Younger people and their thoughts about working

I might add, I do not know any 'middle class' (whatever that means) families with 4 children. When both parents have well paid professional jobs. they generally have 2 children.

This is why this country, like 75% of countries world wide have birthrates below replacement level.

Doodledog The idea that catholics have lots of children is very out of date. As a catholic girl at catholic schools, in the 1950s, I was one of three and families of 4 or more were rare, even then.

Well, what a surprise to realise the thread has gone down this well trodden path.

Judy54 My daughter same age...good degree in Immunology/Pharmacology and works her socks off, as do her peers and friends,always has; as does her younger sister. I think it has to do with upbringing and taught values.. I would not tar all young people with same brush.

Merely an example of priorities. Huge tv over clothes for the children. And not bothering to mend torn clothes. Happy to send children to school in torn and dirty clothes. A family that size couldn’t survive on a farm labourer’s wages. Of course they did years ago, as my ancestors did - without parish relief. They weren’t Catholics - and she subsequently had more children.

Doodledog

I'm not sure what I'm meant to be working out.

An 'incredibly fat' woman has lots of children. Could the two things be related? Was she Catholic? She is married to a farm labourer, who probably wasn't earning a lot, but would be working hard. They can't afford new clothes, or the clothes they have are being handed down, as often happens in large families (even wealthy ones). They have a large TV that they may have won in a competition, been given as a present, be renting, have saved for for years. There is a mug with a penis on it - a hen party souvenir, a joke present? Who knows, but if there's no money for new clothes would it make sense to throw it away in a large household?

What's the question? What has this story to do with the previous post which assumes that people ordering takeaways would 'claim to be in poverty'?

There is a common denominator of a large TV 🤔. A signifier of what, exactly? A cheap form of entertainment for a family who may not be able to afford to go out a lot? A preference for watching shows like Big Brother over going to the Opera or Ballet ? Surely that's just cutting one's cloth? Is someone in the family short-sighted? Or is there more to it than that?

What occurred to me is that I think Germanshepherdsmum must be talking about circa 40 years ago - so actually, nothing has changed between generations?
Actually though, I think it’s probably middle class professional parents who have four or more children these days, others can’t afford to.

I'm not sure what I'm meant to be working out.

An 'incredibly fat' woman has lots of children. Could the two things be related? Was she Catholic? She is married to a farm labourer, who probably wasn't earning a lot, but would be working hard. They can't afford new clothes, or the clothes they have are being handed down, as often happens in large families (even wealthy ones). They have a large TV that they may have won in a competition, been given as a present, be renting, have saved for for years. There is a mug with a penis on it - a hen party souvenir, a joke present? Who knows, but if there's no money for new clothes would it make sense to throw it away in a large household?

What's the question? What has this story to do with the previous post which assumes that people ordering takeaways would 'claim to be in poverty'?

There is a common denominator of a large TV 🤔. A signifier of what, exactly? A cheap form of entertainment for a family who may not be able to afford to go out a lot? A preference for watching shows like Big Brother over going to the Opera or Ballet ? Surely that's just cutting one's cloth? Is someone in the family short-sighted? Or is there more to it than that?

She may have made the concscious choice to cut down on all outgoings, buy little and second- hand, travel less, eat out less etc, and be less tired and less stressed . We do spend money on transport, lunches, clothes, cosmetics, shoes ...just to go to work, mayne she has found that the benefits of working part- time outweigh the drawbacks ....

I expect many of us have observed that Doodledog. My son attended the village primary school. Most mothers stayed at home and had no more than two or at most three children. One woman stood out from the rest - an incredibly fat woman who had eight children who wore thin and torn clothes.When I collected my son from a birthday party at their (council ) house I saw the biggest tv I had ever seen. It was quite staggering - and accompanied by a big sound system. And, though not relevant, one of the children was drinking from a mug bearing a graphic image of a penis. The woman’s husband was a farm labourer. Do the maths.

What did he mean by 'who doubtless would claim to be in poverty'? I don't discuss my finances with a takeaway delivery man, and don't know anyone who would, so I can't imagine this scenario.

Vastly different attitudes now, compared to when I was brought up. I doubt many folk from that era will have much sympathy with what we see as the spoiled, “me me me” generations of today and recently?

Anyone still around from the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s would likely say, unless from a privileged background, that today's alleged 'poor' have little clue what poor people back then went through. We still had food rationing for some years after WW2, I think sugar rationing stopped in about 54 (so didn't see many sweets as a small child). Central heating wasn't a thing back then, and neither was double glazing. I used to wake up in a cold spell with ice on the inside of windows. There were properties from that era that didn't even have a sink, and the loo was outside. A subset of people had a bath by filling a tin one with hot water (kettles off the stove, or from the fire), several people used the same water. Don't suppose that would be popular now?

My dad had been forced into a menial poorly-paid job when back from WW2, and we were from an era when women largely stayed at home, also with the attitude that being “on the Grubber” (= Social Security help!) was a shameful thing. We never had a car, and I think we first got a telly when I was about 12 (one that had a pay meter on the back).

We have a near neighbour, has a little job delivering takeaways to people 2 or 3 nights a week, and he has pointed out those who'd doubtless claim to be 'in poverty' seem to have a couple of cars and dogs, kids with at least one mobile phone, and the latest trainers, and with a TV the size of a cinema screen just about fitting in their living room.

Your great grandparents were very wise, tictacnana, and that wisdom has benefited all their descendants. Nowadays we are so lucky to have free education up to the age of 18 (and in Scotland a free university education). Of course some children aren’t born with the ability to take full advantage of that, but so many who are fully capable of doing so just don’t bother - in some cases doubtless because their parents are uneducated and give no encouragement, maybe worried about their children getting ‘above themselves’ (ie doing better in life than they have), If children are not encouraged to do their best and are not shown what a work ethic is, what hope is there that they will progress beyond a minimum wage job or possibly a life of crime or a life spent on benefits?

Look at averages, GSM. Most people don't earn £80k. It may not be a lot to you, but it is to the majority of parents of young children, and they are the ones who see the injustice of a system where they are working long hours, paying a significant percentage of their income on childcare, a huge amount on housing (often to pay a landlord's mortgage) and see others sitting at home all day, or boasting at the school gates about using their 'free childcare hours' to get their children looked after whilst they get their hair done, or go for lunch, or complaining that increasing their part-time working hours would affect their UC.

Meanwhile (rightly or wrongly) they think the older generation got houses virtually free, lived in them for a while and now have massive profits (in some areas of the UK). The same (older) people also got free education for themselves and their children and the women retired at 60, often after not working for long, as they were able to afford to stay at home with their children. Many resent it, particularly when they can't imagine retiring before 70 or so, and hear older people insisting that they worked harder than today's young.

I'm not saying that any of this is anyone's fault. As I keep saying, it is 'the system' (which has changed over time), but many do resent it. Look on MN if you don't believe me. Do a search over there on 'boomers' and gird your loins.

If you are a nurse, or a teacher in a promoted post - someone on an above average income of £41k - you will have worked to get your training and work hard at the job you are in, which is responsible and tiring. If your partner is on a similar income, and you earn just over the threshold between you, you will get no CB, but with a new mortgage may well find that both of you need to work. If your neighbour is someone married to say, an accountant who earns £79k and you see her being paid to stay at home whilst you have to work and fork out for childcare, why wouldn't you be resentful? The neighbours don't pay for childcare (but still get 15 hours free if they fancy some time off), don't need a cleaner, buy one season ticket instead of two and have one lot of work-related expenses, and they get CB and the SAHP's NI paid.

I can understand why someone might think '*&$! this for a game of soldiers' and cut her hours. It's the same thought process as someone being taxed so much that they can get a 'free' day at home by cutting theirs.

She may be (formally) uneducated, perhaps had parents who did not teach her the value of money, saving, investing and caring for herself and her future.

On this woman’s behalf - and I’m not endorsing this, and I may be wrong - she sounds like the type who is hoping to wrangle up a marriage prospect.
She’s waiting for that ticket to ride.

Sad life and she may end up unhappier than she is now.

If she has done her sums and can afford to be independent good luck to her. If it makes her feel good who are we to disagree. But its not for me or mine. We have all worked since leaving school and paid our own way through life. I guess we are all different and we shouldn't judge others too harshly as we never know what twists and turns our own lives may take in the future. On the inheritance comments a close friend many years ago shocked myself and others in our friendship group by declaring how well off he would be when his parents died. It made me very sad that he thought that way. They both lived well into their 90's Needed full time residential nursing care for many years and his share of the pot was very much smaller than anticipated. Karma for sure.

I know of two young men - one in his 50s, the other in his 40s who haveNEVET had a job! They rely on aging parents and benefits. Their parents didn’t exactly set a good example either,by only working part time or at cash-in- hand jobs as well as benefits . Seems like generation after generation don’t have the Will to push forward. My great grandparents never went to school ,started work as children , but realised the path to a better life for those who would come after. Their son, my granddad ( 13th out of 16) was an optician and all his siblings worked or had businesses. Their grandson was a doctor. Education was the key . It was then, it is now. Even if one doesn’t go on to great things, it provides life skills eg. planning for a future.

In your example 1, Doodledog, the husband will be earning £79k (using next month’s figures) if he is £1 below the cut-off point of £80k for CB. However, as he will lose £1 of CB for every £200 he earns above £60k, the amount the couple are entitled to will be pennies. Couple 2 are between them earning £80,001 so receive no CB. These salaries are not huge but in neither case is the family on the breadline. If couple 1 are happy for the wife to stay at home, is that anyone’s business but their own? She will receive little, if any, state pension when she reaches that age. If my circumstances had permitted it I would have loved to stay at home, or at most work part time, and I would apologise to nobody for that choice.

As regards woman 3, yes she should work rather than rely on the taxpayer. UC exists to top up her income if need be as she is unlikely to earn much more than minimum wage, though as I said above it’s not the fault of the state if she is unskilled and has three children by a waster of a man. Staying at home and living off benefits when you are capable of work should not be an option if your children are at school. And what sort of example would that set to the children? It’s why we have families who have not worked for several generations - living off benefits becomes the norm.

Mel1967

I don’t think that it’s anyone’s business, but her own.
There is more to life than work.

I totally agree with you. Someone said what does she do with her extra time. Ha! There's loads to do than working. It's not all about money. Quality of life is far more important whatever way people choose to have it.

None of us can tell you what kind of life she envisages for herself at any given date in the future.

My sister worried about how she would manage on the state old age pension, which was lower than her invalidity benefit, and as she had, due to ill health and no fault of her own, been unable to work after the age of 35, she had no savings.

She died, seven years prior to the date at which she would have qualified for her OAP.

My husband saved all his life from the day he got his first job at the age of 14 and died of cancer four months after his 67th birthday when his various pension schemes came into play. So all his plans for our retirement came to naught.

I do, admittedly, have a nice nest-egg in the bank now, after paying his funeral expenses and settling his estate from the money he earned and saved.

BUT I would happily live on a shoe-string if it were possible to have him back, alive and in good health.

In my book the young woman is quite right - life is, or should be, about more than work and money and it is no business whatsoever of yours or mine how she chooses to spend her life.

Mel1967

I don’t think that it’s anyone’s business, but her own.
There is more to life than work.

This.

