The 2 working parent family

Carl31

Is this a significant factor to the current unemployment rates? and economic problems in general?
I think I am too young to really consider it fully, but when I was little, during the 80s, my mum didn't work, only my Dad worked, the same for the majority of my friends. None of our Dads were particularly high earners, yet they managed to pay their mortgage and provide for us (I have a brother and sister). We had UK based holidays, lived in a decent house, ran a car etc.. pretty 'normal' stuff. Yet, nowadays, people claim that they cannot live without both parents working? is that true, or are people wanting to have it all, family and a career? where as before the mother (or father) accepted that whilst the kids were young, they would be at home?
What baffles me is the amount of people, including my friends, that both work full time, and put their child into care, at say £1k a month out of their net salary, automatically wiping out any gain from full time work. In reality, it would make more sense for one parent to take a part time role and raise their child at home, which would also free up more full time roles in the market
Just something I have been thinking about lately that I would appreciate some views on

Generali

It's a great question TBH and nobody can say unequivocally what the answer is but here's my shot.

Two working-parent families probably have bid house prices up a bit but not by a huge amount. I don't think they've had any meaningful impact on unemployment for 2 reasons:

1. If you have both men and women competing for jobs you can pick the best person for the job not just the best man. That means that work can be done better or more efficiently, increasing economic output and thus increasing potential employment levels.
2. If more people are working, incomes are higher and so more is consumed so more is supplied. It becomes a virtuous circle where increasing output sustains higher employment which sustains higher output.

One of the reasons two people 'need' to work is that people want a higher standard of living today than in the past. Look at what people own and how they live now compared to 1982: double glazing was still a luxury then; lots of people didn't have central heating throughout the house; a second TV, if it existed, was likely to be a small black and white portable rather than having a flat screen TV each; 'nobody' had a computer at home; second cars were rarer; 'nobody' drove huge fuel guzzling behemoths; a single short haul foreign holiday a year was all that anyone could aspire to; no mobile phones, pay TV or broadband; eating out was a very occasional treat for most and so on.

For many women paying exorbitant childcare fees, the reason to work is because they want to/like it and because they want to keep moving along the career path they have chosen: taking 10 years off to have kids means you have to restart your career from scratch in the vast majority of cases.

System

You could say in a sense, that opening the jobs market to women has been a bit like mass immigration, doubling the number of workers chasing the same number of real jobs.

But I don't think many feminists want to pursue that line of argument

margaretclare

OP: 'when you were little, during the 80s, mum didn't work'....

This may have been in most cases, even in the majority, but I personally always worked. I'm talking much, much earlier than the 80s. I had 2 children in the early 60s and I was back at work when the youngest was 6 months old, in 1964. I continued working until 2002 aged 67.

I worked in a mainly female profession, and I had a lot of female colleagues. So where did all of them come from, if 'most mums didn't work'? Even the ones who worked part-time, deliberately kept their hours below full-time to avoid joining the NHS pension scheme - a short-sighted view as it turned out! - did so to improve the family's standard of living.

purch

My mother worked throughout my childhood.

We started doing Bed & Breakfast for holidaymakers in the mid 1960's...then bought a small Hotel which my mother ran, as my Dad still worked as a Plumber, then we moved to London and my Mum got a job in the kitchen of an Old Peoples Day Centre, and from there continued to work in Local Government working (and studying for qualifications) her way up to the point where she managed a Day Centre.

I would have thought that by the 1980's it would have been unusual for there not to be 2 working parents, rather than the other way round.

Generali

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

You could say in a sense, that opening the jobs market to women has been a bit like mass immigration, doubling the number of workers chasing the same number of real jobs.

But I don't think many feminists want to pursue that line of argument

Twaddle.

More people in an economy mean more workers are needed to provide for their needs, an economy isn't a pie to be shared among the populations.

To think of an example, think about the number of hairdressers that need to be employed as the population rises. Then think about the wages/profits of those hairdressers and what happens to them. There is no demonstrable correlation between immigration or increased female participation in the labour market and unemployment.

Carl31

Generali wrote: »

It's a great question TBH and nobody can say unequivocally what the answer is but here's my shot.

