Why do both parents have to work nowadays?

jester77

This generation of people are very different to that of their parents. The current generation want something and they want it now, not in a few years.

You only have to look in the accommodation forum here. People are complaining about the new financial rules about getting a mortgage. They think, or I really should probably say expect, they should be able to save for only 4 or 5 years and then be able to take out a massive mortgage. And then they would expect the house to be fully kitted out from day 1.

This is a far cry from our parents generation. They had to save hard for many years before they could get a mortgage and then they only had the very basics in the house. I'm not old and remember my parents having no central heating, no telephone, single glazing windows that leaked and let in the wind, a basic TV with an aerial and a garden to grow all our vegetables. Milk and eggs were gotten from local farmers. Plus they had to deal with high unemployment and massive interest rates compared to today. I remember when we got a telephone in, when we got radiators, a VHS player. And these things only happened over many years and were a big deal at the time.

The generation of today don't want to wait. 2 jobs (plus loans) are required to pay and have things right away. You can debate which system is better, both have pros and cons. But consumerism today has resulted in requiring 2 jobs to maintain the current household.

Milly33

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So both parents work so they can buy gadgets for their child because that's the only way they know how to interact with their child?

sadly sometimes that is the case. Or as mentioned a few times having things, like a big house, or fast broadband or the latest car... Some people like things like this others don't..

esforum

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Take mothers statements about how happy they were to give up their career and education with an appropriate amount of salt ( or wine/valium as appropriate).

and you dont presume my wife, I or my mother in law are Irish or even live in Ireland

Alf Veedersane

Milly33 wrote: »

sadly sometimes that is the case. Or as mentioned a few times having things, like a big house, or fast broadband or the latest car... Some people like things like this others don't..

It reads as though you're saying that both parents decide they can offset working by just buying gadgets for their children rather than actually being good parents.

Wabbit Ears

esforum wrote:

and you dont presume my wife, I or my mother in law are Irish or even live in Ireland

Since its an Irish forum that assumption is a given unless specifically stated otherwise.

Milly33

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It reads as though you're saying that both parents decide they can offset working by just buying gadgets for their children rather than actually being good parents.

Ah im sure you could open up the mind a little more..it was used as an example

eviltwin

Milly33 wrote: »

sadly sometimes that is the case. Or as mentioned a few times having things, like a big house, or fast broadband or the latest car... Some people like things like this others don't..

And equally you could be at home all day with your kids and still ignore them. There are bad parents no matter what their situation. I think most parents are just trying to do their best, they make the choices that they think is best for them and their family at that time. There is no right choice, just the right one for your own set of circumstances. I hate the pitting of working parents against non working parents.

Alf Veedersane

Milly33 wrote: »

Ah im sure you could open up the mind a little more..it was used as an example

I can. I'm just saying that's how it reads.

FWIW, I think there are quite a few reasons why both parents work and the intersections in that particular Venn diagram wouldn't be as big as a lot of people seem to think.

esforum

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Since its an Irish forum that assumption is a given unless specifically stated otherwise.

You assumed that because I use an Irish website my mother in law is Irish

You assume that no woman could possible have been happy to stay at home with the kids.

You assume that Irish marry Irish

You assume a lot

My original point still stands, you can compare my NON IRISH wife and her NON IRISH mother and see some interesting differences.

Wabbit Ears

You seriously picked me up wrong.

iguana

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

Take mothers statements about how happy they were to give up their career and education with an appropriate amount of salt ( or wine/valium as appropriate).

That is so bloody patronising. How about I say that we take parents' statements about how happy they are to leave their kids in daycare while they go to work as exaggerated lies? I had a career I loved but it never made me even a tiny fraction as happy as raising my son does. If I had to continue doing a job that I had loved after my son was born I would have come to hate it for what it would be costing me. I'm also well educated and intelligent but not being in a paid career does not mean that my education and intelligence are wasted.

In fact I used that intelligence and education to create an economic situation for my family whereby at the age of 37 and 35, respectively, my husband and I bought a big family house, on a large plot of land in my dream area, for cash. This gave us close to absolute freedom to live our lives as we desire and was the best use of my education imaginable. So you can take all the salt, wine and valium you like with what I say but they don't make it any less true. I am living the happiest life possible, there are probably people on earth who are as happy as me, but few if any are happier. And the main reason is that I spend each day with my son without wasting any of my education and intelligence.

Eugene Norman

esforum wrote: »

Your grandparents probable never left the country and spent a week in Kerry or Donegal for their honeymoon. That Ryanair ticket is multipled by a minimum of 3 for a family, plus baggage, plus hotels, plus spending mone and many people wouldnt go for less than 2 weeks if not 3.

