If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
See above.
So for a short period of historical time in the 70s and 80s some in the middle classes could afford not to work, whereas some of them have to work now? Not an extremelly compelling argument. or at least not compelling enough to say its not debatable
That's because as women entered the workplace in earnest, the effective pool of labour almost doubled, with the inevitable consequences of lower wages, less union power etc etc.
Why offer secure contracts when 80% of your workforce is instantly replacable?
Why offer decent wages and better conditions when there are people lining up to take the job as it is?
What happens to relative earning power between the highly educated and the uneducated/ the skilled and unskilled and the experienced/inexperienced when you suddenly have a great deal more unskilled/ uneducated/ inexperienced workers?
Not just the 70's and 80's, but the 50's and 60's too. Not just middle class either...its not like we were particularly middle class. What is undeniable is that Thatcher wrought massive changes in our society and that peoples jobs are a lot more precarious than ever. I notice that you also conveniently only addressed half of my post.
Especially as my wife hasn't worked for just over 12 years now... when my son was born I was unemployed...
Now I would agree Thatcher wrought massive changes in our society (or at least massive chanegs happened). One of those changes was that a new role models emerged throughout the Western world for women - that of the working and succesful Mother (and given Mrs Thatcher, at least on the surface, appeared to be a succesful working mother I think her position as a role model was as important as any economic changes). The idea that women had to stay at home to look after the children became seen as outdated.
Now some people do need to work, to stop their house being repossessed or to because their in extreme poverty. however I wouldn't say their the majority. Many women want to return to work because a) they want to try and balance a career with a family b) the extra money is useful, but not essential (especially given that many then have to use a fair chunk of that money for carers etc)
The issue of women going back to work etc was influenced by 60's and 70's women's movements, but it was also influenced by economic necessity. This is a fact, read some recent social history.
How much of the cost of living is the increased disposable incomes for the majority?
How much has the drive for more "material" goods affected that?
The question is, how much of the problem is the system of "capitalism" and how much is actually individual "greed"?
What changes do you refer to?
People are richer now than 20 years ago so why would they need more money, unless the cost of parenting had risen more than real incomes..........
Property is of course a major issue, but one that is in no way unique to parents.......
Well it has always been true that people earning very little will have difficulty finding the money to support a family.
Yes jobs are more precarious but the fact is that on average people earn more money now than ythey have ever done before.
Assuming that you define 'need' as an absolute concept then this means it should be easier for people to support a family now with only one income, on average.......
Though as I say the question of property prices makes this assertion a bit murky.........
The old ones are the best ones...............
Very much in touch with reality. I admit its a difficulty, but people do it all the time.
And I've never said it wasn't a n economic necessity for some - however not for all ( or even the majority)
I dunno off hand, but the cost of living has gone up more than peoples wages and their is less job security now.
and how much is rent, council tax, bills, education, prescriptions, dental costs etc?
The two are inseparable.
Are you reading the thread?
Richer in what way? Who is richer? No one I know, thats for sure.
Eh?
I recommend it - you seem quite badly read.
Ha!
Yes they do. People (mostly) survive. However, its getting more difficult all the time.
Of course it isn't for all, how absurd. It is for a sizeable minority though...if you don't think so then you're blind.
And whilst I'm sure that life is tough for people at the bottom of the pole it was pretty tough for those at the bottom of the pole thirty years ago as well. I just struggle to reconcile your golden age with the reality.
And you seem to have been in a coma if you cannot see that people are better off now than they were 20 years ago........
United Kingdom 1980 £14,340
United Kingdom 2000 £22,188
The numbers being average real GDP per capita in the repective years for the UK...........
Mean? Media? It makes a big difference as to what it means...
P.S.
You cannot measure everything in terms of money.
Nice get out..........
True but the issue at hand is the ability to raise a child.
And the fact is that on average people have more money thus meaning it is LESS necessary for both parents to work, not more, as you claimed..........
Of course this is a crude average and may hide a lot of other pertinent factors but I can't think of any reason off the top of my head why things would be different for parents of young children compared to the rest of the population........
Not a very good indicator then as it will be skewed by the massive incomes of people in the city etc.
I think you'll find that the actual reality of people's lives is very very different.
Income is more unevenly distributed now but not nearly enough to offset an increase of £8,000 in average real incomes...........
Please could you enlighten me as to why you seem to be so much more aware of the facts of peoples lives than I am?
It is a fact that on average people have more money thus how does it follow that it is more necessary for two parents to be working based on the need to provide the necessities, which by definition should be no different?
What does it mean then? I and millions of others like cheap DVDs - or at least I like the fact I can afford them. I like to be able to afford cheap foreign travel (even if we decide not to go abroad until my daughters are a bit older) and whilst house prices may have risen, so has the amount of space available per person in the household (ie overcrowding has fallen).
And there certainly isn't more uncertainty in unemployment than there was in the 30s and whilst more jobs are short-term contracts, the majority aren't and many people like short term contracts because they often pay more and allow you more flexibility.
Sorry you're still not convincing me that we're worse off than we were in the 70s.
Well, yes it is. After the city was deregulated in the late 80's, there is vastly more money being made by a small amount of people. Thatcher's neo-liberalist project has massively skewed these figures - the gap between the rich and poor is getting wider.
I rather think it is. In London there are hundreds sleeping on the streets and thousands in temporary accomodation, yet people drive past in cars worth more than a place to live. That ain't right and its getting worse. I work at the sharp end of it and I tell you, its getting worse, much worse.