Do some mums just not like working?

[Dragontooth]

I know this sounds awful, and judgey but I'm trying to understand. I am not a benefit basher and I used to be on benefits, also a single parent.
I'm on a lot of 'being skint' forums, I was on UC but now I have quite a lot of experience in various things so I like to try to help.
There are a number of mums who were previously on legacy benefits who are terrified by UC and the work search appointments. Lots who are unemployed and some who do very part time jobs, 10 hours or less.
I don't understand why they are so resistant to finding work or better paid work. Having been on benefits, it is a horrible existence. I was paid £850 per month. Clearly it would only take a MW part time job to make me so much better off. And they pay for childcare/ holiday club.
It literally changes your life. You can pay for things to have a better, easier life like driving lessons. Not only that but you are back in the work place so it's not such a shock when your children leave home.
I feel these women are so anxious, they can't see how their lives could look with more money/ options. Not only that but a lot of them have their heads in the sand about retirement, will we even get a state pension? Then there's the fact that it's so much harder getting back into employment after five or ten years out, I think that's what UC wants to avoid. I'm not saying it's a kind or person centred system but in reality is taking years out of the workplace really in these women's best interests either?
Disability/ disabled children obviously excluded.

If you had read any of the comments I have made you would realise that is not what I personally advocate.

I had thought that drawing attention to the 35% increase would have been sufficient to have indicated my view.

Thanks for endorsement though.

High Employment: A Double-Edged Sword for the UK Economy

In a world where joblessness is often seen as a critical issue, the notion of achieving 99% employment in the UK might seem like an economic miracle. However, this near-universal job coverage could bring with it a set of complex challenges that might not necessarily spell economic utopia.

Wage Inflation Could Run Amok

One of the first concerns with nearly full employment is the potential for wage inflation. With such a high employment rate, businesses would likely face intense competition for workers. To attract and retain talent, employers might have to significantly raise wages. While this sounds good for workers, it could lead to higher production costs for companies. Businesses, in turn, may pass these costs onto consumers in the form of higher prices. This wage-price spiral can create an inflationary environment where everything from groceries to gas becomes more expensive, putting pressure on households.

The Demand-Pull Inflation Dilemma

Increased employment boosts consumer spending, as more people with jobs means more disposable income. This surge in demand could outpace supply, leading to what economists call demand-pull inflation. Essentially, when too many people are chasing too few goods, prices rise. If companies can't keep up with the booming demand, it could lead to higher prices across the board. This scenario not only affects everyday consumers but could also erode business profits, creating a cycle of economic strain.

Cost-Push Inflation and Supply Chain Woes

Higher wages aren't the only cost that could rise. Businesses might also face increased costs for materials and other inputs. This scenario is known as cost-push inflation. If businesses are spending more to produce their goods, they will likely raise prices to maintain their profit margins. On top of this, nearly full employment could strain supply chains, leading to shortages and further price hikes. If businesses cut back on production due to higher costs, it could reduce economic output and potentially lead to a slowdown.

Central Bank Tightening and Economic Slowdown

To combat rising inflation, central banks might step in by raising interest rates. While this move can help control inflation, it also has the downside of slowing down economic growth. Higher interest rates make borrowing more expensive for both businesses and consumers. This could lead to reduced spending and investment, potentially dragging the economy into a slowdown. The lag effect of monetary policy means that while higher rates are intended to curb inflation, they can also contribute to economic contraction before the effects fully materialize.

Sectoral and Regional Disparities

Finally, high employment might not benefit every sector or region equally. Some industries could struggle with the increased costs and competitive labor market, leading to localized economic issues. For example, if certain sectors face significant financial strain, it could lead to layoffs or reduced hiring in those areas, potentially creating pockets of economic weakness even within a generally high-employment environment.

In summary, while the idea of 99% employment in the UK might sound appealing, it’s essential to consider the potential economic pitfalls. From wage and cost-push inflation to supply chain disruptions and monetary policy challenges, nearly full employment could create a complex economic landscape that requires careful management to avoid unintended consequences.

Happy to endorse! Glad we are on the same page 😊

Small business is the backbone of this country and we need to focus on growth and wealth creation.

Being a dedicated parent, mum or dad, is showing love and responsibility. I went back PT when they were 9 months and FT now youngest is a teenager. I was on working family tax credits for a period when exH left and I was a single parent.

Dedication is showing how parents work in society. My eldest is now in FT employment so I'd say it works to show how to work!

FWIW - there are so many grim jobs. Jobs that are physically hard, or emotionally distressing. Jobs with no guaranteed hours. On top of that you have all the stress of arranging and dealing with childcare, and all the responsibilities of running a home, sometimes after having done a physically exhausting job all day.

I totally understand why people can't hack it.

I used to work for DWP and did find a lot of lifelong career claimants were so conditioned to living in poverty that they just accepted that was their lot in life. They tended to be from 2nd or even 3rd generation non working households.There was no point trying to help them improve their life as they weren't interested in any opportunities offered. They were the ones stereotypically spotted buying all the scratch cards in the local shop and jumping around like they had won a million when it was in reality £50...

