nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

esforum

ezra_pound wrote: »

The maximum difference should be about 6430 I think. Either way the government don't like the idea of stay at home parents. It would be interesting to see a model of the property bubble adjusted for non tax individualisation. I'd doubt it would have been boomy enough for bbbb Bertie.

You would think they would encourage stay at home parents, while the working numbers wouldnt go up, the dole numbers would go down.

ezra_pound

esforum wrote: »

You would think they would encourage stay at home parents, while the working numbers wouldnt go up, the dole numbers would go down.

Fg's make work pay plans would make the situation better for stay at home parents but democracy just said no.

Wanderer78

ezra_pound wrote: »

Fg's make work pay plans would make the situation better for stay at home parents but democracy just said no.

what was their child care plan?

....and thank god for democracy!

Arkady

Can't see how a career is more important than your Children and family.

Geuze

esforum wrote: »

2007 was 9 years ago, things change.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it1.html#section1

Married person tax credit is now the exact same as 2 person single credits, its that way on purpose. So single and double income families are equal.

While the basic personal tax credit [1650] is transferable, however the married one-earner tax band is not double the single tax band.

The tax bands are not fully transferable, they have been partially individualised.

SRCOP:

single = 33,800

married one earner = 42,800

married two earners, up to 67,600

ezra_pound

Wanderer78 wrote: »

what was their child care plan?

....and thank god for democracy!

Amen.

I'm just saying that democracy brought in tax individualisation and retained it since throughout the ff days and on. Likewise it voted against a progressive scheme for more fair treatment of low to medium income single income families in this recent election. It's kind of relevant to this thread.

my teapot is orange

I think people want more stuff nowadays. When I was a kid many of the kids in my class came from homes where only one parent worked. Most of them did not go on foreign holidays or have many treats. They might have had one car or none in family. They made all their own food and rarely ate out. School books clothes etc. were handed down. You could probably still live that lifestyle nowadays on one income, but you would feel deprived relative to others who have all those things and far more treats in todays world.

CelticRambler

Elizabeth Warren in the video posted at the start of the thread explains away all the "consumerism" red-herrings. In real terms, we're spending less on "stuff" (including holidays) than before. For those who can't be bothered to watch it, she points out that the difference between then and now is that as more families decide to live a two-income lifestyle, they drive house prices up, and as when they have children, they drive house prices (and the cost of healthcare & childcare) up even more. Their disposable income, on the otherhand, has gone down - which incidentally contributes to the falling cost of consumer products and services.

I saw that happening all around me when I lived in Kent in the 90s, first as a single guy, then married, then with children. We had opted for the (self-employed) one-income lifestyle and could see our two-income peers struggling to pay for things we got "for free" on account of having one adult always available to take advantage of the best offers. At the time I bought my (what became our) house, I resisted the bank's invitation to borrow right up to my multiple-of-salary limit. The only thing that interfered with our flexibility was putting the children into school, then wanting to take holidays during term time.

We (I :rolleyes: ) fought the school on this point for a few years (Dtr's only six, FFS ... but she's spent three months learning Italian at home while the rest of the class are learning one letter a week, so you can feck off with your "bad for her education" argument. :mad: ) before we sold up, paid off what was left of the small mortgage, bought a house in France for cash and had a decent pot left over.

We've never lived on two incomes (but have lived on "less than one" for a while), and our four children are never been short of cultural or educational experiences. Quite the opposite - they've been more places and done more things than most of their peers.

As Elizabeth Warren points out - and I see it in my siblings and friends - for all their material/consumerist wealth, two-income families live a precarious existence with little room for manoeuvre. When something goes wrong (house, job, health), it goes very wrong.

esforum

CelticRambler wrote: »

but she's spent three months learning Italian at home while the rest of the class are learning one letter a week, so you can feck off with your "bad for her education" argument.

Your daughter only learns Italian in school?

armabelle

bb12 wrote: »

it's simply transference of wealth from the poorer and working classes to the wealthy. our standards of living have been steadily decreasing; people now have to work longer and harder than ever before and our children and grandchildren will have it even worse. this documentary gives a great overview of where it all has gone wrong for the ordinary person in the street.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3mfkD6Ky5o

Thanks, I will watch this for sure

You are right about what you said too.... you know with all this new technology why are we not working less hours? we are working more hours and both parents are doing it. Crazy days.

armabelle

Arkady wrote: »

Can't see how a career is more important than your Children and family.

when it is the only way you can put a decent roof over their head then it is, which seems to be the case nowadays

it is sad because after this whole thread it seems like parents can either provide for their kids or be with them but not both

armabelle

CelticRambler wrote: »

Elizabeth Warren in the video posted at the start of the thread explains away all the "consumerism" red-herrings. In real terms, we're spending less on "stuff" (including holidays) than before. For those who can't be bothered to watch it, she points out that the difference between then and now is that as more families decide to live a two-income lifestyle, they drive house prices up, and as when they have children, they drive house prices (and the cost of healthcare & childcare) up even more. Their disposable income, on the otherhand, has gone down - which incidentally contributes to the falling cost of consumer products and services.