Two working-parent families probably have bid house prices up a bit but not by a huge amount. I don't think they've had any meaningful impact on unemployment for 2 reasons:

1. If you have both men and women competing for jobs you can pick the best person for the job not just the best man. That means that work can be done better or more efficiently, increasing economic output and thus increasing potential employment levels.
2. If more people are working, incomes are higher and so more is consumed so more is supplied. It becomes a virtuous circle where increasing output sustains higher employment which sustains higher output.

One of the reasons two people 'need' to work is that people want a higher standard of living today than in the past. Look at what people own and how they live now compared to 1982: double glazing was still a luxury then; lots of people didn't have central heating throughout the house; a second TV, if it existed, was likely to be a small black and white portable rather than having a flat screen TV each; 'nobody' had a computer at home; second cars were rarer; 'nobody' drove huge fuel guzzling behemoths; a single short haul foreign holiday a year was all that anyone could aspire to; no mobile phones, pay TV or broadband; eating out was a very occasional treat for most and so on.

For many women paying exorbitant childcare fees, the reason to work is because they want to/like it and because they want to keep moving along the career path they have chosen: taking 10 years off to have kids means you have to restart your career from scratch in the vast majority of cases.

The thing I have been hearing in the press is 'theres only part time jobs available' - if true, are these the roles previously held by one parent, where there was one FT and one PT/at home that are now residual to changes in how people earn the past 30 odd years?

What i wonder is, is it the case that our country and economy cannot really support an increase in Full tme workers, and we are starting to realise this now the purse strings have been tightened?

Carl31

margaretclare wrote: »

OP: 'when you were little, during the 80s, mum didn't work'....

This may have been in most cases, even in the majority, but I personally always worked. I'm talking much, much earlier than the 80s. I had 2 children in the early 60s and I was back at work when the youngest was 6 months old, in 1964. I continued working until 2002 aged 67.

I worked in a mainly female profession, and I had a lot of female colleagues. So where did all of them come from, if 'most mums didn't work'? Even the ones who worked part-time, deliberately kept their hours below full-time to avoid joining the NHS pension scheme - a short-sighted view as it turned out! - did so to improve the family's standard of living.

Sorry, even though i stated it in my post, i was really questioning at that time, was it more the norm to have a FT working parent and a SAH/PT working parent, which in my experience was the mother, instead of 2 FT parents we see a lot now?

purch

I believe that people shape the Economy, rather than the other way around.

The Economy is constantly changing, as people change their lifestyles and choices.

JonnyBravo

Carl31 wrote: »

Is this a significant factor to the current unemployment rates? and economic problems in general?
I think I am too young to really consider it fully, but when I was little, during the 80s, my mum didn't work, only my Dad worked, the same for the majority of my friends. None of our Dads were particularly high earners, yet they managed to pay their mortgage and provide for us (I have a brother and sister). We had UK based holidays, lived in a decent house, ran a car etc.. pretty 'normal' stuff. Yet, nowadays, people claim that they cannot live without both parents working? is that true, or are people wanting to have it all, family and a career? where as before the mother (or father) accepted that whilst the kids were young, they would be at home?
What baffles me is the amount of people, including my friends, that both work full time, and put their child into care, at say £1k a month out of their net salary, automatically wiping out any gain from full time work. In reality, it would make more sense for one parent to take a part time role and raise their child at home, which would also free up more full time roles in the market
Just something I have been thinking about lately that I would appreciate some views on

Yes I think it's much more common for both to work now than in the 80's. Certainly true of my parents too.
As for the "it costs as much as to put them in childcare as you earn" argument. Yes it may do. For some time. But that soon changes and you've had the benefit of career development in that time.
Mrs JB has massively changed career through simple application and success in her roles in the last dozen or so years whilst the kids were growing. From a standard secretarial role through office management to now a team leader and project manager.
Sure we broke even for a while but you've got to look beyond the short term picture.

purch

purch wrote: »

My mother worked throughout my childhood.

To add a little balance, Mrs P handed in her notice the day after she found out she(we) were expecting #1 son (in 1994)

She has worked extremely hard since that date, keeping the more expensive retailers in business :eek: