Andrew Neil. Britain's sick note economy

[scottbeard]

3 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

my view from the beginning was your nonsense idea that the average women has on the table in 2023 a choice of career or family or both. 

Where did I post that?

[Casual-observer]

1 minute ago, scottbeard said:

Where did I post that?

The multiple posts you mentioned about this fictitious choice you keep talking about. 

[scottbeard]

Just now, Casual-observer said:

The multiple posts you mentioned about this fictitious choice you keep talking about. 

I said women could choose to divide their time between work and family, noting that time spent on one impacts the other, not some fairytale that you can have your cake and eat it.  Contrast to the past, where women essentially could ONLY have a family.

[Casual-observer]

1 minute ago, scottbeard said:

I said women could choose to divide their time between work and family, noting that time spent on one impacts the other, not some fairytale that you can have your cake and eat it.  Contrast to the past, where women essentially could ONLY have a family.

There's no could about it, they HAVE to. Therefore where's the choice?

That's the financial reality for the average mother. 

What about women who do want to be purely a stay at home mother? 

How does that jive with your equality quota. 

They're essentially priced out in todays market, I take it you agree with that notion? 

[scottbeard]

3 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

There's no could about it, they HAVE to. Therefore where's the choice?

That's the financial reality for the average mother.

But not all.

At the very least some have a choice now.

The problem is the UK, fundamentally, is house prices not feminisim.

[Casual-observer]

8 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

But not all.

At the very least some have a choice now.

The problem is the UK, fundamentally, is house prices not feminisim.

The two are linked, you acknowledged this earlier.

Dual incomes (feminism when you boil it down)  naturally inflated the average cost of the family home. 

You're also all over the shop on what this choice actually is.

Earlier you alluded to this grandma scenario where she could dip in or out of the workforce ignoring the reality that back then her income wasn't a major factor in affording family life back then. 

Now it is therefore the choice back then bears no resemble to today.

There isn't a choice now by and large, women have to work full time jobs to have a hope of affording even average family life. For most there isn't a choice of opting to being a full time stay at home mother...that ship has sailed as it's unaffordable. 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Casual-observer

[Bob8]

8 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

But not all.

At the very least some have a choice now.

The problem is the UK, fundamentally, is house prices not feminisim.

I agree. The worst excesses of women I have experienced in relationships have been in the UK rather than Scandinavia. Were it feminism, I would not expect it to be that way.

I am politically to the left of you, so excuse me if I am seeing common ground where there is none. I think some cannot accept that capitalism is not an inherently perfect system that would see people like them rise to the top, so it must be some strong perversion corrupting it.

[Insane]

9 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

The problem is the UK, fundamentally, is house prices not feminisim.

Women being told to burn their bras and that they can have it all which is big part of feminism has led to over priced houses. Do join the Dots. 

[Casual-observer]

2 hours ago, NoHPCinTheUK said:

I know a couple of women in this situation. 
 

If you’re 35 and single, and you’ve been single for too long well that a serious red flag as you’re probably looking for a man which only exists in your mind and you have little or no room to compromise, the single most important thing in a stable relationship. Dating them would be a nightmare. I also think they ve lost their sex drive too, one of the them told me that she’d lost interest in men after so much time and was now having sex with other women. I didn’t know that but apparently in London there’s a scene for single women in their 30s who just give up on men and start same sex light relationships.

That's called cope.

The basic principle of attraction was ignored to pander to fiction. 

If you want an attractive, good earning single man the peak time as a woman to secure that man isn't when you're over the age of 30. That pool of man they're all looking for is highly competitive and over the age of 30 they can't compete. 

[scottbeard]

15 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

Earlier you alluded to this grandma scenario where she could dip in or out of the workforce ignoring the reality that back then her income wasn't a major factor in affording family life back then.

No I didn't say that at all.  The family were so poor she had to work throughout.  It's just that during the war she could be a shop manager, but after the war was kicked back down to being a cleaning lady.

She did not "dip in and out" of work and only finally retired from all cleaning work aged 74.

16 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

Now it is therefore the choice back then bears no resemble to today.

There isn't a choice now by and large, women have to work full time jobs to have a hope of affording even average family life. For most there isn't a choice of opting to being a full time stay at home mother...that ship has sailed as it's unaffordable. 

And nor did I say there was.

I noted a lot of women I know who work PART TIME and have a family.

Today there is a choice to have NO family and be a career woman if you wish.  You can be CEO of a FTSE 100 company.  You can be the Prime Minister.  That would not have been possible in 1950.  But that is not the only choice.   You can also work 10-3 in Tesco and drop the kids off at school and pick them up again.  You don't have to be high flyer.  Choices, again.

