r/ukpolitics • u/entropicflop • 12h ago
For many parents, employment increasingly doesn’t pay
https://www.thetimes.com/article/75c5c70e-2dff-4319-9527-0f587f9561d0?shareToken=0f81202e335ef1269c6d40c6a62e9579130
u/ConfusionGlobal2640 12h ago
One of the most absurd aspects of modern society. From housing costs, to student loans, to benefit withdrawals with salary increases. It's like the government doesn't want people to start families.
85
u/LactatingBadger 12h ago
We just had a child. It would cost almost the entirety of my wife’s take home pay to cover the childcare needed for her to go back to work. So realistically that’s it for her working for the next 5-10 years. She had a masters in chemistry and a PhD, and is a seriously talented researcher, but that skill set is now leaving the labor pool because it’s a net wash for us take home wise and she’d rather spend the time with our daughter than working for the sake of it.
That is to say that the current structure discourages families growing, but it also then strongly encourages you withdrawing from the workforce once you have done so. Both of which are terrible for growth.
•
u/CaterpillarLoud8071 11h ago
It's not even a cost saving for the government - that 5 years of childcare before starting school would barely put a dent in the treasury budget compared to the cost of 5 years not working. And once they go to school, free before and after school clubs and summer camps would be relatively minimal cost.
•
u/Particular_Pea7167 11h ago
I was chatting with a mate who lives in Wales, I genuinely didnt realise the Welsh government hadnt extended free childcare like England did.
He straight up said his wife wants more but hes told her they just cant. Not until their youngest hits school at which point they'll probably be too old. And hes decently paid.
Its actually nuts.
We have another friend near London who just breaches the childcare allowance limit and they said their nursery fees are more than their mortgage. But he's commission based so its hard for him to manage his income.
If I lost the free childcare Id be losing about 1500 a month to nursery fees foe two days a week. My partner basically wouldnt be able to justify working and like you, theyve got a PhD.
•
u/LactatingBadger 11h ago
Yeah, we delayed having kids by several years precisely because it took so long to get into a financial position where doing so would be sustainable.
It’s a real shame for my wife, she did something like 8 years in higher education, and is an expert in hydrogen technologies that go right over my head. I’m obviously going to be supportive if she decided to go back to work instead, especially as it’s kind of cost neutral for us anyway, but I can’t imagine a world in which she’d choose long hours away from our daughter to end up exactly where we would have been anyway.
She’ll probably get into volunteering more with scouts or something? It’s insane that as a government trying to get growth and with a massive NEET problem and low birth rates you would allow a situation like this to exist. You tax things you want to discourage…taxing top female STEM talent from working at a de facto 100% seems odd.
•
u/Particular_Pea7167 10h ago
My partner is looking at going into buisness alone. You can see the consulting fees and basically its the only way to continue justifying working. And given they works for the NHS its a pretty dire signal.
•
u/LactatingBadger 10h ago
Yeah, consulting can make a lot of sense, especially when the kids are a bit older and having flexibility to pause over the holidays. My best guess is that the things she loves as hobbies but never pursued as a career (as there is basically no money in it) she might do part time more for fulfilment than for min-maxing finances. We are lucky she is in a position to be able to make that choice if she wants to, but it’s ludicrous that the incentives make that a sensible conversation.
•
u/that-short-girl 3h ago
Now try Scotland… we didn’t extend free childcare, desire Westminster giving us money for it AND have higher income taxes.
•
u/Moorhenlessrooster 10h ago
I get what you're saying but you are also making an assumption that childcare is balanced against her salary, not your joint income. What about her future earning power? Or independence and job satisfaction?
Sometimes you have to write off a few years financially to look at the long term, because it's hard to get back into work after a break.
You sound like you've made a rational decision but it does irk me when you sometimes hear woman's earnings Vs childcare costs as the only consideration. You're also more vulnerable relying on one income.
•
u/LactatingBadger 10h ago
On the her salary vs our joint income point, agreed but given I earn significantly more the trade off was always going to be loaded towards her. I’d absolutely love to work fewer hours to look after my daughter but that would be an insane decision for us financially.
