Why do both parents have to work nowadays?

regi3457 · 26-03-2016 9:19am

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Workers are actually receiving far less of a share of productivity improvements than they have in the past - combined with other changes like the rise of reliance on Private Debt, this has led to the squeezing of worker wages, that has made both parents working more of a requirement than before:

these are shocking data and the thread I posted above about how "leaving work on time is frowned upon" corroborates this. People must be squeezed for everything they are worth in today's workplace while company profits rise. I fear for what is in store for my kids... I really do.

Suryavarman · 26-03-2016 3:14pm

regi3457 wrote: »

yes, so both parents are working to support a household and both parents are working longer hours and this has become the norm and to you this is working less and earning more? Just look at the title of this thread. This is the society in which we live. It is now abnormal to even leave work on time:

http://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057537527/2

As I've shown already average annual hours worked has been declining in pretty much every OECD country.

OttoPilot · 26-03-2016 6:13pm

regi3457 wrote: »

these are shocking data and the thread I posted above about how "leaving work on time is frowned upon" corroborates this. People must be squeezed for everything they are worth in today's workplace while company profits rise. I fear for what is in store for my kids... I really do.

Who is creating the extra productivity though? Someone working in an office is (for arguments sake I'm saying fifty, I don't know the real figure) 50% more efficient than the equivalent person thirty years ago. How much of that productivity increase was created by the worker and how much was created by software and computer systems (made by the likes of Bill Gates and his team). Surely Gates deserves more of the credit if he is the reason behind the increase?

KomradeBishop · 26-03-2016 7:50pm

OttoPilot wrote: »

Who is creating the extra productivity though? Someone working in an office is (for arguments sake I'm saying fifty, I don't know the real figure) 50% more efficient than the equivalent person thirty years ago. How much of that productivity increase was created by the worker and how much was created by software and computer systems (made by the likes of Bill Gates and his team). Surely Gates deserves more of the credit if he is the reason behind the increase?

Almost all productivity increases are built upon the technological developments of others - the point was more about the original distribution of the benefits of productivity increases.

It used to be, that these benefits were shared with workers - the ones who do the work at increased productivity - nowadays that is less the case, productivity improvements are shared far less.

If a trend like this goes on long enough, it alters the general distribution of income and wealth throughout the whole economy - as productivity improvements bring a greater and greater amount of profit/money, to a smaller and smaller group of people.

armabelle · 27-03-2016 3:57pm

OttoPilot wrote: »

True, we were getting off topic.

In relation to housing, I wonder how much of the value of the house is the physical building and how much is the land it sits on?

Well I think the land is the issue because you can find lovely spacious 4 bedroom houses in other parts of ireland for 80 000 euro that would cost about 10 times the price in Dublin

ArnieSilvia · 30-03-2016 1:44am

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Almost all productivity increases are built upon the technological developments of others - the point was more about the original distribution of the benefits of productivity increases.

It used to be, that these benefits were shared with workers - the ones who do the work at increased productivity - nowadays that is less the case, productivity improvements are shared far less.

If a trend like this goes on long enough, it alters the general distribution of income and wealth throughout the whole economy - as productivity improvements bring a greater and greater amount of profit/money, to a smaller and smaller group of people.

I share the view that the carry on with wealth distribution the way it is at the moment is just unsustainable, yet movements to sort it out are being laughed at by very people who are working their a$$ off every day, climbing greasy pole for no gain.

We have a 2+2 household and we managed to be one income family for 8 years (2003-2011). We moved where housing was cheap yet state support for families (FIS) was same as in Dublin.

My wife has been working since we moved to Dublin as housing costs are crazy and additionally this gets worse for families if looking for a house with school nearby in safe location. Why is she working? Because she got bored at home and also wanted some security by means of good job position in case I passed away so she could support kids on her own if needed and not starting from minimum wage at that point or being reliant on social welfare (plus we always had life insurance). She also wanted to take out some pressure of me so I don't have to worry about the job too much. Saying that, not a hope to survive as a family with kids in Dublin on one average industrial income nowadays.

In relation to quoted post:

I think that gains in productivity are reflected in higher complexity of goods or their quality that we are buying for the same money (inflation adjusted) as in 1970's. I assume, that nowadays bigger fraction of sale price goes to R&D, facilities, production lines set-up, production yield increases, sales, marketing, logistics and support. Why? Because product lifecycle has shortened dramatically (just my observation here based on new generation of stuff every 2 years). Overall, wages in this example should follow company profit from making products and overall headcount should remain same. It's the quality, complexity and support of product that changed.

