The 2 working parent family

purch

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

You forget that Britain had more traditional values then. And women's lower pay limited job opportunities for them.

No I don't.

Mrs_Arcanum

My father drove a gas guzzling Daimler round all the farms in the area and paid cash for a large house both without my mother having to work in the 60s (and we had a cleaning lady). Very middle class occupation at the time, with a similar job today has a pay range only just above the national average.

Yet DH doing family tree research has shown that the majority of the population on low pay, both genders have always worked. Nailers & glovers usually being women working from home and raising innumerable children for example.

So claiming that both parents working has squeezed the available jobs is not a good direct comparison except at average wage or above.

lippy1923

N1AK wrote: »

For future reference it's: "I went to primary", "I wish" and "I have an older sister".

Normally I wouldn't care but apparently it's point of trifling little things for no reason day

lol! I was just going to point that out

kabayiri

Just wait.

If housing pressures continue, in time we will be talking about how 'only' 4 adults in the typical multi-generational household are working.

This is after the new basement houses the grown up kids' 'lair'; the extension over the garage is for the Grandparents; and the loft room is for the nimbler Aunt and Uncle who originally came to 'kip on the sofa for a few weeks'

Generali

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

You are the son of a teacher!!

I find that very hard to believe going on the way you write and articulate yourself. And for future reference it is "I went to primary" "I wish" "I have and older sister".

Why is it that every single poster that corrects another persons gramma or speeling gets it wrong?

PS Perhaps the teacher taught Physics or PE in Germany or Spain rather than English in England.

The_White_Horse

this is what i have always said. if women were in the kitchen where they belong, none of the issues we face would have happened.

Loughton_Monkey

Carl31 wrote: »

Is this a significant factor to the current unemployment rates? and economic problems in general?
.........

A very interesting point. My gut instinct is that although the trend you have outlined has substance, it cannot be blamed directly for the economy.

It seems that unemployement rates are measured simply in 'people' not 'families'. It is further complicated by inability, these days, to measure what a 'family' is! There are so many varieties of arrangements these days:

Single parent families
Living-together unmarried families
Single parents living with their own parents
Couples living seperately but financially dependent
......

If you consider "the economy" to be a huge financial machine, it simply doesn't recognise families at all. It consists of thousands of businesses, employing 'people', buying and selling goods/service, and paying the staff. Governments tax the businesses and people, and spend the taxes on infrastructure, defense, education, health, and benefits/pensions. There are some extremely minor cases where the concept of "family" has an impact on benefits/pensions.

But behind the economy, we then have social trends in 'behaviour'. This behaviour has markedly changed towards one that says "I want it. And I want it now. And I'll borrow to get it." And it also increasingly says "I do not recognise the need to save or invest because the state will always look after me, and pensions are a rip off innit?"

If we imagine, for a moment, that families had broadly followed the same pattern. Imagine that they tended to marry. Tended to let the wife not work at least until children were off their hands, then things might still be in the same mess economically. That's provided that the individual behaviour I outlined above, plus the behaviour of Governments to 'feather-bed' the population, dumb-down education etc., changed within those family units.

If you take a step even further back, you might care to simplify the thing even further. At risk of over-simplification, I will go to my grave knowing that:

1. All Western economies became rich over hundrends of years from the industrial revolution right up to, say, the 1992 'big bang' etc.

2. As a consequence, these 'rich' nations could afford (rightly or wrongly) to instal the most 'luxurious' state machines, benefits, people-friendly laws, health & safety, equality.......

3. It has instilled in Western populations, a complacency that shows up as a high wage, low productivity, economy. It is virtually impossible to "uninstall" or "reverse" this social trend without revolution.

4. Meanwhile, an even bigger "Eastern" economy has developed. An economy of lower wage, high productivity, more modern tools and infrastructure. It is therefore 'stealing' all the business from the West. It is sucking wealth at a tremendous rate from West to East.

5. Until or unless the Eastern economies install the same social feather-bedding, high wages, lower productivity policies, this trend can do no other than continue. The only caveat to that - and one that could change the world - would be a major World War 3. The chances of this might be low, but I see it increase year by year.

JanCee

The_White_Horse wrote: »

this is what i have always said. if women were in the kitchen where they belong, none of the issues we face would have happened.

Yes, but you are a complete moron.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

even in 1970 30% of households had central heating, over 50% by 1980 and 79% by 1990

so depends upon what is meant by 'not common'

Seems the babyboomer "we didn't have anything" threads have clouded my thoughts.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seems the babyboomer "we didn't have anything" threads have clouded my thoughts.

the figures would seem to indicate that

over 60% of babyboomers lived in non centrally heated houses at least until they were 15 years.

for the oldest half of the baby boomers (born 1945-55 ish) it would indicate that over 70% of the baby boomers lived in non central heated houses until they at least 15 years old

of course they benefited from the heat greater density of people in the houses.