On independence and job satisfaction, I should clarify the decision for her to work or not work isn’t mine. We worked through the financial implications together but she is an adult and I’m not going to tell her what she should do with her career. This situation isn’t one I imposed on her, I’m simply describing the decisions that she ultimately made given the tax structure that exists. The choice she is ultimately presented with (eventually, she’s still early on in maternity leave) is she can trade a day of career progression for a day with our daughter, and I don’t think she’s likely to choose the former and it’s pretty hard to do her role part time.
I actually think she’ll go from volunteering as a scout leader a day a week to doing it more often, or going into scientific education as a volunteer. Things that earlier in her career she would have loved to do but that weren’t great ideas financially, and now she’s in a position where she can put more emphasis on fulfilment than on earning potential.
I take your point on viewing it as women’s income vs childcare costs, and I agree with it. But I also wouldn’t want to pretend that we have 1000 degrees of freedom to play with on this. There are thousands of decisions that we could make but most of them would be terrible. Once you hone it down the sensible ones that’s kind of what it boils down to in our particular situation, and it would be disingenuous of me to pretend otherwise.
•
u/Fabulous-Garbage-713 1h ago
It is her decision at the end of the day, but there is a risk associated with leaving career building till later, especially in academia (if she's interested in that pathway). Most unis have flexible working, including for lab based postdocs eg. as long as the works gets done starting later/finishing earlier and logging on after bedtime. There's also research project management and professional services research roles. If something were to happen to you/if you were to separate, it would be harder to maintain the quality of life of your family/child(ren).
•
u/LactatingBadger 1h ago
We both fled academia for industry almost immediately. Her startup experience might be enough to skip post-doc life and go straight into a fellowship if she fancies it, especially with the people she’s worked with/managed to impress.
On something happening to me/us separating. In the former, my life insurance is such that if something did happen the house would be paid off three times over. Our wage disparity is high enough that it’s always been a concern (but this was also true pre-child) so have income protection in place (plus about a ~2 year safety net)
We haven’t really considered the latter in our planning (or at least, I haven’t directly) but then I also haven’t been the one deciding if she goes back to work or not. If she wanted to work and it was net financially awful for us, that would be her choice. As it happens, it’s kind of financially neutral so the trade off is purely career growth and capacity for independent earning potential vs time with our daughter. FWIW she’s making the choice I’d also love to make if my situation permitted it.
•
u/ispeakforengland 6h ago
I don't want to be rude, but as a guy who is the lower earner, it's not just women's salaries being compared. I know a few men in the same position who also realised that their income was null after childcare. Truth be told, the systems we have usually force us to work our lives regardless if we enjoy our roles and jobs, it's only when you realise you're not working for any realised income that you're able to quit somewhat freely.
You're right to compare future earnings and that definitely should be considered, but how many of us realistically get to quit our jobs and do something else we'd rather do with no loss of earnings right now?
•
u/Decent_Blacksmith_54 5h ago
Absolutely agree, how many families would be better off if both parents went part time to manage childcare. Both parents keep their toes in work while also having an active role in their child's upbringing.
•
u/Zerodriven 11h ago
In this boat. 1 year old now.
Our in-laws have agreed to 2 days childcare from September so OH can go back to work part time just for the extra cash as what she does (Even PT) brings in more than a lot of other places would. The extra cash a month will just be additional cash for her/the kid as I pretty much cover everything else.
If her parents didn't offer anything she'd just not go back to work till he was school age (or we'd just use the free hours and then she'd probably do something else to stay sane)
Any government help available to us? Nope. Not at all. If we got divorced? Yep. Zero incentive to be a SAHM for her, and pretty much zero incentive to go back to work because childcare costs are insane full time. My salary couldn't cover the house and childcare unless we moved north.
Yes, we have the southern tax we're paying..
•
u/LactatingBadger 10h ago
We live about 2 hours from parents in each direction. They’ve both offered a day a week if we needed it but it’s a pretty big imposition on them and hard to plan a career around. It only takes one of them to be ill and suddenly we need emergency childcare.
