Why do both parents have to work nowadays?

armabelle

I don't understand why it is so common that both parents work nowadays? This was not the case before. Surely humankind should be advancing and we should be needing to work less to enjoy the same lifestyle? I am no economist but can't help feeling like something is wrong with the setup of today.

Can anybody who know a bit more about this share the answer please?

eoferrall

armabelle wrote: »

I don't understand why it is so common that both parents work nowadays? This was not the case before. Surely humankind should be advancing and we should be needing to work less to enjoy the same lifestyle? I am no economist but can't help feeling like something is wrong with the setup of today.

Can anybody who know a bit more about this share the answer please?

simple really, supply and demand in economic terms. as a couple who both work have higher spending thresholds this therefore puts upwards pressure on limited stock of items. ie housing and so forth and therefore dual income families can afford more and so you need a dual income to compete in many cases to afford a home, which is most couples biggest expense.

that is the main reason, it is not a desire to, it is a necessity to afford housing and maintain the lifestyle they want (ie holidays etc)

armabelle

eoferrall wrote: »

simple really, supply and demand in economic terms. as a couple who both work have higher spending thresholds this therefore puts upwards pressure on limited stock of items. ie housing and so forth and therefore dual income families can afford more and so you need a dual income to compete in many cases to afford a home, which is most couples biggest expense.

that is the main reason, it is not a desire to, it is a necessity to afford housing and maintain the lifestyle they want (ie holidays etc)

Ok from what I understand from what you said and in layman's terms, two parents means more income for the house right? But how did people do it before when mum could stay home with the kids. I found these statistics:

“In 2010, among families with children,” the study notes, “nearly half (44.8 percent) were headed by two working parents and another one in four (26.1 percent) were headed by a single parent. As a result, fewer than one in three (28.7 percent) children now have a stay-at-home parent, compared to more than half (52.6 percent) in 1975, only a generation ago.”

Slydice

I remember watching this video where Elizabeth Warren talks about this topic. Starts 6 mins in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

It's (obviously) stayed with me as a very interesting video of note since (as it was 8 years ago)

Might be of interest to you.

mahoganygas

I think consumerism has a lot to do with it.

Look at your living room and compare that to a 60's living room. Nowadays we have massive TV's, monthly sky subscriptions, broadband, gaming systems, Stereos and outside the window there might be 2 cars in the driveway.

In the 60's you had a telly if you were lucky.

Are we happier today than we were in the 60's?
Maybe. Maybe not.

Also, look at the cost of childcare. In a lot of cases a second income is almost cancelled out by paying a child minder.

marklazarcovic

maybe they both want careers

miezekatze

People tend to have kids when they're a bit older now than in previous generations. They are accustomed to a certain lifestyle by the time they have kids and don't want to give that up, so they need 2 incomes.

Also, up to maybe the 80s a lot of employers seemed to encourage women to quit once they got married. That doesn't really happen anymore now, thankfully. Women have more choices now and are not just expected to be a housewife.

El_Duderino 09

Where is this better lifestyle coming from if we cut people from the workforce?
Who would grove the services and make the equipment to occupy you when you're not working? How would a government function? People who don't work get public money to sustain them. Public money comes from tax mainly from income earned from working or buying things. Where would the money come from?

iwillhtfu

In my case my wife would be happy to stay at home full time (currently works 3 days/week) her wage just about breaks even after costs. (4 under 6)

However due to the still somewhat shaky jobs market and risk of unemployment we think keeping her foot in the door is a necessary evil on the off chance I'm booted out the door. (I've no reason to suspect this but history is a great teacher?)

We certainly don't do it for the extra income/60" tv or fancy holidays (last one was honeymoon)

I think the thoughts of only one income just sounds like a risk should one income suddenly stop especially with a family.

googled eyes

They don't. The reason both parents work is because the want to/need to. They may want to fund a mortgage, annual holiday, 1/2 cars etc.

One parent can stay home and look after the kids IF you're willing to miss out on the luxuries.

I'm a "househusband". We made the decision after our first kid was born. Things are a bit tight because I'm not eligible for a social welfare payment but I'm getting to see my kids grow up, so swings and roundabouts.

Tazz T

Taxes and bills.

In the old days, it was simpler. You paid taxes out of your wages. You bills consisted of mortgage/rent, electricity and food - perhaps a home phone.

Today, double and triple taxation and new services and bills equate to another wage. VAT (first appeared in 72), service charges (now even on houses), USC, broadband & TV service, health schemes, childcare, mobile phones, LPT, water charges. carbon tax on bills, excise on alcohol/cigarrettes, customs tax on imported goods... the list is endless and will soon be supplemented by sugar tax. While wages have risen, the financial demands on the average household have never been greater.

JustTheOne

Consumerism.

Internet packages.
Sky packages.
X boxes.
I phones.
Cheaper flights so holidays that were never possible are now.

All of this stuff wasn't an option in much simpler times.

But we constantly crave new things and have to have them.

mansize

I guess for some is they want careers

Wanderer78

Op it's called debt peonage. I'd highly recommend the work of economists such as Ellen Brown, Bill black, ha-joon Chang and Michael Hudson for more information. It's a scam

We 're also following fundamentally flawed economic theories, mainly neoliberalism and neoclassical theory.

Eugene Norman

mahoganygas wrote: »

I think consumerism has a lot to do with it.

Look at your living room and compare that to a 60's living room. Nowadays we have massive TV's, monthly sky subscriptions, broadband, gaming systems, Stereos and outside the window there might be 2 cars in the driveway.

In the 60's you had a telly if you were lucky.

Are we happier today than we were in the 60's?
Maybe. Maybe not.

Also, look at the cost of childcare. In a lot of cases a second income is almost cancelled out by paying a child minder.

the 1960's TV probably cost as much as the electronic items in a modern house.

looksee

I was at home with my children when they were young and at the time I realised I would need a very good job to cover the cost of going to work. At a time when clothes were expensive - shops like Dunnes and Pennys did not exist, children's clothing was very expensive - I made clothes and a lot of household stuff, curtains, toys etc. Meals were prepared from scratch, basic ingredients - and I remember shopping around for cheaper cuts of meat as I only allowed myself a certain amount for each meal. I did decorating and repairs where I could. We had camping holidays in Ireland. We did not have an expensive wedding, and built up our furnishings over the years - initially with a lot of second hand furniture.

We were not paying for childcare, electronic gadgets - phones, computers, broadband, tv packages; more than one car, holidays. We were living on one professional salary and did not have a huge mortgage as we had had a lucky break that covered some of it. We did save a bit straight out of salary, but otherwise lived from month to month trying to keep within our income. We never had more than one loan or payment scheme going at a time - usually for a car.

Income tax was very high, clothing to buy was expensive, electronics (tv, radio) were ridiculously expensive. Relative to today's incomes, food was expensive. If you reckon standard of living by the amount of 'stuff' you have, then yes, the standard of living was lower than it is now.

I do realise that usually two incomes are needed in order to get a mortgage, especially in Dublin, but the theoretical income from two people decreases dramatically when you look at the expenses that working produces for a couple with children. Women struggled for the right and opportunity to work outside the home, now it has become more of an obligation. If both partners have trained and qualified for careers they want to pursue it is difficult for one of them to give it up, so the pressure is there to continue working.

On balance though, I do not feel that life is more expensive than it was 40 years ago, more that expectations have changed.

Speedwell

The idea that only one parent had to work in the past is a myth. It only ever applied to a certain class of people, those whose single earner parent was a highly paid professional or happened to inherit money. Anyone else was poor and struggling, or both parents did something to contribute to household finances. You might as well argue that because families in Victorian novels employed a cook and housekeeper that we're deprived today.

Eugene Norman

Tazz T wrote: »

Taxes and bills.

In the old days, it was simpler. You paid taxes out of your wages. You bills consisted of mortgage/rent, electricity and food - perhaps a home phone.

