did they have wardrobes bursting with clothes? Multiple prams and baby equipment? Xboxes, tablets, TV? How many extra curricular activities did their DCs do? I know in my Dad's family when he was a child, meat was a luxury that the DC that finished all their veg and potatoes first were treated to.

@SweetSakura

Yes my Grandmother who was slightly less well off (due to having 3 rather than two kids) did work very hard even in the 50s. She remembered getting her twin tub washing machine was a revelation!!

The other Grandmother had a house keeper; it was a big house and she wanted to be involved with the children.

Arguably, if cooking from scratch and you don’t have a cleaner with numerous children and no childcare it’s still hard work.

@Bathintheshed the cost of food used to equate to a third of income, we have got used to it being 10% but it is heading up again. If it costs more then less will be wasted, as before.

https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/heres-how-our-food-prices-compare-to-30-years-ago-and-you-might-be-surprised-aBqFY5C7lgai

The Grandmother with smaller house went on holiday locally; her sister who worked and had no kids went to Japan etc! No car for her. My mother had 2 barbies and she made clothes for her dolls herself rather than buy them. It made her value things more. But then she became a workaholic as an adult because she felt she’d not had…. I had about 50 barbies, but would have rather had my Mum around…

Grandmother with bigger house went to European destinations. Her own car when she went back to teach.

Kids did all the normal things. They both had ample clothing but not excessive nor were the amount of toys and baby things excessive as they are today.

But these women weren't being housewives a 100 years ago unless everybody for 3 generations has their first child in their 40's. An adult with multiple children in 1923 would have been born in the 1800's.

My grandmother was born in 1918 being a housewife a hundred years ago was something her mother did so not in living memory.

Actually she worked anyway (midwife) FWIW and had 5 children.

It was my bourgeois grandmother who didn't work after getting married and having babies in the 50's.

100yrs ago 75% of women did not work, and they did not have to.

😂😂😂

What utter rot. Have you any idea about the amount of poverty historically? Particularly in the 30s?

That didn't necessarily make someone "bourgeois". I was born in 1957. There were many workplaces back then that made women give up work when married or once pregnant. My mother was forced to give up her job in a factory office when she became pregnant. Her best friend, a midwife, was also forced out of her job once she was pregnant. My aunt (a nurse) never married because the minute she married she would have been forced out of her job. She has been "seeing someone" (a doctor) since she was 23 (now 87!) and they have never married or moved in together because she put her career first and they got so used to living like that they simply carried on even when attitudes changed.

What about 200 years ago, or 500? Women have always worked. Just because most of that work was for the family business or on the family farm and they didn't draw a wage doesn't mean they weren't economically active. You are being g very selective in your choice of statistics.

Quite! Women often took in washing, sewing and did baking for extra cash. Nevertheless, malnourishment and even starvation were not particularly rare 100 years ago.

There were many workplaces back then that made women give up work when married or once pregnant. My mother was forced to give up her job in a factory office when she became pregnant. Her best friend, a midwife, was also forced out of her job once she was pregnant. My aunt (a nurse) never married because the minute she married she would have been forced out of her job

Exactly. Here, private employers could use some discretion but government employees, which were the majority of the workforce, had the expectation that women resign if the got married. My mother tried to rock that boat as didn’t want to leave but the minute she announced she was pregnant, she was legally made to leave that week (which she was okay with, just didn’t want to leave prior merely because she had married). Most women didn’t fight it like my mother, just took it as a given after engagement was announced. Private employers were a mixed bag. You could have someone who refused to have someone kept on after engagement was announced right through to being okay with married women, but not so much women with children.

I don’t think people realise the lack of legal rights for women in the workplace in the past.

Since when has going to work as usual and being paid your normal wage for doing your job been "the royal treatment" ffs?

Do you think essential workers should have had a pay cut during the lockdowns or something?

@LakieLady Since the gov stopped a considerable portion of the workforce from going to work to carry out their professions. Leaving them with no income, or a substantially reduced income.

Essential workers did not have to cope with any of that stress or the outcomes of it which many people are living with right now.

They bought hot tubs for the back garden and continued to live in their homes as normal.

Essential workers did not have to cope with any of that stress or the outcomes of it which many people are living with right now

Rssential workers worked. And coped with the stress of working with covid floating around and the news of a thousand plus deaths a day.

I don’t think life is totally shit for everyone except the super rich.Most of my fairly average income friends are doing okay We earn significantly less than 80k between us, maybe around £60k combined. No extra help from gov. We manage. We have holidays. We enjoy the little things rather than the material things. Things can be tight but we cut our coats according to our cloth. We have all been convinced we need new phones, fancy T.V.s expensive cars etc. spun a huge yarn of consumerism, this shit will not make you happy. I count my blessings as I have traveled widely as a young adult and lived/worked in other countries. We are pretty lucky to be born where we are.

I would agree with that, it doesn’t appear to be ‘totally shit’ for lots of people. People still going on holidays, shopping malls and restaurants still absolutely packed. Hairdressers and nail shops booked up. There’s still a lot of money being spent on extras here. Maybe it’s regional to an extent?

Wtf how are you struggling on 80k?! You do realise that people can and do raise a family on so much less. I'm thinking that you have the lovely home full of lovely things and the very nice cars on the very nice drive and the debt to match.