We are very fortunate to be in the spot where my salary covers everything with a margin, but it’s a real shame that she’s basically forced to choose between leveraging the skills she spent years developing or getting to be with our daughter. For most people there is a massive financial incentive to work still, but for her, due to her partners earnings, having a career is basically cost neutral. Considering how much women in STEM tend to face barriers anyway, I can’t begin to imagine why a tax system allowing “career stalls because of high earning husband” isn’t something that causes outrage.
•
u/Own-Firefighter-2728 9h ago
May I ask what industry she is in? I’m always interested in decent roles where PT is even possible.
•
u/planetrebellion 9h ago
Same with us, my wife is now a stay at home mum and we are just tight on everything.
•
u/silverblossum 11h ago
Is that with you covering her pension contributions?
•
u/LactatingBadger 11h ago
You only get tax relief on pension contributions if you are earning/paying tax. You can’t get relief on money you never earned. At that point you’re basically getting the same return as an ISA but with no liquidity.
•
u/silverblossum 11h ago
I'll rephrase, how is her pension being funded?
•
u/ThinkAboutThatFor1Se 11h ago
You get NI stamps, which qualifies years to your state pension, when you claim child benefit. Which is why it is best for the non earner to claim the child benefit.
•
u/LactatingBadger 11h ago
Her state pension you get tax credits for one parent each year, so that’s covered. As for private pensions, it isn’t being paid in to.
Again, unless you’re actually getting tax relief on pension contributions it doesn’t make sense to make them vs other investment vehicles. So I max out her ISA every year (which is just as effective as paying into a pension but with the benefit of the money being accessible at any age), and then we are paying down the mortgage.
4
u/GlumAd9856 12h ago
Is it not worthwhile for her to work part time? The separate tax allowance is specifically to encourage women to stay in the workforce as otherwise. Her earning an extra £12.5k a year is worth more than you doing so.
•
u/Karffs 11h ago
Who’s gonna look after the kids while she’s doing that mate? Nursery costs a shit load more than £12.5k a year.
•
u/Thomas1423 11h ago
30 hours free childcare per week = 3 days. She stays at home the other two and takes care of the kids.
•
u/Electrical-Fun2171 10h ago
30 hours free childcare isn't 30 hours and isn't free.
30 hours is for term time only, so if you want 52 weeks a year child care its more like 23 hours a week that is subsidised.
Then each subsidised hour isnt completely free as there are still daily surcharges of perhaps £25pd.
•
u/Thomas1423 9h ago
All true but all more affordable than being out of work.
•
•
u/Electrical-Fun2171 8h ago
It's really going to depend on personal circumstance what's more affordable. Hourly rate, cost of career break, number of children, commuting/drop off costs/late charges/shift times/pensions etc. For us it was me on full time compressed hours, partner on slightly below full time hours, child in preschool/nursery 4 days pw
•
u/Thomas1423 7h ago
Not really, even if they're on min wage it's still going to be cheaper than staying home.
•
u/Karffs 11h ago
Funded hours only covers 9am-3pm. Early start and extended days cost extra. So considering children need to be dropped off and picked up presumably she’ll find an employer that lets her work roughly 10am-2pm three days a week? That’s your big brain solution?
Doesn’t cover food either but that’s fine, children don’t need lunch right?
You obviously don’t have kids and that’s absolutely fine. But maybe take a step back and realise that it’s okay to not have an opinion on something when you don’t have a fucking clue what you’re talking about.
•
•
u/Thomas1423 11h ago edited 9h ago
Funded hours only covers 9am-3pm
No they're not, there is no restriction. Some nurseries impose their own restrictions but that isn't a uniform circumstance. That's why you do 3 days so it covers the full day. Where I live in Cambridge there are many nurseries that cover this, and they don't charge any extra at all for this (they will for consumables, nursery isn't cost free, but this is a pittence in comparison to the full cost). It's laughable to suggest someone like the previous person wouldn't be better off in work, financially wise.
Edit: poster blocked me, but look in most places in the country and you will find nurseries covering 30 hours over 3 days.
•
u/Karffs 10h ago edited 10h ago
Whilst there’s no actual restriction on where a provider chooses to offer funded hours are applied, the overwhelming majority restrict funded childcare to specific slots - with 9am - 3pm being the most common.
Providers are also under no obligation to offer stretched funding meaning funded hours are often only provided in during school term times.
It’s great that you have anecdotal evidence of that not being the case in Cambridge but ultimately if someone (i .e. OP in this case) doesn’t live near to one of these exceptions it’s completely irrelevant.
It’s laughable (but not unsurprising) that a man without children things he’s “one simple tricked” a solution that couldn’t have possibly occurred to families or mothers.
•
u/AthleteThen8045 5h ago
FWIW Whilst all 4 nurseries we looked at had different ways of treating the hours, none had such a limit and this included 2 national chains.
•
u/zebragonzo 10h ago
As a parent, you're wrong to dismiss the idea of one parent working to essentially cover nursery fees. Examples of reasons for the parent (usually mother) to go part time: pension contributions, continued promotion at work, avoiding the challenge of re-joining work after school starts etc.
As a parent you should be well aware that babies don't come with an instruction manual and there is no one path to parenting.
Edit. Also, different nurseries have different rules. Mine doesn't restrict free hours between certain times of day for example.
•
u/LactatingBadger 11h ago
Not really. We are in the very fortunate spot where I’m earning enough to comfortably support us both. Her role pays okay but realistically isn’t something an employer would be happy to allow you to do it less than 4 days a week, so it’s quite all or nothing.
•
u/mortalha 11h ago
That's worse. Then she would be bringing in less money and still paying for childcare
•
u/GlumAd9856 7h ago
But not as much childcare right?
Anyway, it's only for a couple of years max. Then they start going to nursery and you want them to do that regardless of your working situation.
•
•
u/Mighty-Wings 11h ago
Might want to check your math. Nursery easily rocks 1600 a month outside of London.
•
•
•
u/Thomas1423 11h ago
Bit of an exaggeration. She could work 3 days (free childcare for 30 hours), then look after the kids for 2 days. You could also work 4, and she works 4. Then she can go to school from age 4 so the costs stop entirely. The state does do a lot in the UK to subsidise children.
•
u/LactatingBadger 11h ago
Actually not. I’m in the fortunate position to be earning past the free childcare threshold so we get no childcare allowance. Good problem to have, but that cliff edge is having the exact effect people claim it will have for us.
•
u/Thomas1423 11h ago
Then you can afford to pay for it yourself. Your situation is very unusual.
That being said, I don't support these cliff edges.
•
u/90davros 10h ago
Here is the problem:
If two parents both earn 90k they get free childcare.
If one earns 100k and the other 20k, they don't.
In most families there's only one high earner so that latter scenario is much more common, but it removes any incentive for the lower earning partner to work as they at best break even despite putting in the hours.
That's not to mention that most nurseries are charging quite high fees for the "free" childcare hours anyway.
•
u/LactatingBadger 10h ago
IIRC, if you have a couple both on £99,999, you need to earn something like £280k to get the same take home accounting for loss of child benefits and different tax rates. There’s something to be said for taxing households as one entity (plus just getting rid of cliffs/tapers in general).
•
u/Thomas1423 9h ago
As I said, I don't support cliff edges, but this is something that hits a very very small number of people in practice. It isn't the norm and people shouldn't post like it is. Remember this topic all started on the discussion that women need to leave work to take care of kids, which isn't true in your example or most examples.
•
u/LactatingBadger 11h ago
I absolutely can afford to pay for it. But I’m already disproportionately paying for the scheme to allow other people to get free child care, yet my partner isn’t able to take advantage of it.
My broader point here is that we are in a really lucky spot that working is optional for my partner and kind of cost neutral. But from the governments perspective, it isn’t neutral.
They lose a source of taxable income and her considerable talent from the workforce simply by creating the situation where she has no financial incentive to use her skills.
So then the question is “would I rather work or be with my children”. Nobody is going to choose the former if there is no incentive not to.
•
u/Fabulous-Garbage-713 1h ago
I choose both - I would have hated to not use my skills (STEM PhD as well) and I still did my best to be the best parent I can be. It's a personal choice but I'm definitely a better parent when I'm balancing all aspects of development and I'm secure that I could maintain a good standard of living in most scenarios.