Today, double and triple taxation and new services and bills equate to another wage. VAT (first appeared in 72), service charges (now even on houses), USC, broadband & TV service, health schemes, childcare, mobile phones, LPT, water charges. carbon tax on bills, excise on alcohol/cigarrettes, customs tax on imported goods... the list is endless and will soon be supplemented by sugar tax. While wages have risen, the financial demands on the average household have never been greater.

It's really housing costs. That swamps everything. I bet that relative to wages, despite VAT, most things are cheaper then they were (and customs duties? We weren't in the EEC in the 60's). Childcare is also expensive but it's expensive (it's needed) because people work.

And housing and childcare are symptoms of women working rather than the cause, or rather it's a feedback loop.

It's not "entertainment systems". The cost of your mobile phone per month might be cheaper than a few calls to the UK from a landline in 1960. There were extortionate rental costs on the phones too. And my phone and Netflix (7€ a month) is my home entertainment cost.

maggiepip

Its manufactured by economics. Many people can't afford a mortgage on just on salary, back in the older days a mortgage was manageable on one salary. Feminism has demanded women get better jobs and work outside the home. Now women have no choice a lot of the time. The economy meets the expectation. But its not about luxury's, tvs, etc.,electronic goods are way more affordable now then they were years ago.

Eugene Norman

Speedwell wrote: »

The idea that only one parent had to work in the past is a myth. It only ever applied to a certain class of people, those whose single earner parent was a highly paid professional or happened to inherit money. Anyone else was poor and struggling, or both parents did something to contribute to household finances. You might as well argue that because all of the families in Victorian novels employed a cook and housekeeper that we're deprived today.

The statistics are clear. Most families didn't have dual incomes before. And it was possible to work in a factory and support a family.

Speedwell

maggiepip wrote: »

Feminism has demanded women get better jobs and work outside the home.

Um, feminism didn't demand that. Feminism demanded that women be allowed to work outside the home if they wanted to or needed to, because they were formerly excluded by a male-dominated establishment. Please get your history straight.

Speedwell

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The statistics are clear. Most families didn't have dual incomes before. And it was possible to work in a factory and support a family.

What statistic in what year in what place?

Eugene Norman

Anybody who thinks that mobile phones add to costs relative to the past needs to rethink. I remember my parents in the late 80's and 90's dreading the phone bill, and they were dual income. It could easily exceed 100£ per month depending on how chatty teenagers (and/or my mum) got. We had relatives in the uk.

My phone bill is always €35. And that includes the phone cost but I can sell the phone. Add on Netflix and my uploaded music collection, along with a TV and Bluetooth speakers (the cost of both is < 40% of rent by the way) and that's my entertainment cost. Trivial.

Eugene Norman

Speedwell wrote: »

What statistic in what year in what place?

Statistics of dual income families from 1960-now in Ireland. The threads subject.

Eugene Norman

Speedwell wrote: »

Um, feminism didn't demand that. Feminism demanded that women be allowed to work outside the home if they wanted to or needed to, because they were formerly excluded by a male-dominated establishment. Please get your history straight.

Actually they weren't. Not historically. While it's true that in the mid 20C women tended not to go out to work, it's not true in earlier periods where women worked in service and on the land. And in certain factories. So did children.

However the industrial revolution made working more male dominated. Women didn't work down mines for instance.


The establishment didn't work prior to the 20C. They inherited wealth.

Feminism only worried about women working and only about middle class jobs when jobs actually became a way to making significant money which wasn't true prior to the 20C for the most part.

maggiepip

Speedwell wrote: »

Um, feminism didn't demand that. Feminism demanded that women be allowed to work outside the home if they wanted to or needed to, because they were formerly excluded by a male-dominated establishment. Please get your history straight.

Yep you said it better than me smarty pants.
One could argue that the whole feminist movement is solely responsible for women now having no choice but to work. The economy now won't allow otherwise.

matrim

One contributing factor could be that it's much easier to keep a house nowadays so the second person has more time to actually work outside the home if they want to.