I saw that happening all around me when I lived in Kent in the 90s, first as a single guy, then married, then with children. We had opted for the (self-employed) one-income lifestyle and could see our two-income peers struggling to pay for things we got "for free" on account of having one adult always available to take advantage of the best offers. At the time I bought my (what became our) house, I resisted the bank's invitation to borrow right up to my multiple-of-salary limit. The only thing that interfered with our flexibility was putting the children into school, then wanting to take holidays during term time.

We (I :rolleyes: ) fought the school on this point for a few years (Dtr's only six, FFS ... but she's spent three months learning Italian at home while the rest of the class are learning one letter a week, so you can feck off with your "bad for her education" argument. :mad: ) before we sold up, paid off what was left of the small mortgage, bought a house in France for cash and had a decent pot left over.

We've never lived on two incomes (but have lived on "less than one" for a while), and our four children are never been short of cultural or educational experiences. Quite the opposite - they've been more places and done more things than most of their peers.

As Elizabeth Warren points out - and I see it in my siblings and friends - for all their material/consumerist wealth, two-income families live a precarious existence with little room for manoeuvre. When something goes wrong (house, job, health), it goes very wrong.

I found most of what she said in the video spot on but I don't know if I buy the "two parents having more income drove up property prices" part of her video because she speaks specifically about parents wanting to move near schools but if you look all over the rental market, everything is mad expensive and not just the places next to schools. In fact, even one bedroom apartments are just crazy expensive here in Ireland right now and families don't need those do they? If what EW said is true, one beds would be much cheaper and they arent. There is something else...

ezra_pound

armabelle wrote: »

I found most of what she said in the video spot on but I don't know if I buy the "two parents having more income drove up property prices" part of her video because she speaks specifically about parents wanting to move near schools but if you look all over the rental market, everything is mad expensive and not just the places next to schools. In fact, even one bedroom apartments are just crazy expensive here in Ireland right now and families don't need those do they? If what EW said is true, one beds would be much cheaper and they arent. There is something else...

There are lots of different factors which impact on property prices. Some mainly impact on supply, others on demand. Aggregate demand obviously increases when families are incentived to have both parents working. This obviously would have a more pronounced effect on classic family homes but it would affect the demand for all properties as well. The main issue affecting I've bed houses at the moment is supply. There simply isn't enough if them. This is particularly the case since bed sits were banned.
Nobody is saying that tax individualisation since 2002 or dual income families are the sole cause for high property prices since then. The existence of other factors that the FF PDs devised were also to blame but it's been a major factor in the demand side.

PS I haven't watched that video so I'm not specifically referring to it.

armabelle

bb12 wrote: »

it's simply transference of wealth from the poorer and working classes to the wealthy. our standards of living have been steadily decreasing; people now have to work longer and harder than ever before and our children and grandchildren will have it even worse. this documentary gives a great overview of where it all has gone wrong for the ordinary person in the street.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3mfkD6Ky5o

This was a very good documentary and it reminds me of one of the "Zeitgeist" movies which also explained the fractional reserve banking system. This documentary does explain why housing is so expensive at the moment and indeed why two incomes are necessary as a result thereof. It is funny that nobody in this thread has mentioned anything about it or about the banks. Why do you think that is? Is it because it is hard to follow the concept do you think?

Wanderer78

armabelle wrote: »

This was a very good documentary and it reminds me of one of the "Zeitgeist" movies which also explained the fractional reserve banking system. This documentary does explain why housing is so expensive at the moment and indeed why two incomes are necessary as a result thereof. It is funny that nobody in this thread has mentioned anything about it or about the banks. Why do you think that is? Is it because it is hard to follow the concept do you think?

errr emm i did and im fairly sure others did to. yea our financial system is very difficult to understand. ha-joon chang believes even the people that are trying to manage our financial systems dont even really know whats going on particularly in relation to complex things such as derivatives. but its all pointing towards, we re in trouble! this is why i like the public banking system as it looks like the private banking system is knackered

armabelle

Wanderer78 wrote: »

errr emm i did and im fairly sure others did to. yea our financial system is very difficult to understand. ha-joon chang believes even the people that are trying to manage our financial systems dont even really know whats going on particularly in relation to complex things such as derivatives. but its all pointing towards, we re in trouble! this is why i like the public banking system as it looks like the private banking system is knackered

