Die Zahl der Mütter, die zu Hause bleiben, nimmt ab, da der Anteil der wirtschaftlich Nichterwerbstätigen auf den niedrigsten Stand seit Beginn der Aufzeichnungen fällt und sich seit 1993 fast halbiert
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15895331/Home-women-mothers-proportion-economically-inactive.html
Von -MonitorMan-
30 Kommentare
I wish I lived in a time before both parents typically worked. Not in a misogynistic way but in the way one of you went to work and the other took care of the house and kids. Now I have to work full time AND do 50% of the childcare and housework.
Don’t worry reform will sort that stat out when they remove workers rights and mat leave policies.
The language around this issue is depressing. Everything is framed through the lens of money nowadays; a mum raising her child is at home is now ‚an economically inactive‘ person, as opposed to y’know, a mother raising her child.
And no shit, too.
*The dramatic shifts could reflect that couples can no longer afford for only one person to be earning, the falling birth rate, or that more women want to maintain careers* – gee, how’d you work that one out?
Needing more than one person in a couple to be in work?
Mums still don’t do enough according to The Daily Heil. Not only do we need to work full time but we also need to make sure we cook all meals from scratch, go to the office 5 days a week, stop relying on state handouts for childcare and stop being so selfish with our careers and put out more to have more kids (but only if you’re of a certain colour).
See that? That’s the permanent end of the family wage.
I don’t think it’s solely because of “cost of living requires both parents to work” (which is true btw)
I think since 1993 women don’t see their sole purpose in life to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. They want to have a career and a family, or a career without a family. If they choose to have children they generally have less. And after exhausting maternity leave all the recent mothers I know are wanting to restart their careers.
If in the future the cost of living were to decrease and a sole breadwinner could care for an entire family I don’t think that would suddenly mean women would en masse return to being stay at home mums
Unpopular opinion but this is a good thing. Women who leave the workforce make themselves totally reliant on their partner. And if the man leaves, gets sick or dies it’s difficult to re-enter the workforce after a prolonged break! Both parents should work and split childcare + chores 50/50.
„As *proportion* of economically inactive“.
Surely this is more about the massive increase in young NEETs?
(And possibly the fall in birthrates – you can’t be a SAHM if you don’t have a child.)
But we keep hearing constantly how there’s too many economically inactive people and how we need to take disabled people’s money away.
A SAHM is saving the government money that is paid through financial support for pre-school childcare, and making it so her partner can do overtime and not take sickness, so he pays more tax.
They’re not economically inactive, they’re just not directly paid! The system benefits from their labour too
That’s good. Women relying on men for money (or any person relying on their partner) makes them vulnerable to financial abuse.
I don’t think this is entirely good news. It’s good that more women *can* be in the workforce, but I suspect this is more that they *have to* work. Much better to have one parent specialising in getting money and the other specialising in looking after the home and family.
But I don’t think jobs would have gone that way. People will accept jobs that support half a household, then find someone else with the same and then they’re both stuck like that when they have kids.
I suspect this is because it makes more financial sense to head to the jobcenter and do all the declarations tiktok tells you to to maximize your Universal Credit payments…. And if you do, you no longer count as economically inactive because you’ll be a carer for a child with anxiety.
Is it a suprise? Everyone’s skint and being a SAHM is stigmatized nowadays.
Im a SAHM due to disability and I’ve had plenty of side eye and shitty comments about me „not working“ even though this takes up more of my time than it would if I worked full time somewhere else.
What I dont understand is we essentially have tax revenue from like double the population so how come everything is so stretched all the time. I prefer working to being dependent on a man but it is frustrating how women are now working full time but still do the bulk of cleaning and laundry etc.
We went from one parent working can support their wife (generally) and several kids on one wage, to both parents need to be working to support their child. And now we’ve arrived at, two wages cannot even afford to support one child.
All in about 30 years it feels like.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
This is not good news at all.
For me anyway, I went back to work because I knew I’d struggle to get a similar wage after a few years away and I’d rather not struggle on one wage for multiple years for no reason.
I still do over 50% of the childcare due to breastfeeding and night shifts… this country is just ruining their birth rate and women’s general health for 0 reason other than immediate taxes that won’t exist in 30 years time.
I mean this is good? Pressure of work shouldn’t be on the shoulders of just one parent, and neither should the caring of the child. Share it so no one has a right to moan at the other.
The successful destruction of the nuclear family continues…
The marriage rate is falling yet the laws aren’t keeping up. So you have more women having kids out of wedlock but having 0 rights or protections if they stay at home. On top of that, no one can afford to live on one income or take a multi year break in their career.
Now women are doing most of the child care, a full time job and most of the chores.. i think a new crisis is inc.
The solution to the conflict between employment and domestic labour being noted in the comments is for both parents to be able to work part time, and for all schools to offer wrap around care.
As a man, I welcome this. Working means you have the means to support yourself and engage in whatever you see fit. I wouldn’t be able to engage in my hobbies without income from work. I feel bad for all the women who had to give up things they enjoy just to raise kids.
I feel like it’s such a crazy concept that we don’t need someone to look after the kids.. and also, isn’t it beneficial to the economy to have someone who can purchase goods and services throughout the day?
Recently we’ve got to financial stability with a toddler whereby my wife could leave her very well paid job and lower our childcare payments by actually having our child. She earned more than me and we are in the north east of England. Having her free to manage the stresses of a toddler and the household is mega.
Then when I’m off I can pick up the house work and give her some free time to do what she wishes. We make sure we both get time together and time to exercise everyday regardless of schedule. This is a far better way of living.
WE ONLY HAVE TO JUGGLE ANNUAL LEAVE FOR ONE EMPLOYER!
The biggest thing we’ve both noticed is the scrutiny from everyone else, why would she quit, what about her career, what about finances, have you won the lottery etc… Constant bombardment of indeed job posts and opportunities she should get into. Most people can’t fathom giving up money for a happy home and time.
It’s a clear reminder that back in the 90’s, you could have 1 person working on an average wage, buy a house, support a family, save money while the partner does the chores.
That’s a reminder for how far affordability has falllen…
I think the value of a parent just being around when kids get home from school and the huge reassurance that gives to their mental health is underrated.
>The decline in stay-at-home mums has been laid bare in figures showing they account for a dwindling proportion of the **economically ‚inactive‘ population**.
This is a good thing for two reasons:
* All this neoliberal ‚free market‘ capitalism bollocks is mindless, soulless and senseless. The only plan is to sell and consume shit until all the natural resources are gone, the forests chopped down, the oceans lifeless, polluted and toxic, and we’ve destroyed our natural habitat.
* We’re about 30 years from maximum capacity for human beings in terms of this planet, c. 11-13 billion humans. We’re currently at 8.3 billion human beings. Back in 1974 there was less than 4 billion human beings. Every 10-12 years another billion is added to the global population.
It is fucking stupid to mindlessly and repetitively continue with an economic system that benefits a few dozen billionaire and trillionaire families scattered across nine developed countries on this planet at the expense of everyone else.
„Oh but we’ve always done this …“ or „It worked in the past…“ are fucking moronic justifications for keeping this bullshit going.
Fuck the daily mail and everyone that agrees with it. Just on general principles they’re cunts.