Anyone else feel that being a dad and sole breadwinner is a lousy deal?

[SpareWheel]

DW and I are SITCOMs (single income, two children, oppressive mortgage). I work crazy hours and race back work half-done to see the kids a little bit before bedtime then try to finish off work and fall into bed. At the risk of sounding like a whinger, I feel like I'm becoming a crap employee, crap husband and a crap father all in one - surely I'm not the only one...

Oh, come on. You may not agree with what Xenia has to say, but that's no reason to start a bullying thread.

Read it.

It still sounds bullying to me.

That's just it, speccy.

Yes, I'm too stupid to read properly.

Of course they do. The trouble is that you often pick jobs in your 20s when you're single, without children, free and idealistic and forget that in your 30s with 3 children under 6 and a wife or husband to keep the fun career might end up a kind of mill stone around your neck.

"It's hard to become a doctor. They are in demand. They are paid more than nurses. This is how the real world works."

You're assuming there is a free market in medical training. Access to medical training is restricted by the BMA to ensure it's members can retain their high salaries, and anyone over a certain age is not admitted.

If medical schools were to expand their intake and accept a higher drop-out rate, we'd see more doctors, probabaly from a more diverse background, but this would lead to a drop in salaries, which cannot be tolerated.

The same goes for dentists, but more so. They increased entrance requirements for dentistry back in the 80's because they thought everyone would have perfect teeth and be mostly interested in cosmetic work. The results are obvious.

If you believe that course entry requirements signal the IQ needed to perform the job, then you end up subscribing to the belief that dentists are smarter than neurosurgeons, because courses in medicine have lower entrance requirements that dentistry.

Whilst I'm not sure that the entrance requirements for dentistry are higher than medicine, they weren't when I applied, I agree that they don't reflect the IQ needed to do the job. I recall being told that a CCC at A level would be an appropriate academic cut off.

I would argue however that the high academic requirements reflect the competition to get in to medicine. A cut off of four As still leaves many more applicants than there are plces at uni.

I often think that a higher salary just brings with it pressure to spend more money on the basics, ie a bigger house in a nicer area. Unless you overcome that pressure/rethink what you actually need in your life then you can still end up in a situation where you feel under financial pressure. My dad was the sole breadwinner when I was a child and I imagine that, as a coalminer, he earned a wage that in real terms would equate to much less than my earnings today as a doctor. However I spend more money on a house etc than my parents ever did. I good choose to live somewhere smaller, in a "worse" area but I don't. It's my choice but I do wonder sometimes if dp and I are caught in a lifestyle trap though I recognise that for those on a low income there may be no choice about it.

Very interesting point kevlarhead. I hope more people can comment on it.

Xenia, do you really believe market forces determine wage level, and nothing else? Is it really that simple?

Excellent point Kevlarhead. Also applies to law of course. The unions may have been smashed, but you won't find the middle class elite professions giving up their restrictive practices any time soon.

It's the principal factor, yes. Why are cleaners paid less than professional footballers? Why are stars of West End shows paid more than someone in a minor rep performance? Also compare professors and ordinary lecturers, school heads and teachers or even just class room assistances and teachers themselves. Lots of sixth formers are rejected who want to do medicine and vet degrees each year because there is such demand for those courses although doctors are not the best example of free market comparison as they are trained by the state in effect for a state provided service.

So compare someone who is competent to run WH Smith in the South East compared with someone who sweeps the floor there. IQ will be higher. Wages will be higher and more people want the running the stores jobs than the sweeping the floors jobs.

But kelvarhead's arguement doesn't actually hold water. Over the past 5 years there has been a massive increase in the number of places at med school. In my year there were 190ish of us, the current year has approx 300.

Crap workforce planning now means that the nhs can't afford to employ in triaing posts all of the medical graduates whose training has cost 250k each!

The academic cut off is so high because the numbers who want to go in to medicine are so high. The very market forces that Xenia talks about are well and truly in play here.

There is no middle class conspiracy to keep salaries high by restricting intake. Most medical schools, certainly the one whose students I deal with, are trying to reach out to a more diverse intake of students.

I remember at my uni open day chatting to the lad next to me, all the usual stuff about how far had you travelled, where are you from etc. His dad sat in the house of lords and he went to Eton, my dad was a coalminer and I went to the local comp which was very much "bog-standard". We both got in and so did a wholer host of others whose economic backgrounds were very varied.

I've recently dealt with a student who left school at 16 with a few GCSEs, took a long time to re-engage in education as an adult, did lots of research and is now, aged 36, in the third year of his medical degree.

"But kelvarhead's arguement doesn't actually hold water"

Fair enough, it was mostly based on a conversation I had with a professor of anatomy. We were both a bit pissed and it was a few years ago...

The used to ration the number of lawyer course places to the number of lawyers there were places for in firms and then that changed to open the market for the courses almost to call comers. There are pros and cons to either approach. My views is letting people sit courses they may then not get a job after is better than limiting the numbers of places on the courses. It's a bit different with medicine though as that's the public sector.

Huge demand from women wanting to work in term time only as class room assistants at £6k a year or whatever it is so we're not going to see wages up to £100k for that whereas it's fairly hard to find good headmasters/mistresses for failing inner city schools so higher wages follow to try to get candidates.

On the question of the thread all financial burdne on one man (or woman) is fine for some people who like the feeling of responsibility and it's almost a matter of pride and control for them but not for others who would rather both of them were working. I was asked what I was doing 10 years ago and read my 1997 diary yesterday. My ex husband wanted to give up work (we were getting on badly too) and I was writing about how unfair that would be that he would stop work have a house keeper, childcare, lots of money and I would work for the next 30 years to keep him in comfort pursuing whatever pursuits he wanted (and he was only doing it when the youngest child, then was 8). He did carry on working though.

But it's not the number of training places that counts, it's the jobs.

Who cares if you've got a medical degree? It won't pay the rent. Getting a job as a doctor will.

OK - can we at least agree that:

(a) for most people who earn lots, work silly hours and have an accordingly expensive lifestyle, it's their choice, and (b) having constructed that particular sleeping apparatus, they should recline upon it?

1. for those on low incomes, it is seldom because they have abandoned an abundant opportunity of earning lots more, and

1. (if I can just stretch it one further) SAHMs of pre-school children should not be denigrated for electing to bring up their charges themselves instead of seeking employment and using childcare instead?

Sq, I would rather there were more access to the education even if there is a log jam later than people can't qualify into whatever it is because numbers are rationed but I think that's more a question of are we a nanny state - saying poor little graduates didn't realise it was silly to take on all that debt if the jobs aren't there we must protect them v. free market - they can look at the competition when they make their choice and if they want to take a risk to train without a likely job let them.

On the issue of choice and jobs some people choose less well paid jobs and know that is the case. It was certainly we talked to my father about the car to school as teenagers - what certain jobs paid, what others did along with the need to pick work you will enjoy. I don't denigate parents who stay home but I can't imagine how they can cope with the boredom of it, loss of status, lack of mnoey when it doesn't do most children one iota of harm if the parents work but obviously some parents enjoy that caring for under 5s stuff.

Shock horror I agree with Xenia - tbh I don't really see why medical students should be guaranteed a job any more than any other grad.

OK I know it costs a lot to train them, but it costs the state a lot to train lots of grads who don't get graduate careers, or give them up a few years down the line because they can't reconcile them with parenting. No-one seems to worry about that very much.

I worry about it. It's completely pointless many girls doing GCSEs and A levels never mind degrees as so many chuck it in have babies, live off male earnings in some kind of Taliban/Saudi type way and then go back to little jobs of such low wages and pettiness they might as well leave school at 15, find suitable husbands and have babies at the right age physically. I don't know why we bother letting so many girls into university at all. We should make them give undertaking that if they have children they won't stop work and refund the state costs of their education beyond age 15.

Oh, Xenia. Are you for real??
There's still intrinsic value in being well-educated whether you end up in a high-powered job or not...

No no no Dr Daddy there's no point at all being educated unless you earn loadsamunny from it.

In fact, there's no point being alive unless you're earning loadsamunny.

May be up to GCSEs but what in your A levels and degree do you really need if your life is then shopping, potatoes, wiping bottoms and chatting to teenagers? Surely GCSEs are enough to do that well.