Yes I apologize, you did mention the debt aspect but not that the banks are directly responsible for it in the way the video explains it. And even then, you were the only one out of all these people. Do you think that is because people don't believe these things or simply choose to be ignorant to it? Or do you think that they feel helpless and as a result choose to be ignorant because they feel they can do nothing about it?

ezra_pound

Are you two suggesting that banks are lending far too much money at the moment in Ireland with the new CB rules and that this is fueling high property prices?

regi3457

bb12 wrote: »

it's simply transference of wealth from the poorer and working classes to the wealthy. our standards of living have been steadily decreasing; people now have to work longer and harder than ever before and our children and grandchildren will have it even worse. this documentary gives a great overview of where it all has gone wrong for the ordinary person in the street.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3mfkD6Ky5o

Surely this can't be right... I mean even though the politicians don't understand the system as the economists in the video suggest, surely the finance ministers (do you get those in Ireland?) or people in the economic sector would see these flaws and there would be outrage at this? If this really is true, it can't go on can it?

armabelle

ezra_pound wrote: »

Are you two suggesting that banks are lending far too much money at the moment in Ireland with the new CB rules and that this is fueling high property prices?

I don't know about the CB rules but the economist in the video says that banks create trillions of new pounds (this is in the UK but probably wont be much different here or anywhere else in the 1st world) which they create out of thin air and as a preference throw it into the housing sector. They do this for their own profit and as a preference to putting the money into say, new businesses or other areas which may need the investment more, benefit society more, but may seem riskier. To a bank, lending so some guy can start a business is riskier than giving a loan for a house because the loan is tied to an asset. Another guy also says that this huge input of money into the housing sector is non-GDP based which means that all this money is coming into the market with no actual economic activity being created which causes inflation in the property market which makes people need to work more (both parents need to work more) to afford the commodity. it is very well explained in the video so do watch it if you can spare an hour. It should be at the top of this thread because it really does answer the OP. I would love some economists opinion about this though as it is hard to believe that banks can just do this and that there can be such a conflict of interest, and that we the public should pay for it.

KomradeBishop

Most economists would be of the opinion, that banks don't create money out of thin air as you say - as by and large, the textbooks say something completely different (making most economics textbooks and economists wrong about that) - that's only recently become a mainstream view, in the last couple of years.

If something as fundamental and basic to economics as that - how banks and money work - can be successfully kept out of economic teaching and awareness among economists, with them being taught something completely wrong instead (and failing to see that...), for almost a whole century, then just imagine how more easily misled the public is.

esforum

How do they keep these trillions off the books and wouldnt pumping that much into an economy cause massive inflation?

KomradeBishop

I don't know what the video was referring to, didn't watch it, I was commenting just on the specific part of the post that touched on money creation.

Victor

ezra_pound wrote: »

Married single earner 75k take home €51,968.00

Married two earners 50k + 25k take home€59,409.00

The other beauty of our tax system is that the single earner could have 6 kids and the dual income family none.

Someone with 6 children will get €10,080 per year in child benefit, untaxed. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/child_benefit.html

esforum wrote: »

You would think they would encourage stay at home parents, while the working numbers wouldnt go up, the dole numbers would go down.

Not necessarily - some people whose spouse is on a low income are entitled to unemployment benefits. Regardless, the live register is a poor measurement of unemployment - unemployment is where people want jobs but can't get them.

Arkady wrote: »

Can't see how a career is more important than your Children and family.

Is that you Éamon de Valera?

If someone has a skill, they should be encouraged to use it.

CelticRambler wrote: »

two-income families live a precarious existence with little room for manoeuvre. When something goes wrong (house, job, health), it goes very wrong.

But they are still in a better position that a one-income family where that person loses their employment.

Arkady

Victor wrote: »

Is that you Éamon de Valera?

If someone has a skill, they should be encouraged to use it.

Don't be a dick. Rearing children into responsible caring loving adults and members of society, able to live their lives to the full, is one of the most skilled professions there will ever be, regardless of whoever tries to run it down. and anyone who wants to, can do several professions in their life.

yqtwqxqm

Funny. I was just discussing this with my brother the other day.
They have 2 children.
It is actually cheaper for them for my sister in law to give up work.
After they sat down and worked out the child care costs, the working costs (lunch, transport, sundries), the one income vs two income tax situation, it turns out that they are better off with his wife or himself giving up work altogether and raising the children.
After crunching the number, about 9 months ago my sister in law gave up work (she wanted to have more time with the children more than he did) and my brother remained working.
They are actually better off financially and quality if life wise, and in every other way now.
Its funny though, a lot of people never even think of crunching the numbers and quality of life like this. If they did they might find that one of them is working for nothing, or worse actually paying to work.