Things like washing machines, dishwashers and the ability to have gas or electric cookers and heating so you can cook within 5 minutes of coming in the door instead of waiting 30 for a fire.

How many people nowadays darn socks instead of just buying a new pair in pennys? We always had socks darned at least once before being thrown away and I'm not that old. If you want bread it's down to the supermarket instead of having to make it.

And then to top off the above most families are smaller so there are less people to look after per household.

iguana

Speedwell wrote: »

The idea that only one parent had to work in the past is a myth. It only ever applied to a certain class of people, those whose single earner parent was a highly paid professional or happened to inherit money. Anyone else was poor and struggling, or both parents did something to contribute to household finances. You might as well argue that because families in Victorian novels employed a cook and housekeeper that we're deprived today.

In the past most families existed on one income. Either one income from a father working outside the home while the mother raised the children or the one income brought in by the family business which both parents (and also usually the older children) worked in. Two parents in separate employment, paying a third party to raise their children is mostly a very modern phenomenon and has only become the norm for new parents in the last two decades.

Speedwell wrote: »

Um, feminism didn't demand that. Feminism demanded that women be allowed to work outside the home if they wanted to or needed to, because they were formerly excluded by a male-dominated establishment. Please get your history straight.

Feminism didn't demand that but in a society where a family necessity like housing varies wildly by quality and the price is controlled by supply and demand, an unintended consequence of giving women the choice to enter the workforce has been to remove the choice for one parent to stay at home from a majority of families in many urban areas. Once dual income families started bidding on houses in nice neighbourhoods, prices went up and up. And we're now at a point where in many cities it just isn't possible for a single income family to buy a house at all. Even once they have children and the childcare costs mean the second income is only worth a couple of hundred a month, that €200 is essential for paying the enormous mortgage.

eviltwin

I'm a working parent. I work because I want to. As much as I love my kids it's no fun being a stay at home parent. It's tiring, lonely and demeaning. Working doesn't give me a lot of additional income but it's the best option for me from a mental health point of view.

ThisRegard

armabelle wrote: »

I don't understand why it is so common that both parents work nowadays? This was not the case before. Surely humankind should be advancing and we should be needing to work less to enjoy the same lifestyle? I am no economist but can't help feeling like something is wrong with the setup of today.

Can anybody who know a bit more about this share the answer please?

There's nothing necessarily wrong with it. We both work because we want to, both have good careers and have a comfortable lifestyle. The kids don't suffer, they're home at reasonable times, a lot of the time we can't get them out of after school as they enjoy it and benefit from the social stimulus.

Dial Hard

Eugene Norman wrote:

Actually they weren't. Not historically. While it's true that in the mid 20C women tended not to go out to work, it's not true in earlier periods where women worked in service and on the land. And in certain factories. So did children.

Actually that's not strictly true. Prior to the 20th century there were very few opportunities for women to engage in paid work. They worked on the land, yes, but usually on family farms where they weren't paid for the work. Poultry and pig keeping were the main sources of income for rural women and that wasn't waged work as such.

Domestic service was an option for some but it was always seen as a poor choice in Ireland and very few families could afford it here anyway.

Factory work for women in Ireland was extremely rare before the 20C. The linen trade was pretty much the only one that employed women in numbers worth talking about and they generally worked from home. But even that was in terminal decline well before the Industrial Revolution because the Act of Union in 1800 created a free market between Ireland and Britain and the market was flooded with much cheaper British imports.

Historically, paternalism very much prevented women from engaging in paid work. The ideology of separate spheres dictated that men should provide for their family and women should concern themselves only with the home, and working women were viewed with some alarm. The few jobs that were available to women were basically those that prepared them for marriage e.g. domestic service, governessing.

Mary Cullen and Ciara Breathnach have done a lot of interesting work on the role of women in the pre-20th Irish economy, for anyone who's interested.

iguana

eviltwin wrote: »

As much as I love my kids it's no fun being a stay at home parent. It's tiring, lonely and demeaning.