I think that it must be said here that GDP is not only driven by increase of productivity. There would be no increase of GDP if it wasn't accompanied with population growth (again, not only nationally but internationally by means of export)

I'd also risk a statement that corpo's are also responsible for dilution of wages. I worked for two major multinationals and I saw first hand that it become common that a Tech is doing now what Eng used to do, Senior Tech is what a Supervisor used to do, Supervisor does what Manager used to do and Managers? Who knows what they are doing:D

andrew · 01-04-2016 4:05pm

Keep it Civil

Fathom · 04-04-2016 11:02pm

armabelle wrote: »

I don't understand why it is so common that both parents work nowadays? This was not the case before.

Gary Becker advanced a neoclassical and microeconomic household theory. Viewed 2 parent households as microeconomic units. Analogous to a small business. Household model is evolving due to changing environmental demands and expectations. Parental competencies evolving as a consequence. Single bread winner no longer sufficient. Past children were economic assets. Today they are liabilities. Both parents must have income generating occupations to maintain or advance household.

wexfordman2 · 08-05-2016 12:12pm

One simple reason is Charlie mccreevy and individualisation, Support d by ffpdfglab

Removes the abailty for many couples to allow one parent to stay at home and raise kids, forces both out to work competing in a jobs market without many job's.

PMBC · 11-05-2016 7:54pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

There's actually a shift in tax globally from the wealthy onto the labour force. This has been going on for a couple of decades now with drastic effects.

They must be putting something in the water, beside fluoridants and chlorine, otherwise we would all be up in arms over this.

As well as some of the reasons mentioned by others the ending of 'the marriage ban' for female civil servants and Charlie McReevy's tax equalisation played a role. I read recently that the industrialisation of women in munitions industries in USA nad UK during WW2 led to a large increase of women at work as they were not willing to give up their ( bit of ) independence and their ('own') money, after that time. I feel, not all, but a lot of women get a raw deal with this set-up as they wind up doing two jobs esp. where they work part-time.
If you go in to any of the older supermarkets, the choice is astonishing; just the number washing powders alone - not to mention gels, sachets, liquids - is confusing. Back in the good old bad days there was just Daz and Omo, as faras I can remember.
We should get back to using bread soda as a household cure-all!

I am chasing some of the books and writers mentioned and am adding the name of Richard Douthwaite and his book 'The Growth Illusion' as a recommendation. He lived in Ireland at one time and died some years back. In a way, although its not written from a 'green' perspective, it shows the nonsense of consumption.

Eric Cartman · 11-05-2016 8:33pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Workers are actually receiving far less of a share of productivity improvements than they have in the past - combined with other changes like the rise of reliance on Private Debt, this has led to the squeezing of worker wages, that has made both parents working more of a requirement than before:

this is a bit of a falsehood.

lets take building a car .

in the 60s you needed say 20 people to make a car and it took those 20 people 15 hours combined , if they could get that to 12 hours without changing tools then it was an increase in productivity and those people would likely get paid more for working harder.

nowadays it takes say 4 people to make a car and it takes 6 hours to make , thats because the employer invested in computer controlled robots and a mechanised production line. the amount of cars going through each of those 4 peoples hands has grown, but they are doing less work than they used to.

the point is, if the people were working harder and working faster then I could see the need for increased pay, but its the machines working harder and faster , the employer invested in the machinery, why should he give away the rewards of his investment to people who have an easier life .

work is safer , easier , less skilled and more flexible than at any other point in history, because of the machinery, tools and workflows employers have invested in. Why should they give somebody (who's working life has vastly improved) more money for doing the same / less.

KomradeBishop · 12-05-2016 12:27am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this is a bit of a falsehood.

lets take building a car .

in the 60s you needed say 20 people to make a car and it took those 20 people 15 hours combined , if they could get that to 12 hours without changing tools then it was an increase in productivity and those people would likely get paid more for working harder.

nowadays it takes say 4 people to make a car and it takes 6 hours to make , thats because the employer invested in computer controlled robots and a mechanised production line. the amount of cars going through each of those 4 peoples hands has grown, but they are doing less work than they used to.

the point is, if the people were working harder and working faster then I could see the need for increased pay, but its the machines working harder and faster , the employer invested in the machinery, why should he give away the rewards of his investment to people who have an easier life .

work is safer , easier , less skilled and more flexible than at any other point in history, because of the machinery, tools and workflows employers have invested in. Why should they give somebody (who's working life has vastly improved) more money for doing the same / less.

If you take this to its logical conclusion, it means that the share of profit going to capitalists (literally - the owners of the capital producing the goods), increases in line with productivity increases.

Over time, as productivity increases more and more exponentially (particularly once AI massively increases automation), this is going to completely shrink the share of profits going to the rest of the economy, and will put it in the hands of a small elite who own all the capital.

The gains of productivity increases used to be shared more with workers - this is useful for preventing excessive wealth/income inequality - however, things changed and the gains were not shared as much as before; we should tip the balance back towards sharing those gains.

The capitalists who gain the profits, aren't rewarded with those profits for 'working harder' - productivity increases, by definition, produce more for working less - and it's predominantly the workers, not the capitalists, who have produced the technological advances, which achieve the productivity increase - so it's only right that the gains are shared.

Our economies are not meritocracies. Not even close. Businesses especially, are not meritocracies - at the top (and at the main point of sharing profits), the hierarchy is defined based on ownership, not merit. There is no meritocratic argument, for saying the gains of productivity increases, should go predominantly to the owners.

OttoPilot · 13-05-2016 3:07am

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you take this to its logical conclusion, it means that the share of profit going to capitalists (literally - the owners of the capital producing the goods), increases in line with productivity increases.

Over time, as productivity increases more and more exponentially (particularly once AI massively increases automation), this is going to completely shrink the share of profits going to the rest of the economy, and will put it in the hands of a small elite who own all the capital.

The gains of productivity increases used to be shared more with workers - this is useful for preventing excessive wealth/income inequality - however, things changed and the gains were not shared as much as before; we should tip the balance back towards sharing those gains.

The capitalists who gain the profits, aren't rewarded with those profits for 'working harder' - productivity increases, by definition, produce more for working less - and it's predominantly the workers, not the capitalists, who have produced the technological advances, which achieve the productivity increase - so it's only right that the gains are shared.

Our economies are not meritocracies. Not even close. Businesses especially, are not meritocracies - at the top (and at the main point of sharing profits), the hierarchy is defined based on ownership, not merit. There is no meritocratic argument, for saying the gains of productivity increases, should go predominantly to the owners.

The chart you cite shows wages for the bottom 80% of workers. Are the capital owners getting the rest of this benefit in productivity or is it upper management (ie the top 20%)?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers · 13-05-2016 3:54am

PMBC wrote: »

They must be putting something in the water, beside fluoridants and chlorine, otherwise we would all be up in arms over this.
...

Shur isn't it the fluorine that keeps us docile?

regi3457 · 13-05-2016 8:57am

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you take this to its logical conclusion, it means that the share of profit going to capitalists (literally - the owners of the capital producing the goods), increases in line with productivity increases.

Over time, as productivity increases more and more exponentially (particularly once AI massively increases automation), this is going to completely shrink the share of profits going to the rest of the economy, and will put it in the hands of a small elite who own all the capital.

The gains of productivity increases used to be shared more with workers - this is useful for preventing excessive wealth/income inequality - however, things changed and the gains were not shared as much as before; we should tip the balance back towards sharing those gains.

The capitalists who gain the profits, aren't rewarded with those profits for 'working harder' - productivity increases, by definition, produce more for working less - and it's predominantly the workers, not the capitalists, who have produced the technological advances, which achieve the productivity increase - so it's only right that the gains are shared.

Our economies are not meritocracies. Not even close. Businesses especially, are not meritocracies - at the top (and at the main point of sharing profits), the hierarchy is defined based on ownership, not merit. There is no meritocratic argument, for saying the gains of productivity increases, should go predominantly to the owners.

In the medieval times there were lords and everyone else was a peasant. Nowadays we are just modern peasants in a modern life and because of technology there seems to be prosperity but when you look at how much wealth there is, we in the first world working class are still peasants...we just drive nice cars. We must be submitted to the fields (offices and workplace) to produce so that the wealthy can be more wealthy. Our existence serves to provide those at the top with wealth and power. We must be kept decent else we would revolt so give them access to credit so they can "have" a home and raise a family. Make sure they have food but also make sure that whatever income is not take by tax, gets taken by mortgage interest and interest on other loans. We must be put to work so we can provide for the elite. I wonder if cattle out on the field know their true purpose?

armabelle · 13-05-2016 9:45am

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

Shur isn't it the fluorine that keeps us docile?

whatever it is, it must be expensive since water charges have been introduced

armabelle · 13-05-2016 9:54am

regi3457 wrote: »

In the medieval times there were lords and everyone else was a peasant. Nowadays we are just modern peasants in a modern life and because of technology there seems to be prosperity but when you look at how much wealth there is, we in the first world working class are still peasants...we just drive nice cars. We must be submitted to the fields (offices and workplace) to produce so that the wealthy can be more wealthy. Our existence serves to provide those at the top with wealth and power. We must be kept decent else we would revolt so give them access to credit so they can "have" a home and raise a family. Make sure they have food but also make sure that whatever income is not take by tax, gets taken by mortgage interest and interest on other loans. We must be put to work so we can provide for the elite. I wonder if cattle out on the field know their true purpose?