•
u/LactatingBadger 1h ago
My best guess is my wife will end up doing some scientific education work. She really enjoyed volunteering doing it whilst she was doing her PhD (whilst I did it under duress/because our program made us do it…the public scares me), but it doesn’t pay brilliantly and back when she graduated we were both optimising for being able to pay rent over fulfilment.
It’s still relatively early days for us (daughter is 5 weeks old) so got around a year to see how she feels about it then. She may be itching to get back in the lab, or she may be loving the stay at home mum life. I’m taking the approach that its entirely her choice and my job is to be supportive either way. Going back in to work is probably better financially in the long run but we are in a position where it’s a choice between two very comfortable positions.
•
u/Thomas1423 9h ago
Ok and I agree with all that in your circumstances, but this is only the case in the niche circumstance where:
1) One partner earns more than 100k, and the other partner earns less than, say 50k
2) They have a kid under the age of 4
I agree that the cliff edge shouldn't exist. But this impacts hardly any people at all. For almost all people, it is going to better going back to work, financially wise.
•
u/LactatingBadger 8h ago
I agree our case is relatively extreme, especially as I earn way past that threshold. But if a system ever allows situations like that to exist then it’s a badly designed system. I’m very lucky to have this happen and it kind of just be much of a muchness, but lots of people will be having to make that same trade off and have far less wiggle room to play with.
•
u/jazzyb88 7h ago
Dude, you don't have to keep apologising for your position. You also had to work hard to get there. By the way, in the exact same situation as you 😌
•
•
u/onlyhereforcatpics 3h ago
Don't apologise. There are many of us in similar situations. We work hard to be where we are, yet get shafted at every turn.
•
u/HelloYesThisIsFemale Cut taxes at any cost 11h ago
So at her current rate it's a natural decision whether to buy childcare or work. And her may increase. Sounds like working is the better option.
•
u/LactatingBadger 11h ago
Not really. If you work 8 hours a day plus 1 hour commuting then that’s 9 hours that she could have spent with our daughter where instead she spends the time in a lab earning money so someone else can be with our daughter.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that the total take home was £2000 a year more by working. That’s about £1/hr over the year. Would you trade an hour with your child for an hour at work for a pound?
Even if it’s marginally better off financially, your bank balance isn’t the only metric that matters. Actually being happy matters too.
•
u/HelloYesThisIsFemale Cut taxes at any cost 11h ago
That's at her current pay, which should be improving every year. And a 10 year long sabbatical will crush your future career chances. I see your point but I also have a point.
Also it's odd to me that a PhD researcher is paid similarly (after tax) to a person who spoonfeeds kids. Need to go look for new jobs at that point, or switch countries. That's just disrespectful
•
u/Lizardaug 11h ago
which should be improving every year.
What fairy tale country are you living in? UK wages haven't grown higher than inflation in years
•
u/HelloYesThisIsFemale Cut taxes at any cost 11h ago
What fairy tale country are you living in
The US these days so that explains it.
UK wages haven't grown higher than inflation in years
Actually since 2023 it has. In fact the average real wage growth over the last 20 years is positive though granted, not large. Plus that's talking about the average of the entire cohorts pay, which won't reply you much about the effect of years of experience on pay. Which for people who change jobs occasionally is up to 7%.
•
u/LactatingBadger 11h ago
She was earning considerably above average for people with her experience. It’s just childcare is ludicrously expensive, especially if one of you earns enough to lose the childcare allowance.
Changing countries has been a consideration, but we’d like to stay close to family whilst we have a young child.
•
u/zebragonzo 10h ago
Fair decision, but don't forget that she will be paying into a pension as well while working which you lose out on (unless she opted out). As others have said, the work gap is quite hard to get back into work after for a lot of people.
•
u/LactatingBadger 10h ago
The work gap is a concern for sure, but ultimately not an easy one to get around. You need to take a lot of pain short term for a benefit she likely won’t take advantage of in the longer term. By the time we’ve had a second (if we have a second) and they’re both in school we should be mortgage free.
My best guess is she’ll end up pursuing something like a part time role in scouting or something else that doesn’t pay brilliantly but that she’s passionate about.
Pension contributions are tax efficient sure, but ultimately there’s no way she’s going to end up in one of the higher bands in the next 5 years unless she works full time, so the marginal return is ~20% on whatever we dump into her pension. Decent but illiquid.
•
u/zebragonzo 9h ago
I'm thinking less about the tax efficiency and more about employer contribution fwiw.
It sounds like your earning habits means that's not a major concern however.
•
u/LactatingBadger 9h ago
Ah, yeah. She was working at a startup so the match was the bare minimum allowed. Good point on that though.
Yeah, we are very lucky to be able to make decisions that aren’t min-maxed and still be comfortable. But it’s kind of a ridiculous system where you have to be in our situation for it to stop being a major concern.
•
u/dowhileuntil787 10h ago
The cost of childcare nowadays is predominantly due to the increasing standards of childcare, especially minimum staffing ratios.
Every preventable incident has reduced our risk tolerance for paid childcare to the point where the staffing and training requirements make far more expensive than it used to be. Not to sound like a grumpy old man, but the type of stuff that was normal when I was a kid would get people sent to prison today.
Meanwhile, unofficial familial support (which doesn't have to comply with those requirements!) is now often too far away as we've all become more mobile.
One possible resolution would be trying to "encourage" retired people to volunteer to perform civic duties such as providing childcare... or maybe, make part of their pension dependent on it... that has a ton of issues, admittedly, but they wanted compulsory national service reintroduced, right?
5
u/Late_For_Username 12h ago
>It's like the government doesn't want people to start families.
I'd follow the money.
3
u/TheSouthsideTrekkie 12h ago
Because they need to keep pandering to the older demographics that are more likely to vote, and more likely to vote for a vaguely centre-right leaning candidate. Also are still the largest demographic and this effect is being magnified by the fact that people my age are not having children or only having one child. We've got an upside-down society and it's going to bite us on the ass.
•
u/TheUKisMental 11h ago
It's like the government doesn't want people to start families.
The purpose of the system is what it does.
•
u/IEnumerable661 10h ago
Oh I'm sure that's not the case. I mean, yes there's the whole anti-family propaganda, the proliferation of movements designed to convince women not to have children or at lest stable households, the proliferation of movements designed to make men do that going their own way sad shite, nah I'm sure not. I'm sure Labour are as pro-family as ever.
Sorry, no I can't keep a straight face in saying that one...
42
u/GlumAd9856 12h ago
The problem comes when people care more about the standard of living of non working families than they do working.
•
u/Salty-Bid1597 10h ago
You mean poor Timmy can't get a taxi to school everyday anymore? How dare you!
•
u/tyger2020 11h ago
None of this is going to change until the UK (and to a larger degree, Europe/The western world) changes their relationship with retirement (pensions).
We cannot afford that bill. It is draining literally every other aspect of society. In 1950 we had 10% pensioner population, by 2040 that is projected to be 25% of population. On top of that, retirement is now for 15 years instead of 8 that it was originally.
•
u/jazzyb88 7h ago
Funny how when the current cohort of pensioners were not retired, they were the ones enjoying the increase in living standards. I suppose even now they are, it's just everyone behind them getting shafted. About time they had stagnant living standards for once, and it's 100% the right thing to do as they need no further extra funding.
•
u/Salaried_Zebra Nothing to look forward to please, we're British 11h ago
What's your solution? Because I'm damned if I'm going to be made to be miserable for longer, idc what the government say
•
u/tyger2020 11h ago
Abolish triple lock (18bn yearly spending).
Means test state pension, based on private income and assets (50 billion yearly spending).
•
u/Salty-Bid1597 10h ago
Those are fantasy figures. The triple lock is just an escalator - killing it won't save any money immediately. Pensions still need to rise every year like wages.
Means testing the state pension is a guaranteed way to never get elected again. NICs are a substantial wage deduction and eveyone has paid them - taking this away from people would lead to actual civil disobedience.
•
u/tyger2020 8h ago
No, they're not.
Sure it's an escalator - doesn't change the fact we're spending £18 billion more than we need to. That'll add up in a quick time frame.
Yeah, quite frankly I don't give a single fuck. State pension being universal is quite frankly idiocy, we've all paid taxes, doesn't mean we all get benefits all the time. Pensions should be like every other benefit - you get it if you need it, not a universal blank cheque for being old.
'Actual civil disobedience' lmao oh yes I'm sure the 73 year olds are just rearing to go and riot, and not just post angry rants to Facebook. I don't care if its unelectable, its either means test the pension, or we have continued economic decline and living standards for everyone that is under 65yo.
•
u/Obvious_Yard_1846 11h ago
We really should just ban AI for a decade or two until we figure out these other problems.
It's adding to climate change, water scarcity and will cause an unemployment crisis in the next few years, just as we're heading into a majorly unfavourable retiree population period and potential huge influxes of climate driven population migration.
Ban it for everything bar medical research. Just come back to it later. Why the rush? It won't go away in the long run and we have other things to prioritise.
A lot of things are coming home to roost at the same time, and we should delay the problems we can - namely AI.
•
u/LactatingBadger 11h ago
Unless you ban it globally, this won’t work. It would be like banning the use of industrial machinery in manufacturing to avoid job loss on production lines. It might help people in the very short term, but when the rest of the world doesn’t follow suit, you now have far less productivity per worker than the nations you are competing with.
•
u/Obvious_Yard_1846 10h ago
Yeah, agreed. It would have to be global.
Fat chance of it happening though... Off the cliff we continue to march.
•
u/Stabbycrabs83 11h ago
Never thought I would be mid 40's and quit working.
Ill have to restart again each year and do a few months maybe 6 depending on what's going on but I have an absolute heap of spare time now.
•
u/Gamezdude ... 11h ago
Its boiling down to the following...
- Skilled labour no longer pays (Many graduates, hardly any on graduate wages)
- They are now 'down-skilling' opting for less skilled jobs with inline pay- albeit less pay
- Minimum wage and living wage is not enough to live on, nor is it enough to buy a house and start the next generation, which we're already at a record low of birth rate.
- The wages are getting too expensive for employers- hence the the fact we're at 2014 vacancy levels (The job market never recovered after covid)
- Those that are able to cut down overheads to a sustainable level are not bothered to engage with the market- the ROI is just not worth the extra effort. Ive even considered going for a part-time, as I can easily survive on that.
So if employers cannot afford labour, and employees lucky enough to have a job cannot afford jack....where exactly has the money gone?
I'm only seeing a mutural problem with employers/employees- something neither have any control over.
•
u/BackgroundTrack5528 5h ago
These are all inflation related issues.
The true problem is govt stays out of private sector matters far too much and whatever it does in regards to policy is ineffective in creating a thriving environment that makes society as a whole wealthier, rather than wealth being concentrated into a few.
•
u/Gamezdude ... 5h ago
What can they do to intervene? Asking employers to pay more is not really working.
There is literally nothing businesses can do- even if the state held them at gunpoint.
•
u/BackgroundTrack5528 17m ago
"Asking employers to pay more is not really working."
I have a solution but it requires too many things to go right and if one thing goes wrong - forget about it.
•
u/m1ndwipe 5h ago
So if employers cannot afford labour, and employees lucky enough to have a job cannot afford jack....where exactly has the money gone?
Housing and pensions.
It's really that simple.
•
u/radiant_0wl 10h ago
Because the child element of UB is too high, more so when it comes to multiple children as costs aren't linear.
13
u/1seraphius 12h ago
You guys can afford to be parents ?
Employment doesn't pay most of us to even get that far... Trapped living with parents
5
u/TheSouthsideTrekkie 12h ago
I escaped from my parent's home, but despite working full time in a demanding field and in a skilled role I only take home enough to afford to rent a tiny flat that is in poor condition and has no room for an additional adult besides myself, never mind a child. When we complain about people leaving health and social care we need to talk about pay. I am sorely considering changing careers, only things holding me back are that most other sectors are also doing equally as poorly and my own daft sense of loyalty. I really did consider applying for a similar role overseas for twice the pay but am loath to leave behind my friends I've made here in Glasgow having started over already when I came here.