Maybe that's true for you but it's not even close to true for many stay and home parents. I'm a stay at home mum and it's the most fun, rewarding and exhilarating experience of my life to date. And in my past career I worked for NGOs which I found extremely rewarding, surprisingly fun and in my last role occasionally glamorous. But being at home with my son on the worst days is like every best day I ever had working, rolled into one and then multiplied by a thousand. I wake up every morning literally thrilled by the prospect of another 13 hours hanging out with my favourite person and getting to help shape the person he's becoming. It's often tiring, extremely so, but it's the furthest from lonely or demeaning that I can imagine. I belong to the Stay at Home Parents Association Ireland the universal idea that being at home with our kids is some awful sacrifice is not the reality for huge numbers of stay at home parents. For most of us we do it because we genuinely love it and many members are parents who can't afford to stay home but wish they could.

groucho marx

Personal choice maybe, your still allowed have one as far as I know.

eviltwin

iguana wrote: »

Maybe that's true for you but it's not even close to true for many stay and home parents. I'm a stay at home mum and it's the most fun, rewarding and exhilarating experience of my life to date. And in my past career I worked for NGOs which I found extremely rewarding, surprisingly fun and in my last role occasionally glamorous. But being at home with my son on the worst days is like every best day I ever had working, rolled into one and then multiplied by a thousand. I wake up every morning literally thrilled by the prospect of another 13 hours hanging out with my favourite person and getting to help shape the person he's becoming. It's often tiring, extremely so, but it's the furthest from lonely or demeaning that I can imagine. I belong to the Stay at Home Parents Association Ireland the universal idea that being at home with our kids is some awful sacrifice is not the reality for huge numbers of stay at home parents. For most of us we do it because we genuinely love it and many members are parents who can't afford to stay home but wish they could.

Yeah I should have said that was my experience and mine only. I'm just not suited to it and it didn't agree with me and once my kids were in education I needed more. It's unfortunately true though that society doesn't value the role of a sahp, you're often made to feel like you don't work, that you've no real value. You tend to become defined by your role as parent. And government have no interest in doing anything to support a sahp.

oranje

I don't live in Ireland any more but the conditions in Holland are not really different except that there are even fewer single income families here. My wife doesn't work right now so our family is in the minority and from time to time there are critical comments from other people about this.
Anyway, I can understand how some people have no choice. However, it really does depend on how big the larger income is, whether you want to risk being dependent on one person and whether one person is willing to sacrifice their career (again, this is a choice). In our case there are many benefits. My wife is much more flexible and we have no childcare costs. Our children are very involved in gymnastics and top level training means committing anything from 12 to 20 hours in a week. Working parents do manage this as well but some things we did like moving our daughter to a club 30km away might not have been possible.
We are not very materialistic but we have anything you might need. Another thing is that the person still working might need to make choices that sacrifice happiness at the expense of income. Basically earning more can often involve doing things that might not be your childhood dream. You have to be very careful about burning bridges and jumping ship is always loaded with risks. The main financial downside for us is that my wife is not building up a pension so that will be a problem longer term. In Holland the system rewards working in a low income job, not working is penalized. Everybody is treated as an individual in the tax system because most of the historical family friendly elements have been phased out.

Victor

armabelle wrote: »

I don't understand why it is so common that both parents work nowadays? This was not the case before. Surely humankind should be advancing and we should be needing to work less to enjoy the same lifestyle?

We can still get by with one-worker families. We just need to move back to a 1970s standard of living. Walk to school / work. Make your own sandwiches. Get the bus back from the shopping. Holidays (most years) in West Cork.

On my parent's street in the 1970s, most households had one car, some had none. Now most have two or three. For a time in the 1980s, our household had a black and white portable TV and two channels, now there are 4-5 TVs in my parent's house (with fewer people living there) and as many channels as you can shake a stick at.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Anybody who thinks that mobile phones add to costs relative to the past needs to rethink. I remember my parents in the late 80's and 90's dreading the phone bill, and they were dual income. It could easily exceed 100£ per month depending on how chatty teenagers (and/or my mum) got. We had relatives in the uk.