I did find the majority of Mum's accepted help with training, studying opportunities, work experience placements etc as they were only benefit claimants due to being single parents without much family support and struggled to find work that suited school hours with enough flexibility for sick days, kids appointments etc. They wanted to be heading out to work and were generally so greatful to be supported back in to work. One of my clients is now a midwife after we supported her and gave her the confidence to go back to studying after several years of being a claimant.

The five weeks wait for benefits to be reinstated would put me off- if the job quickly goes wrong may not have enough food

overtheatlantic
So you have made those choices in life that affect me and my taxes?

I weirdly find this one of the worst comments I’ve seen on mn. Judge, jury and executioner comes to mind.

"Dedication is showing how parents work in society."

You can be a 'dedicated parent' and not be in paid employment. Vast numbers of women in my mother's generation didn't work when their children were young. Many would have had more money as a family had they worked outside the home, but they chose to have time with their children instead.

If what you really mean is 'people who claim benefits aren't dedicated parents because they're setting a bad example to their children', why not just say so.

And plenty of mums that don't work for whatever myriad reasons can still be amazing role models. Which is why this thread serves only to bash women down.

Yup - and the way UC works in regard to this issue has been identified as a big factor in food bank use and problems around housing insecurity.

As a single mum, i hate my job. I work 12.5 hour shifts, which means im out the house for 14 hour roughly. My kids have to get themselves up, sorted, breakfast, to school/college on time, lock up, home, make their own dinner etc, 4 times a week. They are old enough for this, but i wish i could be there more than i am. I love my job as just me, but as a mum it comes with incredible guilt, even now that my kids are older. It was even worse when they were small and i had my mum doing school runs and dinner and holiday care for them - i was extremely lucky in that sense. I think if not working had been a legitimate option as a single parent, i would have chosen that.

Running an Airbnb is a business with profit and loss risk. It involves cleaning, marketing, legal compliance, paperwork and paying tax. It puts capital at risk and involves active owner participation in management to varying degrees.

Running one is clearly legally and by an reasonable definition a small business.

Residential short term "sub let's" as you call them would not tend to be legal anyway. Most owners don't approve of sub letting by tenants and contracts generally prevent this.

I suggest you have a problem with corner shops because it is a logical extension of your view on the use of residential property for business purposes as immoral. Though that was based on my assumption that you actually knew what a business was, as you don't understand what a business is (or you chose to disagree with legal, tax, linguistic and accounting definitions of a business) then obviously I can't apply logic to your views.

Unless they are single parents, mums alone aren't responsible for the cost of childcare. Especially if their partner/husband is a high earner.

UC also helps with childcare costs for those on a low wage.

i don’t give a shit if people work or not; but it pisses me off if it’s a lifestyle choice which has to be funded by benefits.
So as an example; if someone is legitimately struggling to cope with work and childcare with 2 kids, so needs support for a time, I personally think if is annoying if they go on to have further kids leaving them unable to support themselves for longer. Do what you like, but fund your choices.
(and yes I’ll wait for the inevitable backlash and yes I know circumstances change)

Women not working irritates me less than working women who use their family members for free childcare.

Does anyone else feel a bit sick when someone says “my taxes are paying for you”. It’s so gross. It has the tone of “you are shit on my shoe”.

The amount you are paying in tax toward the unemployed individual you are addressing probably works out to a microscopic dust-sized fraction of a penny.

I totally understand where you’re coming from. I work in education leadership. Currently taking a few years out though to have my family which was important to me - but it’s also important to me to get back to it when the early years are done. Hoping this is the right thing to do for our family. They are my life of course but, God, motherhood is the hardest thing I’ve ever done. Cluster feeding ate high stakes decision making at work for breakfast. 😂

I really hate the cliche about making money for corporations that come up on these threads. Many of us are working in the public sector, where there are plenty of jobs which are not about making money for others. It’s such a lazy trope to use as justification for not working.

You are wasting your time, people don't want to listen or are incapable of understanding here. For a site that ridicules the Daily Mail most here subscribe to its narrative.

I've been in Joanne's shoes before and met many people in a worse position it's a complete poverty trap.

If people did not work, where would this money actually be coming from?

I have friends who say it is just not worth it until the kids are older. They would have to pay for the wraparound care and the what feels like hundreds of inset days and half terms etc, with multiple children especially they would be working to make a loss or just for the sake of having a job.

I don't understand why someone would want to work if they don't have to

How sad. Do you really not understand how people might want to work as doctors, teachers, musicians, business owners, because they thrive at work, find it enjoyable or rewarding etc? Do you think work is only about money? Is that how you were brought up?

Do children raise themselves? Should every parent pay someone else to raise their children? What about school hours and school holidays? A previous poster said childcare for 8-11 yr olds is difficult but it lasts longer than that. Do you leave 12-14 yr olds on their own for six weeks in the summer? What is wrong with parents taking care of their own children themselves?

Do you understand that many people have jobs not careers. Not all jobs are fulfilling, safe or enjoyable and often you are still skint after working long hours in that job.