Housewifes (or husbands... or house co-habs or civil partners ?...) & the economy

treliac

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Looking after children and a house / flat is much harder than working for a living, I reckon.

At work, you get to go to the loo on your own!

That's only if you have a really good support network. Most of us had to be all things to all people, juggle childcare with work and do all the housework as well. It's no wonder that the myth of 'having it all' has been well and truly exploded for the majority of women.

I didn't need to take my children into the loo with me btw.

PasturesNew

I wish I was a housewife.

treliac

PasturesNew wrote: »

I wish I was a housewife.

Don't many of us?

wageslave

Mozette wrote: »

Yes point taken. I was talking about some people who go to work even though it barely covers the childcare because they need a bit of time away, and those who stay at home because they would rather be with their children, even if they could bring in more money by going to work.

But yes, obviously for a lot it is a matter of needs be rather than choice. Which is a shame. I think a parent should be able to stay with their child certainly until school age without having to live in a tent. Oh for the days when you could buy a house on one wage!

Or when you didn't feel a failure if you couldn't buy a house at all.

blue_monkey_2

wageslave wrote: »

Or when you didn't feel a failure if you couldn't buy a house at all.

I just read this and had a thought. Where the kids go to school there are 50/50 of mums that work or stay at home. The ones that go to work, generally, want to be at home with their children. The work night shifts and/or pass their hubbies in the morning or the kids are with nannies before and after school. They are all the ones that have mortgages and have to work. There are very few that are happy leaving their children.

Then there are the SAH mums - we (I include myself in this although I do run a business it is more a hobby these days) we all have council or Housing Association houses.

We do not get any benefits towards the rent/CT because we earn too much but because the rent is not a huge amount (around £550 a month) it enables me to be able to stay at home with the children.

I used to worry about not owning a house, it seemed everyone else had one and I used to feel ashamed of not having somewhere of 'our own'. Where I lived before and the school that the kids last went to there were just a handful of us in the entire school that rented - it seemed house ownership was the norm, however, where I live now it is totally different and I am always surprised when people say they are in council housing as I am so used to being around people who own.

I do not think I'd like to give up caring for my children to enable me to have a house of our 'own'. I suppose it is a little different for me as I have a child with disabilities but even if he didn't I'd much prefer to be at home with them and be able to do things with them such as events they have at school that other mums have to miss out on as they are working. If that means going without stuff for a few years then it's no big deal.

I know someone who goes out to work just to be able to afford a nice annual holiday and childcare. I, personally, would rather do without because that is something that we can do once the kids are older.

I am on a school council and interestingly, soon schools will have to provide before and after school clubs for children between the hours of 8am to 6pm, apparently it is going to be law. We cannot get, or have to fight for, help for our SEN children but the Governement say that Schools have to offer a 'childminding' service for parents that go out to work. Whether this will change under the Tories I've no idea, but this indicates to me that working parents are more of a burden on the taxpayer than SAH parents as no dount it will be subsidised.

Plus add to the fact lots pof people get Tax Credits to pay for Child Care and 'get out' more than they put in, how can SAH parents be more of an ecomonic drain. At least we can look after our kids when they are ill without having to lose pay or let our employer down.

Herbie_Hancock_I_wish

When I look back, maybe 50 years ago , the sahm seem to be the norm. It seems to me that unless the male in the family has a really good paying job it must be difficult these days. I was interested in the above poster blue_ monkey, and indeed pleased that she is able to do that. However the salary that her other half receives must be quite considerable and good on you. However for many, me being in a poorer area, although highly experienced and skilled but like many, these skills are for younger people.

Good though, I like those times. Lots of parents I knew as a kid had one at work and the other bringing up the kids. I think it worked very well and boo hiss about not owning a house. You sound like me to have it very sussed.

Even though I out right own my home, I think it it a nonsense where house price are these days. I am already starting to see the stress in my own family about buying at a price which is silly. One duff month at work and the stress sets in.

If I may be as bold to say my friend, you are doing it your way and glad you are happy with it. The old days where , imho, the better days for kids all round.

treliac

Herbie_Hancock_I_wish wrote: »

When I look back, maybe 50 years ago , the sahm seem to be the norm.
The old days where , imho, the better days for kids all round.

Never a truer word was spoken. Those days are unlikely to return though.

Having said that, at least women have choices that rarely existed in those days. However, are they real choices or is 'choice' just another word for 'expectation'?

I'm sure that 'the good old days' were hugely better for children. As for mothers... my mother was happy as a sahm and I would have loved the opportunity, at least for a short time. Obviously women have different priorities but I think it's rare for a mother to feel she has real control over her life and division of duties.

blue_monkey_2

Herbie_Hancock_I_wish wrote: »

When I look back, maybe 50 years ago , the sahm seem to be the norm. It seems to me that unless the male in the family has a really good paying job it must be difficult these days. I was interested in the above poster blue_ monkey, and indeed pleased that she is able to do that. However the salary that her other half receives must be quite considerable and good on you. However for many, me being in a poorer area, although highly experienced and skilled but like many, these skills are for younger people.

Good though, I like those times. Lots of parents I knew as a kid had one at work and the other bringing up the kids. I think it worked very well and boo hiss about not owning a house. You sound like me to have it very sussed.

Even though I out right own my home, I think it it a nonsense where house price are these days. I am already starting to see the stress in my own family about buying at a price which is silly. One duff month at work and the stress sets in.

If I may be as bold to say my friend, you are doing it your way and glad you are happy with it. The old days where , imho, the better days for kids all round.

Herbie, no, he does not earn a huge amount of money tbh, he has no qualifications and works as a service engineer. We get by with what we get. Not that he would like to know I talk about it with my friends but he earns much less than than my friends hubbies do and he does manual work. We do not need to run a car for him for example, as he has a work van (he pays a little extra tax). This will make us sound boring but we do not go out drinking, to restaurants, to the cinema, days out so we save quite a bit there. We do not have sitters for the kids but someone has offered next week but I cannot justify paying £200 to get into the theatre let alone the money it'll cost while we are there, and also getting there.

We just do not lead the lifestyles they do sending their kids to loads of after school clubs that cost the earth - they mae their own entertainment at home. :rotfl: Our annual holiday at Butlins for the last 5 years is courtesy of Tesco Clubcard but we are saving hard to go to Florida later this year so I've been buying second hand stuff instead of new. i started taking the kids to the liubrary instead of buying books. I've been buying DS games on eBay and not paying more than the Trade in Price so I get 2 games for the price of 1 for example!! My friends seem to go to the theatre a few times a year - there is no way I could justify spending that sort of money on a regular basis. You just learn to be Frugal!!

He is a good handyman so anything that needs doing around the house he does himself whereas other people will pay for someone to do it as they are not used to manual work. We save money there.

I am sure that our lifestyle does not appeal to everyone, people have high expectations these days but my children are going to be children for just a small part of my life, I am loathe to give that up even though they drive me nuts most days with their fighting.

neverdespairgirl

wageslave wrote: »

There are very few mothers who wouldn't like to be a SAHM if they could afford it.

I could afford it. I choose not to. Nothing against SAHMs, just not for me.

neverdespairgirl

treliac wrote: »

That's only if you have a really good support network. Most of us had to be all things to all people, juggle childcare with work and do all the housework as well. It's no wonder that the myth of 'having it all' has been well and truly exploded for the majority of women.

I didn't need to take my children into the loo with me btw.

Did yours never go through a stage aged about 18 months to 3 when they followed you everywhere, including the loo?

There's no way I'd work, sort out childcare and do all the housework too. It's down to me AND OH, jointly. I do all the laundary, he irons. I cook more, he shops. etc. And if we have a childcare crisis, it's whoever isn't in court who handles it.