My phone bill is always €35. And that includes the phone cost but I can sell the phone. Add on Netflix and my uploaded music collection, along with a TV and Bluetooth speakers (the cost of both is < 40% of rent by the way) and that's my entertainment cost. Trivial.

But in an equivalent household today, there will be several phones, each costing €35 (or whatever) per month.

KomradeBishop

The less that goes to workers, the more corporate profits stay with the corporation (essentially, as both parents in households working became prevalent, the more that became a great opportunity for corporations to squeeze workers) - and the more that the cost of living is expanded to eat up workers income, the more a small class of people get to benefit from 'rent seeking' behaviour in the economy (easy gains, granted by holding a privileged or monopoly position in the economy, that soak up workers income - e.g. excessive property prices and rents - to the benefit of rentiers and at the expense of workers).

It doesn't have to be like this, but it just so happens that the economy is run in a way that tips the balance towards rentiers like this. They have significant political power for engaging in rent-seeking activities as well, for maintaining and expanding this power over the rest of society.

You can see evidence for the former (wages vs corporate profits), through seeing that corporations have held onto the profit gains from productivity increases, for a long time:



You can see evidence for the latter, in the way the housing market has been allowed to experience enormous price inflation, both during the boom (due to lax regulation of credit/loans), and now as well (due to inadequate social housing, inadequate infrastructure, among other areas of inadequate policymaking regarding housing).

These are all political choices which affect the distribution of income and wealth - and we're living in a time when workers are being squeezed in this regard.

The economics of this explain how it happens (TLDR squeezed wages, increased lifetime cost of living), but the politics of it explain why (tipping the balance in favour of rentiers, at the cost of everyone else).

armabelle

Slydice wrote: »

I remember watching this video where Elizabeth Warren talks about this topic. Starts 6 mins in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

It's (obviously) stayed with me as a very interesting video of note since (as it was 8 years ago)

Might be of interest to you.

This is the one. I watched the whole thing and there couldn't be a better explanation. The problem is that after watching it, I had more questions than when I started

Mainly: Why should houses be 50% or 100% (for families) more expensive than in the 70's? Also, why does healthcare take such a chunk out of the earnings of families nowadays in the USA. Can't they see there is something wrong with that and change it?

armabelle

Tazz T wrote: »

While wages have risen, the financial demands on the average household have never been greater.

Your post was good... but I still ask why? Why all these new taxes on everything and why such strain on the household... how can human beings ever be happy this way?

Wanderer78

armabelle wrote: »

This is the one. I watched the whole thing and there couldn't be a better explanation. The problem is that after watching it, I had more questions than when I started

Mainly: Why should houses be 50% or 100% (for families) more expensive than in the 70's? Also, why does healthcare take such a chunk out of the earnings of families nowadays in the USA. Can't they see there is something wrong with that and change it?

i think michael hudson explains it very well with the use of things such as orwellian double speak amongst other things, in order to confuse. you will have more questions the more you look into this stuff but you do discover some answers along the way to. you will start to realise its all a big scam though and it seems like to me, nobody really knows what to do about it but there are some good ideas out there

armabelle

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Op it's called debt peonage. I'd highly recommend the work of economists such as Ellen Brown, Bill black, ha-joon Chang and Michael Hudson for more information. It's a scam

We 're also following fundamentally flawed economic theories, mainly neoliberalism and neoclassical theory.

I can believe that somehow.. or rather I can feel it because I am not smart enough to know the inner workings of it but I do want to read more about it.. I am actually reading a ha-joon book called "23 things they don't tell you about capitalism" but it doesnt talk much about this subject. What books can you recommend?

Charles Babbage

Tazz T wrote: »

Taxes and bills.

In the old days, it was simpler. You paid taxes out of your wages. You bills consisted of mortgage/rent, electricity and food - perhaps a home phone.