The point you make that's valid is now you can't just be a full time mum and let dad do all the earning.  That "choice" (which wasn't actually ever a choice, but was forced) has gone.  But that is the price for women entering the workforce.  As we have both said, there is no free lunch by which you can both give women every career opportunity AND also allow them the choice to do absolutely nothing.

But the idea that all women "have" to work full time is a nonsense, proven empirically by the fact that 38% of women in the UK work part-time.

[Insane]

1 minute ago, scottbeard said:

You can also work 10-3 in Tesco and drop the kids off at school and pick them up again.  You don't have to be high flyer.  Choices, again.

Don't make me laugh the shifts in Tesco don't work around Mums with kids.

At my local Tesco the full timers do either 6am - 3pm with an hour for lunch or 3pm - 11pm. The part times do all manner of shorter shifts including weekends and late nights. There won't be any 10-3 available. 

4 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

The point you make that's valid is now you can't just be a full time mum and let dad do all the earning.  That "choice" (which wasn't actually ever a choice, but was forced) has gone.

It was a choice when I was growing up there were a few kids in my year where the mother worked full time the rest either had stay at home mums or mums who worked part time. The ones where the mother worked full time had mothers who went back to work when they started school , not six months after they were born. 

7 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

But the idea that all women "have" to work full time is a nonsense, proven empirically by the fact that 38% of women in the UK work part-time.

You will find that the ones working full time will be predominately those with young children and a big mortgage. Sad but true. 

[zugzwang]

29 minutes ago, Insane said:

Women being told to burn their bras and that they can have it all which is big part of feminism has led to over priced houses. Do join the Dots. 

 

Not building any social housing for three decades while admitting 10 million guest arbeiters from all points of the compass is the actual explanation.

[Insane]

1 minute ago, zugzwang said:

Not building any social housing for three decades while admitting 10 million guest arbeiters from all points of the compass is the actual explanation.

Agreed however taking both partners earnings into account has allowed people to pay more for the same house. 

[zugzwang]

Just now, Insane said:

Agreed however taking both partners earnings into account has allowed people to pay more for the same house. 

Build enough houses and they wouldn't need to outbid each other!

[Insane]

1 minute ago, zugzwang said:

Build enough houses and they wouldn't need to outbid each other!

I know I agree I have said it many times on this forum. But they have never done it and they won't so while we carry on with the shortage people will still outbid and both adults in a household will have to work. 

[Casual-observer]

15 minutes ago, Insane said:

You will find that the ones working full time will be predominately those with young children and a big mortgage. Sad but true. 

And f**ked now that the dual income asset bubble it blew up is now deflating. 

 

25 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

No I didn't say that at all.  The family were so poor she had to work throughout.  It's just that during the war she could be a shop manager, but after the war was kicked back down to being a cleaning lady.

She did not "dip in and out" of work and only finally retired from all cleaning work aged 74.

And nor did I say there was.

I noted a lot of women I know who work PART TIME and have a family.

Today there is a choice to have NO family and be a career woman if you wish.  You can be CEO of a FTSE 100 company.  You can be the Prime Minister.  That would not have been possible in 1950.  But that is not the only choice.   You can also work 10-3 in Tesco and drop the kids off at school and pick them up again.  You don't have to be high flyer.  Choices, again.

The point you make that's valid is now you can't just be a full time mum and let dad do all the earning.  That "choice" (which wasn't actually ever a choice, but was forced) has gone.  But that is the price for women entering the workforce.  As we have both said, there is no free lunch by which you can both give women every career opportunity AND also allow them the choice to do absolutely nothing.

But the idea that all women "have" to work full time is a nonsense, proven empirically by the fact that 38% of women in the UK work part-time.

It was norm back then, women *could* do that, my own grandmothers did exactly that. The financial system back then though didn't rely on the dual income it does today, that's the main point. 

You're again pushing the window dressing narrative that it enabled women to reach top jobs. By and large the women that come from privileged backgrounds are the ones who get those positions in the first place. Most women don't hail from an Oxbridge background, they aren't a barometer to go off. 

You're essentially pushing an elitist trope here. 

You're also missing the greater point, your modern scenario isn't a sustainable one. 

1) It relies on a growing pool of women being priced out of the family market, who end up being single and childless and propping up (via tax) an another pool of women to do it. That is not equality and women are beginning to wake up to this. 

2) It relies on rampant immigration to make up the deficit of the lack of births 

3) It did rely on a cheap credit environment that's just sailed. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Casual-observer