I live not too far away fron the Office of Natioanl Statistics and it is therefore not surprising that I have friennds that work there. REALITY is that the figure is everyone not in a job and INCLUDED everyone.
Journalists these day DO NOT bother with REALITY. Take this headline and report - More than a fifth of working-age adults in the UK are deemed not to be actively looking for work,
The UK's economic inactivity rate was 21.8% between November and January tghat means 9.2 million people aged between 16 and 64 in the UK are not in work nor looking for a job
HOWEVER the figures sompiled by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) include students, Careers including mothers who look after family or a home, people with disabilities, and early retired and discouraged workers.
They presumably even include me at the age of 71 years. I find that at a job intervue ( were I to attend one ) that the answer to the question - WHERE DO YOU SEE YOURSELF IN FIVE YEARS TIME? Apparentlty the answer ALIVE is not acceptable.
The figures also include a massof youngster who have Mental Issues from years of taking DRUGS ( No drug hurts you or is addictive is their statement) My Schitzophria is not a result of my taking copious amount of illegal chemicals. I should be allowed to drive articulated trucks and opperate machinery when stoned out of my head., If I could bother getting out of bed after a night of being higher than a kite. Why won't the Insurers agree?
Remove the Students, the truly disabled, the Retired and the druggies and suddenly that figure dops to a very few percent. BUT that isn't a News Story is it?

Oh Yes, I recently met a lady on the cashiers desk of B & M who is of retirement age but has to work THREE jobs in order to live and has no pension at all.

I think it's her life & none of my business.

Germanshepherdsmum

Money has always given people the luxury of choice, Doodledog, and it always will - and life never has been, and never will be, ‘fair’. It is up to the individual capable of work to do the best they can for themselves, rather than expecting the state to fund them. Under the new CB coming in next month, the threshold for payment is raised from £50k to £60k and the benefit then tapers off until at £80k you receive nothing. I see nothing unfair in that. I’m not in favour of the taxpayer paying for children the parents can’t afford to have, although I received CB for my one child and wouldn’t under the new rules.

With regard to your example 3 above, why should the state pay benefits to this woman who no longer needs to stay at home and could perfectly well work? Is it the fault of the state that she is unskilled and has had three children by a feckless man? What were you saying the other day about people working rather than claiming benefits?

My argument is not that anyone 'should' do anything. It rarely is, really. What I am saying is that the state is giving financial incentives for women to stay at home, but only if their partner earns enough for her to opt out of making a financial contribution to society, rather than solely to her family. At a time when pensioners are being told that they are a drain on the public purse as they are 'economically inactive' this seems to me inconsistent.

This means that the thinking behind the benefit is not that children are better off with a parent at home, as only Family 1 get their NI paid and are give CB. It is not that parents should have choice, as again, only family 1 get that choice, and even then, only until the higher earner earns above the threshold. It is not that parents need financial help to bring up babies and children, as this help is denied to all but family 1. It is not that staying at home should include preparation for future work, or allow the possibility of part-time work (as is compulsory for mum 3) as if mum 1's earnings push the household income above the threshold they lose the benefit. It is definitely not feminist thinking, as women taking years out of the workplace are often financially disadvantaged for life, whilst their husbands progress in their careers. This may be good for family finances for those who stay together, but is anything but good (for the woman) if they split. It is difficult to see what the thinking is. This inconsistency applies both to NI contributions to SAHPs and to the CB cap.

You bring up my example 3. Why should mum 3 be forced to work when mum 1 is also perfectly well able to work, but is subsidised to stay at home? Is there a good reason for that?

I don't know what I said the other day, but I'd be surprised if I said that anyone 'should' do anything. I am far more likely to have said that the system encourages people to opt out of work at both ends of the income spectrum, which is entirely consistent with what I am saying now. People do what works for them within the system. I rarely argue for them to do otherwise (why would they?) but do feel that 'the system' is often skewed so that people 'in the middle' are disadvantaged. That 'middle' gets further and further towards the 'bottom' all the time, too. Means-testing does that, and reframing it as 'targeting' doesn't change a thing.

Finally, the argument that things have always been unfair has always been a cop out. Historical injustice is not a rationale for current and future injustice.

No, except to the extent that whilst she may be able to cover her needs now, as I said above unless she’s earning enough to put a worthwhile sum into a private pension, finds a partner or gets a significant inheritance, the time will come when she looks to the state for help.

None of your business neither is how she will cope, she's an adult and clearly knows what she's doing.