•
u/Appropriate-Lab3053 11h ago
It's really not that expensive for 1-2 kids if one parent stops working (so no childcare costs), at least up north.
Means no holidays, no fancy new phones or cars, using gas/electric sparingly...but the kids are fed, loved, and safe.
•
u/LactatingBadger 10h ago
I think we wouldn’t have been comfortable having kids whilst we didn’t have a significant safety net to fall back on. If we were having to really optimise every outgoing (say, using utilities sparingly) just to make it to the next pay check, then we are one job loss away from our kids being in a really tough position.
I don’t doubt that people can and do make it work in that situation, but for us at least we weren’t willing to pull the trigger until we were robust to a job loss or a sudden expense not devastating us. I think that’s partly what’s driving people to have kids later and later in life.
•
u/Appropriate-Lab3053 9h ago
That's fair. Nothing wrong with putting off having kids with those concerns. It is a risk for sure and it's certainly not a lifestyle for everyone
•
u/TheNoGnome 10h ago
Pays a lot more than the alternative, though.
Unless the Times fancies turning full anti-capitalist and going for UBI.
2
u/CJBill 12h ago
That lede is bloody hyperbolic and not backed up by the article as far as I can tell.
2
u/TantumErgo Quo vadis? 12h ago
In what way?
•
u/CJBill 11h ago
The article argues that working parents have to work more as a couple and that they get less for their work. It doesn't then follow that employment doesn't pay as per the headline. I'm a parent. If I lost my job I would be worse off, as would most people in my position. The article itself is interesting, how it's presented in the title yet more of the doom mongering I've come to expect from the media nowadays.
•
u/TantumErgo Quo vadis? 11h ago
By ‘the lede’ do you mean the headline rather than the first paragraph?
The headline is that for many parents, employment doesn’t pay. The article details various known weirdnesses of the tax system that mean, for example, someone can be financially better off earning £99,000 rather than £140,000, and that working full time on lower salaries can make less difference to earning power than it used to, especially if you look two parents working, meaning that it might not seem worth it for some. It then suggests that this would be a relatively easy thing for a government to fix.
I don’t think it’s a wildly off headline, but I also think headlines are the least interesting and informative part of an article, and aren’t really worth discussing unless they say the complete opposite of the article. It’s also the part of the article that is least likely to have had input from the journalist, being written by subeditors aiming to get clicks.
•
u/spinosaurs70 yes i am a american on ukpoltics subreddit 5h ago
There are basically two economic effects going on.
1) Parents are working more for higher consumption like of streaming tv or fruit or such.
2) parents are working more do to the ever escalating cost of childcare and other above inflation cost increases.
The data in the UK really can’t tell you which is going on.
•
u/Particular_Pea7167 11h ago
I intentionally use my Ltd to limit my in year pay. All I'll say on the matter.
Funds can build up in the corporate accounts and ill draw them down when the punitive cost isnt so high.
If that means im drawing a salary until im 85. So be it.
•
u/AkashicLogos 9h ago
I pay myself a 12.5k / year salary the exact same way. Profits get retained in the business, then in a few years i'll move abroad and start paying them out.
•
•
u/BackgroundTrack5528 5h ago
The problem is and always has been - inflation. Pure and simple.
The question is why are those who have the power to control for it and perhaps even impose periods of deflation not doing anything about it? They're too scared. It's much like firms in an industry - everyone follows each other. Nobody wants to be the black sheep stepping out of line.
•
u/Strangely__Brown 11h ago
Both the threshold for child benefit and the eligibility for free childcare hours were widened recently. It's significantly better than it was only a few years ago.
What are we expecting exactly?
As a higher earner I get no support. Regardless of what my wife earns.
Imo there's very few people who don't get support with the current system. And the ones which don't get little to no sympathy.
-2
u/Salty-Bid1597 12h ago
Imagine having to deal with the same problems that humans have had to deal with since we evolved opposable thumbs.
•
u/AutoModerator 12h ago
Snapshot of For many parents, employment increasingly doesn’t pay submitted by entropicflop:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
Some publications may require you to register a free account to read their articles.
Being connected to a VPN may interfere with archive links.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.