Again, not having a pop at people for wanting to enjoy life but you seem obsessed with housing, houses have never been cheap, they were smaller. Kids shared rooms which now is apparantly inconceivable to some even when they are all the same sex.

We're not talking about grandparents but parents. The second holiday isn't why people have a dual income lifestyle. You could pay for all that with a bit of over time in most cases. Nobody is going out to work for a year to fund a 2 week holiday in June.

People are forced into dual income because of housing. That's a much larger cost than it was precisely because both sides work and thus the scarce resource is increased.

Dual incomes are a necessity for most not a luxury.

Eugene Norman

iguana wrote: »

The thing is though that when you read the likes of The Two Income Trap, that it does appear that for an awful lot of families, they are not better off than single income families of the past. Yes families now have more tech, but that's because so much of that tech didn't exist or was prohibitively expensive a generation ago. Food, clothing, travel, etc are all comparatively so much cheaper now than they were when we were small children. However the real difference is that accommodation costs have skyrocketed. People who have no/low accommodation costs can live in what I consider extreme luxury for very little expenditure. I also find that when you can afford pretty much everything you want without having to struggle for it, it's very common to find yourself wanting far less.

The new tech thing is a red herring. As you say every generation has new tech. And it's all cheap comparatively. A TV or a phone in 2015 might be new but they are not necessarily more expensive relative to salaries than a 70's TV or a rented phone line. In fact landline calls were incredibly expensive.

Eugene Norman

Eugene Norman wrote: »

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

It was not usual until relatively recent to buy a TV. Normal was weekly rental.

Eugene Norman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was not usual until relatively recent to buy a TV. Normal was weekly rental.

Yes. Or hire purchase. Which shows how relatively expensive they were. The lifetime cost was very high.

jam_mac_jam

The cost of housing is a big one, not just in Ireland but throughout the world. There has been an increase in the proportion of wages that are needed to buy and maintain a house. There are increases in other items due to inflation and competition but the main increase is the biggest cost for most people which is housing.

esforum

Eugene Norman wrote: »

We're not talking about grandparents but parents. The second holiday isn't why people have a dual income lifestyle. You could pay for all that with a bit of over time in most cases. Nobody is going out to work for a year to fund a 2 week holiday in June.

People are forced into dual income because of housing. That's a much larger cost than it was precisely because both sides work and thus the scarce resource is increased.

Dual incomes are a necessity for most not a luxury.

Well your parents might be as old as my grandparents

I didnt state holidays were why people have second incomes, I said it was part of it alongwith a second car, smartphones, bigger houses, etc.

I dont disagree housing is number 1 cost just that it has always been so. Now we pay very low interest, I know my parents first home was a 2 bed in a pretty bad area, they saved their asses off to buy house numbers 2 and paid 16% interest. The house may have been cheaper in a % of earnings than now but 16% interest? can you imagine paying that much now?

I bought my home on my income by the way, it was small, not an area of first choice but ya know what? Its mine and its good enough for us. Kids can share, it doesnt hurt them.

You would be surprised how much of a second income is eaten up by tax, travel, lunch, child minding, etc. A lot of households just dont see it as being worth it at the end. Some do of course and thats their choice. Some as Iguana said make a decision to work their asses off, get things paid for and semi retire early. Think about it, how much of a second income thats minimum wage actually makes it into your pocket?

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

You seriously picked me up wrong.

This is how I picked it up:

iguana wrote: »

That is so bloody patronising

Eugene Norman

esforum wrote: »

Well your parents might be as old as my grandparents

I didnt state holidays were why people have second incomes, I said it was part of it alongwith a second car, smartphones, bigger houses, etc.

I dont disagree housing is number 1 cost just that it has always been so. Now we pay very low interest, I know my parents first home was a 2 bed in a pretty bad area, they saved their asses off to buy house numbers 2 and paid 16% interest. The house may have been cheaper in a % of earnings than now but 16% interest? can you imagine paying that much now?

I bought my home on my income by the way, it was small, not an area of first choice but ya know what? Its mine and its good enough for us. Kids can share, it doesnt hurt them.

You would be surprised how much of a second income is eaten up by tax, travel, lunch, child minding, etc. A lot of households just dont see it as being worth it at the end. Some do of course and thats their choice. Some as Iguana said make a decision to work their asses off, get things paid for and semi retire early. Think about it, how much of a second income thats minimum wage actually makes it into your pocket?



This is how I picked it up:

If you've bought a house I doubt my parents are as old as your grandparents. I don't know what you are arguing anymore. You seem to have ceded the argument that housing is the biggest cost.