Today, double and triple taxation and new services and bills equate to another wage. VAT (first appeared in 72), service charges (now even on houses), USC, broadband & TV service, health schemes, childcare, mobile phones, LPT, water charges. carbon tax on bills, excise on alcohol/cigarrettes, customs tax on imported goods... the list is endless and will soon be supplemented by sugar tax. While wages have risen, the financial demands on the average household have never been greater.

The idea that people pay more tax is largely nonsense and suggests that you have a certain agenda rather than a wish to contribute to the debate. Ok the tax is now called LPT or water charges rather than rates, but that doesn't mean that it is more. Broadband etc are items people choose to get and cost no more in real terms than a phone in the 70s. TVs have always cost €400-€500 when salaries were much lower.

The explanation is elsewhere. People enjoying a higher standard of living, holidays abroad etc. and the competition effects caused by other people having two incomes, which has driven up the cost of housing in convenient areas.

Wanderer78

armabelle wrote: »

I can believe that somehow.. or rather I can feel it because I am not smart enough to know the inner workings of it but I do want to read more about it.. I am actually reading a ha-joon book called "23 things they don't tell you about capitalism" but it doesnt talk much about this subject. What books can you recommend?

ha-joon chang is fantastic. i was lucky to see him in action at kilkenomics 2014. id highly recommend going to it in order to further your knowledge on these subject matters. i find it very helpful to understand these issues better by watching such debates. i wouldnt worry about your lack of knowledge on these topics, at least you're trying to understand it. most dont give a damn and dont be bothered trying to figure it out. this is probably the most complicated subject matter ive ever set out to understand but i realise its gonna be a long road. im not a reader myself but as i said earlier, id recommend ha-joons work along with ellen brown, bill black and michael hudson. theyre the only people ive looked into in any great detail so far. they all have a lot of stuff available on the weird wide web including youtube videos. i prefer learning by audio and podcasts, all have plenty of those available online. ellen brown does a regular podcast called 'its our money',

http://itsourmoney.podbean.com/

she can be a little quirky but her podcasts are very interesting. im currently making my way through michael hudsons work. its enough to make you angry but very educational. we ve been had im afraid. bailouts, austerity, the lot!

its great to see people like yourself trying to make an effort in trying to figure all this out. its not easy but is worth it. i just wish some of our politicians would do the same.

armabelle

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm a working parent. I work because I want to. As much as I love my kids it's no fun being a stay at home parent. It's tiring, lonely and demeaning. Working doesn't give me a lot of additional income but it's the best option for me from a mental health point of view.

So being away from your kids is better for your mental health?

armabelle

iguana wrote: »

Maybe that's true for you but it's not even close to true for many stay and home parents. I'm a stay at home mum and it's the most fun, rewarding and exhilarating experience of my life to date. And in my past career I worked for NGOs which I found extremely rewarding, surprisingly fun and in my last role occasionally glamorous. But being at home with my son on the worst days is like every best day I ever had working, rolled into one and then multiplied by a thousand. I wake up every morning literally thrilled by the prospect of another 13 hours hanging out with my favourite person and getting to help shape the person he's becoming. It's often tiring, extremely so, but it's the furthest from lonely or demeaning that I can imagine. I belong to the Stay at Home Parents Association Ireland the universal idea that being at home with our kids is some awful sacrifice is not the reality for huge numbers of stay at home parents. For most of us we do it because we genuinely love it and many members are parents who can't afford to stay home but wish they could.

This is the way it should be..your kids are lucky to have you.

armabelle

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The less that goes to workers, the more corporate profits stay with the corporation (essentially, as both parents in households working became prevalent, the more that became a great opportunity for corporations to squeeze workers) - and the more that the cost of living is expanded to eat up workers income, the more a small class of people get to benefit from 'rent seeking' behaviour in the economy (easy gains, granted by holding a privileged or monopoly position in the economy, that soak up workers income - e.g. excessive property prices and rents - to the benefit of rentiers and at the expense of workers).

It doesn't have to be like this, but it just so happens that the economy is run in a way that tips the balance towards rentiers like this. They have significant political power for engaging in rent-seeking activities as well, for maintaining and expanding this power over the rest of society.

