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.