Is this about people's choice whether or not to have kids? I thought the question was 'why do we all have to work? I and my missus choose to have kids. One of my sisters so far is choosing not to. All fair enough, and all totally irrelevant to this discussion. The question is, why does society expect us all to work? To the point where the government is even going to intervene to help people find somewhere to put their kids while they go out to work? We keep hearing about high unemployment and costly benefits bills. My wife is technically not employed, but she doesn't fall into the 'unemployed' statistic because she lives off my salary. If my wife went out to work, would that not mean that one other person couldn't find a job and would therefore have to claim benefits? Keeping it simple, lets say there are 10 jobs, and 10 households. Each of the 10 households has 2 working age adults in it. If one adult from each household went to work in one of the 10 jobs, then there'd be 0% unemployment, and £0 JSA bill. If both adults from 5 of the households took the jobs, then there'd be 50% unemployment, a benefits bill for 10 people (instead of zero), and because the five households with both adults working would have a comparatively high household income, and therefore more money to spend, inflation goes up (simple laws of supply and demand). Of course its not as simple as that. There are more than 10 jobs and more than 10 households, and not every household has 2 working age adults etc, but I think the point is still valid. My other point is this. Because of the 'old fashioned' way my wife and I choose to live, with the man of the house going out earning while the woman keeps the home nice etc, we get judged. Sometimes quite unpleasantly. Why is this? I have close personal friends paying extortionate rent for pokey but trendy 'apartments' (flats) who have told me quite frankly that I need to get into the 21st century. I'm happy, my wife is happy, we have a nice house and a close family. We have everything that's important, yet society says our way is out of date and wrong. I'm wondering why this is.
I guess we have to remember that we are a 'social' country whereby we look after those that are less fortunate. I've worked all my life and always been PAYE, which means I'm an easy target. But, would I like to see people on the street? No, not really. Don't get me wrong, it annoys me when I hear of those making a living off the 'state', but realistically, what's the alternative?
Sorry, I didn't wish to cause offence. I do think you've misinterpreted what I was saying. I am not claiming that people who choose not to have kids are the ones that have caused the current economic crisis. I'm suggesting that the attitude of modern society has caused problems. When I refer to DINKYs, I was thinking of those that feel it necessary for both partners to work because they've been convinced its the only way they can live. I was not referring to people who do it by choice because it works for them, as indeed it worked for my missus and I before we decided to start a family. When my wife also had a job, we used the extra money to save up to build our life together. We didn't used it, as many do, to compete with our peers or buy things we couldn't really afford.
Freddy I think the proposed new money for child care applies to all families where both are earning less than £150 000 a year.
My husband has worked for forty years plus, paying his national insurance throughout those years, so what is it for? Supposedly, he is now regaining some of that through the dole office, but as I said above it goes nowhere near covering our bills and if it wasn't for our fast depleting savings we would have to sell our home right now. He has next to no chance of somebody employing him with retirement just round the corner, the few jobs that are available are filled by younger people and it's the employers who make that choice, so much for age discrimination! Proving discrimination is almost impossible too. As Pete quite rightly says.......'The government say they want to get everyone in employment. First thing they need to do is come up with the jobs.' I add to this across the whole age range!
Sorry Pete, it was more of a general comment on benefits. Less than £150,000 a year eh? I guess those on just less need my support.....
So those earning slightly less than £150,000 a year can't afford child care? What are they doing with their money?
I might be wrong, but as I understood it on the news this evening it was £150 000each. So maybe £299 999.99p combined. Could be worth turning down a wage rise for.
Must have a word with the gaffer when I go back to work on Monday. I'll get Jeeves the butler to remind me!
clueless1, I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying, in as much that it does seem crazy that everyone is expected to be gainfully employed almost regardless of whether they really need to be (financially speaking); its the same as some of the statements that we often hear on the radio or TV regarding how much something 'costs' the economy. For example, if there is really heavy snowfall that forces people to stay home, or businesses to close for a day etc etc, then that one day has 'cost' the economy X-million pounds! Utter twaddle!! If Mr Jones was going to buy a new car, but couldn't get out to do so because of snow, he wouldn't then just not buy the car at all - he would simply do it the following day or the following week; the business/revenue isn't lost, it is simply delayed. Indeed, as far as I am concerned this 'carry on at all costs' attitude ends up costing the economy MORE than if we did the sensible thing and stayed at home, and kept all non-essential businesses closed for a day or two. Its greed; pure and simple. However, I do have to take issue with one of your points, which is regarding housing costs; believe me, I could move ten or more miles in any direction from where I am living, and I still wouldn't be able to afford to buy a home. I earn approximately £30k, yet the (nice, but modest) house I live in is valued at approximately £260k - going by the old adage that banks and building societies prefer to loan roughly three times the amount of income, that leaves me well short. To be fair (and I have said it before on here) I couldn't give a stuff about owning a property - I'd be quite happy to rent for the rest of my days if that rent was affordable, and there was little or no risk of me getting turfed out of my home. And that, for me, is where the whole thing is skewed out of kilter - - many people DO need to have everyone of working age in the house out working and earning simply to pay their way. I know for a fact that Mrs C and I could not survive on my wage alone. Don't get me wrong, we are not destitute or anything, but we haven't been away for a holiday (even in the UK) for years, and are not likely to be able to do so for at least the next two or maybe three years. And we are not unique by any stretch - there are many, many people in our situation. Hell, one of my colleagues had his boiler fail a couple of weeks ago with a baby due (arrived today as it goes) - - he would have been completely stuffed were it not for his parents who stepped in and paid the four-figure sum for a new boiler -- and he earns £30k +. These sound like big salaries, but in this part of the country there are barely a living wage. If quality, affordable housing was made available (even if only to rent) to a true cross section of society, particularly those who are in work but not earning huge amounts, then people would have more disposable income which would naturally get fed back into the economy. Now, if a thicko like me can work that out, why the hell can our so called leaders and financial experts not work it out?
I guess that's where my theory falls down. Round my way, £260k will buy you a modest house, in the overpriced new part of town. Elsewhere in our area, that same £260k will buy you 2 or possibly even 3 good sized houses. I guess it varies a lot by region.
c1, I don't think anyone is judging you unfairly because of your choice of how you choose to live. Yes, your wife keeps a lovely home, clean and tidy one assumes, and prepares the meals etc. I did that as well as working full time. Our home was always clean and tidy and I prepared meals and I kept the garden in order ... and I had a little time to relax and enjoy life. It's just different strokes for different folks, that's all ...
£260k in my home town would buy a fairly substantial, luxury home with large grounds. Here, it is at the cheaper end of two bedroomed houses. The slightly larger ones round the corner from me (literally, I can see the back of them from my back windows) go for £300-£320k because they three or four bedrooms (but smaller gardens); However, don't forget that these stupidly high house prices have been driven there by the same greed that means we all need to work
We sold our cottage in the country in Bucks, two-up-two-down detached (which we bought as a near ruin in 1984 for £32,500) for £169,000 in 2002, a giveaway price because neither of us was working then and wanted shot of it. That was when the market was DOWN, but even so we bought ALL of our other properties on the back of it since 1988 and had a big mortgage of over £1,000 per month, but we still came out with £60,000. I guess we just played our cards right!