I suppose if you compare nowadays with those times, we have more wealth because of technology but also less wealth relative to the elite in this world so maybe times only seem better because we compare our lifestyle to medieval times and say: "well heck that is an improvement, look how far we have come" but in actual fact maybe the economy is still "extractive" by nature and that we as citizens are kind of like cotton workers in the Caribbean without actually believing that we are.

Wanderer78 · 13-05-2016 9:59am

armabelle wrote:

whatever it is, it must be expensive since water charges have been introduced

The most disturbing thing in Irish politics at the moment, has been the 'excess' talk about water. Even though it is an important subject matter, there really are far more serious matters to attend to first!

iguana · 13-05-2016 10:31am

regi3457 wrote: »

In the medieval times there were lords and everyone else was a peasant. Nowadays we are just modern peasants in a modern life and because of technology there seems to be prosperity but when you look at how much wealth there is, we in the first world working class are still peasants...we just drive nice cars. We must be submitted to the fields (offices and workplace) to produce so that the wealthy can be more wealthy. Our existence serves to provide those at the top with wealth and power. We must be kept decent else we would revolt so give them access to credit so they can "have" a home and raise a family. Make sure they have food but also make sure that whatever income is not take by tax, gets taken by mortgage interest and interest on other loans. We must be put to work so we can provide for the elite. I wonder if cattle out on the field know their true purpose?

I wonder if the accumulation of wealth at the top becomes an addiction for the wealthiest because I can't truly understand why at this point in time people want more and more to the extent that some people do. It was understandable in medieval times. Life was pretty bleak, even the wealthiest of the aristocracy lived lives that even the poorest in our society would consider awful. And to have that level of relative comfort meant living off the toil of thousands of peasants.

Nowadays you can live such a fantastic life so easily if you can secure a long-term home for no debt and an income enough to provide security and luxury. What really does billions get you that hundreds of thousands doesn't? More expensive, but not necessarily better, stuff and all the stresses that come with achieving and maintaining that level of wealth.

KomradeBishop · 13-05-2016 10:40am

It's about power, rather than wealth - and until democratic government is corrupted/taken-over completely, there's always more power to be gained.

Wanderer78 · 13-05-2016 10:42am

iguana wrote:

Nowadays you can live such a fantastic life so easily if you can secure a long-term home for no debt and an income enough to provide security and luxury. What really does billions get you that hundreds of thousands doesn't? More expensive, but not necessarily better, stuff and all the stresses that come with achieving and maintaining that level of wealth.

Good points there, but I suspect billionaires don't have the worries of us peasants. Invest your money in money making money schemes, and sit back and relax. Better still, employ somebody to do this for you. Another world I guess

iguana · 13-05-2016 11:08am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Good points there, but I suspect billionaires don't have the worries of us peasants. Invest your money in money making money schemes, and sit back and relax. Better still, employ somebody to do this for you. Another world I guess

That sort of wealth can bring the type of problems normal people can't imagine though. You become a type of celebrity, even if you don't court media attention, people will know who you are so you can never have a real private life. You can never be 100% sure of any of your friendships or love interests. Even something as normal as a one night stand for a single person could easily be tomorrow's clickbait. And if you cheat on a partner you are a great target for blackmail.

I think there have been studies done that show there is a peak level of wealth that helps a person achieve maximum happiness and beyond that the wealth tends to become a stressor rather than an alleviation.

armabelle · 13-05-2016 12:49pm

iguana wrote: »

I wonder if the accumulation of wealth at the top becomes an addiction for the wealthiest because I can't truly understand why at this point in time people want more and more to the extent that some people do. It was understandable in medieval times. Life was pretty bleak, even the wealthiest of the aristocracy lived lives that even the poorest in our society would consider awful. And to have that level of relative comfort meant living off the toil of thousands of peasants.