It's not bigger houses either. Houses have hardly increased in size. It's not second holidays or buying phones. Nobody takes a second job got that.

ezra_pound

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was not usual until relatively recent to buy a TV. Normal was weekly rental.

Not in the 1960s.

KomradeBishop

Out of curiosity, I tried to gather together stats for determining Wages vs House Prices, and was able to get decent stats back as far as 1990 - here is what I got:


If you look at the ratio, house prices relative to wages may still be up to 50% higher than what they were back in the 90's - so you can see how that would significantly eat into any second income a home gets...

Stats aren't perfect - Dublin house prices vs national wage, so that will exaggerate it a bit - but gives a good ballpark idea.

Would be interesting to find wage stats going even further back (and specific to Dublin) - as well as maybe graphing cost of living increases vs wage sometime.

Carlos Orange

Eugene Norman wrote: »

It's not bigger houses either. Houses have hardly increased in size.

According to this the average new house size has gone from 105 sqm in 1977 to 178sqm in 2015.
Up and down along the way but that seems like a pretty big increase in size.

http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/statire/SelectVarVal/Define.asp?Maintable=BHQ05&PLanguage=0

esforum

Eugene Norman wrote: »

If you've bought a house I doubt my parents are as old as your grandparents.

maybe, maybe not. Its not really part of the issue, just rebutting your arguement about generations.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I don't know what you are arguing anymore. You seem to have ceded the argument that housing is the biggest cost.

Who is arguing? Its a duscussion board. We are thrashing out theories. You need not be right or wrong ya know. I also dont recall saying the cost of housing was not the primary cost to households.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

It's not bigger houses either. Houses have hardly increased in size.

They have almost doubled in size overall. Also as I have said three times now, most people want 4 beds now so that Joe, John and Sammy can have their own rooms, 100 years ago that would have been a 2 bed home with the kids all sharing, 30 / 40 years ago that would have been a 3 bed with a box room for Joe the teenager and the smaller two shared.

50 years ago almost no housholds possessed two cars or went on foreign holidays. Some would have had TV's but not paid for TV or internet. A home phone compared to 2 / 3 / 4 smart phones with their own internet packages.

My point was that we spend more collectively on all of these trappings. its not one item, its the combined amount

secondly, as I said and you didnt answer, how much of a second income makes the bank? If I earn 50 grand, wife earns 20 grand, I am taking the tax credits so she is now paying 50% plus on every single penny. Now add in the costs of having a job as I said, transport, lunches, etc and finally factor in the not so cheap child minding. Sometimes that second income may only be adding 10% to the pot and I remember seeing an article thgat some people were only breaking even but would start making a profit once kids went to school or they got a promotion, etc.

I say all this based on a married father of 3 thats wife did work, doesnt work now and once lived alone in a house prior to marrying and having kids. I have seen my own wages / income and outgoing fluctuate throughout these changes.

esforum

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you look at the ratio, house prices relative to wages may still be up to 50% higher than what they were back in the 90's - so you can see how that would significantly eat into any second income a home gets...

I must be reading those stats wrong, I dont see 50% increase reflected in there

armabelle

Wanderer78 wrote: »

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

By clicking the "enter" button (PC) or return on a mac?

armabelle

KomradeBishop wrote: »

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.

I think it may be because when the topics get too complicated people stop being interested. Thinking requires effort just like running or pushups.

KomradeBishop

esforum wrote: »

I must be reading those stats wrong, I dont see 50% increase reflected in there

Ratio of 4x in 90's to a present ratio of 6x.

esforum

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ratio of 4x in 90's to a present ratio of 6x.

ah I see it now, I was indeed reading it wrong.

If those states are correct, technically noone should be qualifying for mortgages.

armabelle

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Suddenly I feel like we should book a holiday abroad this year, spend more on phones, get the broadband and netflix in, eat out, go to the cinema and buy a car. Both of us work and don't do all of the above so we must be doing something wrong.

This is the thing... In the video posted above she says that it would be normal to expect that, with both parents working, all families should enjoy this and more. That is why something is coherently wrong here. It might need a 100 page thread or economics degree to understand but you can feel it

armabelle

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i personally think it aint you thats the problem but a fundamentally flawed economic system

Or a purposefully flawed economic system?

armabelle

Eugene Norman wrote: »

People are forced into dual income because of housing. That's a much larger cost than it was precisely because both sides work and thus the scarce resource is increased.

Dual incomes are a necessity for most not a luxury.

Let me see if I understand here. You are saying that because two people began working, houses have increased in price because two incomes became available to buy a house? So at some point both parents decided to start spending most of their dual income on a housing and that made houses more expensive? Do I understand you right?