You can see evidence for the former (wages vs corporate profits), through seeing that corporations have held onto the profit gains from productivity increases, for a long time:



You can see evidence for the latter, in the way the housing market has been allowed to experience enormous price inflation, both during the boom (due to lax regulation of credit/loans), and now as well (due to inadequate social housing, inadequate infrastructure, among other areas of inadequate policymaking regarding housing).

These are all political choices which affect the distribution of income and wealth - and we're living in a time when workers are being squeezed in this regard.

The economics of this explain how it happens (TLDR squeezed wages, increased lifetime cost of living), but the politics of it explain why (tipping the balance in favour of rentiers, at the cost of everyone else).

I think if the average people were smart enough to understand all this or want to understand it, there would be a revolution

Eugene Norman

Dial Hard wrote: »

Actually that's not strictly true. Prior to the 20th century there were very few opportunities for women to engage in paid work. They worked on the land, yes, but usually on family farms where they weren't paid for the work. Poultry and pig keeping were the main sources of income for rural women and that wasn't waged work as such.

Domestic service was an option for some but it was always seen as a poor choice in Ireland and very few families could afford it here anyway.

Factory work for women in Ireland was extremely rare before the 20C. The linen trade was pretty much the only one that employed women in numbers worth talking about and they generally worked from home. But even that was in terminal decline well before the Industrial Revolution because the Act of Union in 1800 created a free market between Ireland and Britain and the market was flooded with much cheaper British imports.

Historically, paternalism very much prevented women from engaging in paid work. The ideology of separate spheres dictated that men should provide for their family and women should concern themselves only with the home, and working women were viewed with some alarm. The few jobs that were available to women were basically those that prepared them for marriage e.g. domestic service, governessing.

Mary Cullen and Ciara Breathnach have done a lot of interesting work on the role of women in the pre-20th Irish economy, for anyone who's interested.

You've muddied the waters here by admitting they worked on the land, since that is what the men did too. And women worked in service - in no sense an insignificant number of people worked in service, in the UK it was 30-40% of the population. Peasants and servants make up a lot

The rich didn't work.

It's true that many factories excluded women but not all (some included children) and they often worked in weaving factories. As work became more industrial women left the workspace with little regret I imagine.

Women weren't oppressed in the 19th C and earlier because they didn't work, they were oppressed because they did, like the working class.

Wanderer78

armabelle wrote: »

I think if the average people were smart enough to understand all this or want to understand it, there would be a revolution

ellen brown believes, if everybody knew how money was created, there would be a revolution. its an amazing scam. disturbing really.

screamer

Both parents don't have to work it's amazing how you can survive on one wage when you have to. Both work for a myriad of reasons- money status career feeling important some who'd just hate to be at home. Both parents chose to work.

JanaMay

In the past, in general, people married younger and the older generations died earlier, which often meant that young married couples (especially daughters and their husbands) stayed in the family home. The newly-married daughter looked after the house and elderly parents while the young husband worked. The elderly parents died and the house passed to the new couple.

In addition, girls and women were discouraged from pursuing education. If they got a job in the civil service they left it on marrying. Thankfully, nowadays women have access to the same education as men. They study, qualify and start a career. If they take time out for a few years after having children, they might find themselves back at the bottom rung of the career ladder. They might then realise that sending children to school and college is expensive and requires a double wage. They might think that they won't want to be at home while their children are at school for 6 hours a day. They might actually enjoy working. There aren't only short-term economic reasons to consider. And sometimes, they have no choice. Renting a house on two minimum wage jobs and providing for children's future can't be easy.

There are lots of reasons, not all economic, but we should never think that any parent takes these choices lightly. We all just do what is best for our families.

KomradeBishop

armabelle wrote: »

I think if the average people were smart enough to understand all this or want to understand it, there would be a revolution

Yea I guess I've been reading this stuff so long now, and am familiar enough with the concepts, that it's hard to explain it in a more approachable way than what I'm familiar with - it's certainly true though, that hardly anybody at all seems to care about this type of topic.