Maybe everyone should visit a financial advisor and crunch their own numbers to see what they could be doing.

NIMAN

I'm in no doubt it would make financial sense for some people to give up work, especially those paying a fortune for childcare and who are basically working to pay the minder or creche, but there is also the fact that some parents might still want to keep some sort of career outsdie the home alive, continue their social connections etc, even if it isn't paying them fincancially to do so.

yqtwqxqm

NIMAN wrote: »

I'm in no doubt it would make financial sense for some people to give up work, especially those paying a fortune for childcare and who are basically working to pay the minder or creche, but there is also the fact that some parents might still want to keep some sort of career outsdie the home alive, continue their social connections etc, even if it isn't paying them fincancially to do so.

My sister in law has no problem at all doing any of those things you mention.
And she can go back do work if she feels like it at any time.
But she says shes much happier now. In fact you can tell just from visiting them, the whole family are much happier than they were. I never really noticed it until lately, but they have definitely done the right thing for their family. I wouldnt hesitate if I was in that position.

iguana

Victor wrote: »

Someone with 6 children will get €10,080 per year in child benefit, untaxed.

Regardless of how many, if any, parents work. So it's neither a disincentive nor an incentive for a parent to stay home or go to work.

Victor wrote:

But they are still in a better position that a one-income family where that person loses their employment.

That's often a fallacy based on over simplification and is the point made by economists like Warren. If both parents work and the family has debts that require both of those salaries then losing one salary means that they can no longer meet those debts. They are then basing all their hopes of getting back on their feet on the chances of that parent getting a new job of near equivalent salary.

But if a family has one income and their debts reflect the single income and they lose that single income they have numerous avenues to ensure they can continue to meet their financial obligations. The original earner can get a new job. The stay at home parent can find a job. Both parents can get part-time work at opposing hours. They aren't in a great position but the more options you have to get back on your feet, the greater the chance you have of doing so. If you only have one option, you limit the odds of recovery.

That's not even going into situations like work place disputes and long strikes. In this case the working parent still has a job and does not want to find a new one if they can help it, perhaps to maintain maximum pension benefits. As long as they only need one salary to cover all their outgoings the other parent can take temporary work and their income will remain closer to normal. A family reliant on two salaries doesn't have this option. Having two salaries only improves the financial security of a family if the first income is enough to cover all essential outgoings except for childcare. If any of the second salary is necessary to maintain housing, essential utilities, food and unavoidable health and education costs then that family may be in a much more precarious state than a single income family.

Arkady

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

Funny. I was just discussing this with my brother the other day.
They have 2 children.
It is actually cheaper for them for my sister in law to give up work.
After they sat down and worked out the child care costs, the working costs (lunch, transport, sundries), the one income vs two income tax situation, it turns out that they are better off with his wife or himself giving up work altogether and raising the children.
After crunching the number, about 9 months ago my sister in law gave up work (she wanted to have more time with the children more than he did) and my brother remained working.
They are actually better off financially and quality if life wise, and in every other way now.
Its funny though, a lot of people never even think of crunching the numbers and quality of life like this. If they did they might find that one of them is working for nothing, or worse actually paying to work.

Maybe everyone should visit a financial advisor and crunch their own numbers to see what they could be doing.

A no brainer in that situation, and and lets face it, and most of all, their kids childhood will be a lot better off for it as well.

esforum

Victor wrote: »

Someone with 6 children will get €10,080 per year in child benefit, untaxed.

So what? They get it regardless so its a non runner in this regard.

Victor wrote: »

Not necessarily - some people whose spouse is on a low income are entitled to unemployment benefits. Regardless, the live register is a poor measurement of unemployment - unemployment is where people want jobs but can't get them.

No arguement but I wasnt mesuring unemployment. I was measuring the amount of people getting the dole. If it was more financially viable for one parent to stay at home, more would. Not all of course but as per the sister in law of the above user, some would. Those jobs given up can in theory go to someone still looking for work thus in some cases, probable the majority, people would come off welfare.

Also, its highly unlikely that a two income family that find themselves better off as a result of becomming a one income family would qualify for benefits. Again, maybe the odd one here or there but not most.