Nowadays you can live such a fantastic life so easily if you can secure a long-term home for no debt and an income enough to provide security and luxury. What really does billions get you that hundreds of thousands doesn't? More expensive, but not necessarily better, stuff and all the stresses that come with achieving and maintaining that level of wealth.

It isn't about wealth I guess. It is about power!

armabelle · 13-05-2016 12:50pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's about power, rather than wealth - and until democratic government is corrupted/taken-over completely, there's always more power to be gained.

Read this after my post...:D

just want to add that maybe what democracy means is: give them just enough to stay above the poverty line, provide for their children (by taking debt of course) so that a take over would seem "not worth it". What maybe the powers that be want is to keep people on the treadmill without feeling like they've been had

iguana · 13-05-2016 1:41pm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's about power, rather than wealth - and until democratic government is corrupted/taken-over completely, there's always more power to be gained.

armabelle wrote: »

It isn't about wealth I guess. It is about power!

So then I guess the question becomes, is the accumulation of power an addiction. Because almost universally all that people do with power gained through wealth is to use it in order to accumulate more power. What's the power for? And do the people with it actually improve their lives with it?

I suspect that similar to wealth accumulation, there is also 'peak power' in terms of happiness. Powerlessness is obviously ****, and there is huge happiness to be gained through having the power of autonomy. But does power over others make anyone happy unless they are doing something meaningful with that power?

regi3457 · 13-05-2016 1:46pm

The peasant must be made to produce more and more without his knowledge and without being able to blame the regime else protests and things can become nasty. The elite must continue to reap the rewards of the mass majority modern day peasant. Reproduction must take place within society else government can create incentives for child birth fuelling future generations more debt and more service to the elite. Propaganda via media must be strategically implemented on a regular basis. Stories such as the over-inflated migrant crisis which gives Europeans a sense of "we must be so lucky, look at people risking their lives to get in here" are the perfect brainwashing tool.

KomradeBishop · 13-05-2016 2:27pm

iguana wrote: »

So then I guess the question becomes, is the accumulation of power an addiction. Because almost universally all that people do with power gained through wealth is to use it in order to accumulate more power. What's the power for? And do the people with it actually improve their lives with it?

I suspect that similar to wealth accumulation, there is also 'peak power' in terms of happiness. Powerlessness is obviously ****, and there is huge happiness to be gained through having the power of autonomy. But does power over others make anyone happy unless they are doing something meaningful with that power?

That's a fair question, I'm not sure - I think by that stage, it's less about the individual, more about the wider group someone inhabits - and striving to increase the power of that group overall (because it's better for the inhabitants of that group then), at the cost of everyone else.

There's no real limit to the desire for accumulation of power then really - people will advocate for the stripping away of democracy, and transformation of a country into a corporatist state, so long as they think they can be a member of the 'elite' group who gains advantage from that - it's something we've seen before in history, and it's starting to look like it could be something we'll see again.

blinding · 13-05-2016 4:05pm

Back in the day didn't the Mother slave and the Father slave have to work .

The more things change the more they go back to the way they were.

Wanderer78 · 13-05-2016 8:54pm

blinding wrote: »

Back in the day didn't the Mother slave and the Father slave have to work .

The more things change the more they go back to the way they were.

my uncle has a saying in which i really like, i think it fits in with what you're saying here....

'everything is different, but nothing has changed'

Wanderer78 · 13-05-2016 9:21pm

iguana wrote: »

That sort of wealth can bring the type of problems normal people can't imagine though. You become a type of celebrity, even if you don't court media attention, people will know who you are so you can never have a real private life. You can never be 100% sure of any of your friendships or love interests. Even something as normal as a one night stand for a single person could easily be tomorrow's clickbait. And if you cheat on a partner you are a great target for blackmail.

I think there have been studies done that show there is a peak level of wealth that helps a person achieve maximum happiness and beyond that the wealth tends to become a stressor rather than an alleviation.

some very good points there alright but i have another odd twist to this kind of wealth.

i think we have a perception of how life is as an extremely wealthy person mainly due to the info we receive via the media. its probably impossible to say how life is as one unless you are one. i couldnt imagine its all roses though. id say its a horrible life to be honest. i also think its quite possible that the most wealthiest people on the planet may not be known to us. for example, its impossible for us to know exactly how much high level criminals are worth, so if they can hide their wealth, other 'non-criminals' can also hide their wealth. they would be like 'ghosts' in the system. i understand theres a lot of if, buts and whats in all that as well. maybe i just need to start drinking again and get out a bit more:D

Why do both parents have to work nowadays?

Comments