Why are we working harder and getting less?

[Ari]

I was having a conversation with my other half recently about how when we were growing up, it was fairly unusual for both parents (ours or those of our friends) to be working full time. Now it's absolutely standard for the vast majority and I completely understand why - vastly increased house prices, etc etc.

But the thing is, putting the money to one side (because even when a young couple is forced to pay three times as much for a house, that money doesn't evaporate, the seller of the house gets it), we live in a society of ever reducing public services. There used to be three police stations in the nearby three towns, now one copes (badly) with all three. Bins are collected less frequently, there are less public toilets, and a friend of mine in social services constantly bemoans the ever greater cuts in service that they're forced to make, roads are in a terrible state.

It struck me that, as a nation, we're all working much harder (at jobs I mean, I don't mean to belittle the effort made by those staying home to look after household and children, but that doesn't pay money) yet, also as a nation, we're actually getting less for it.

I'm clearly missing something?

[hotchy]

Ari said:

I was having a conversation with my other half recently about how when we were growing up, it was fairly unusual for both parents (ours or those of our friends) to be working full time. Now it's absolutely standard for the vast majority and I completely understand why - vastly increased house prices, etc etc.

But the thing is, putting the money to one side (because even when a young couple is forced to pay three times as much for a house, that money doesn't evaporate, the seller of the house gets it), we live in a society of ever reducing public services. There used to be three police stations in the nearby three towns, now one copes (badly) with all three. Bins are collected less frequently, there are less public toilets, and a friend of mine in social services constantly bemoans the ever greater cuts in service that they're forced to make, roads are in a terrible state.

It struck me that, as a nation, we're all working much harder (at jobs I mean, I don't mean to belittle the effort made by those staying home to look after household and children, but that doesn't pay money) yet, also as a nation, we're actually getting less for it.

I'm clearly missing something?

Labour is more expensive now.

For your minimum wage now, you could've had 4 men. Inflation has not covered that, so now less workers and more productivity to close the gaps required.

[poo at Paul's]

And there is about 8 million people who get up in a morning and do nothing, all enjoying unprecedented levels of free money and services.

[Puggit]

House prices will be a big part of that equation.

[paulrockliffe]

There's also so much more stuff to spend money on. It's all optional of course, but lots of it has such high utility that it makes sense to buy. Have a look around and see what you can see that your parents wouldn't have been able to spend their money on.

There are two sides to this coin as well, although broadly everyone is working harder, progress - standards of living, life expectancy etc - depends on that work, so there's been more progress as a result.

Childcare is more efficient, parents' resource better allocated towards stuff that creates progress.

So are you getting less? Directly yes, indirectly, I don't think so.

Think about it like this; if women had stayed at home looking after kids and homes we'd be looking forward to the first iPhone sometime in the next year or two.

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

Ari said:

I was having a conversation with my other half recently about how when we were growing up, it was fairly unusual for both parents (ours or those of our friends) to be working full time. Now it's absolutely standard for the vast majority and I completely understand why - vastly increased house prices, etc etc.

But the thing is, putting the money to one side (because even when a young couple is forced to pay three times as much for a house, that money doesn't evaporate, the seller of the house gets it), we live in a society of ever reducing public services. There used to be three police stations in the nearby three towns, now one copes (badly) with all three. Bins are collected less frequently, there are less public toilets, and a friend of mine in social services constantly bemoans the ever greater cuts in service that they're forced to make, roads are in a terrible state.

It struck me that, as a nation, we're all working much harder (at jobs I mean, I don't mean to belittle the effort made by those staying home to look after household and children, but that doesn't pay money) yet, also as a nation, we're actually getting less for it.

I'm clearly missing something?

read Stuart Maconie's." the nanny state made me" This will answer your questions. ( its a good book anyway)

[mat205125]

True cost of living has been accelerating faster than income for years

Minimum wage increases have just devalued the pound and eroded distinctions between grades of job roles....... net pay cut for many, who've seen shelf stackers and cleaners accelerating and matching their more skilled and responsible roles

[Gooose]

I’ve kinda wondered a similar thing myself, but more of how our council tax is spent. I used to work in a council sports centre, now years ago there where plenty of sport’s centres around and I think a few councils used to try and out do each other with what sports facilities they had, some were very inefficient and kind of like an old boys clubs with a bar in and such but now there aren’t many councils that even fund a leisure centre, they are all trusts and such.

You used to have bin collections weekly, library’s everywhere. Where has this money gone? There are more people paying tax and less services, so how have we got less stuff? Are we paying for more services elsewhere? I don’t know?

[alock]

Ari said:

Now it's absolutely standard for the vast majority and I completely understand why - vastly increased house prices, etc etc.

I would argue you have cause and effect backwards. House prices normalise to household income.

When the average household income went up due to an additional income being earned, house prices nornalised to the new average household income.

The very non-politically-correct conclusion is that feminism is to blame for the current house prices

[Gooseberry]

The ageing population, meaning greater expenditure on social care, health care, pensions...

Edit: some data here: https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/past_spending

[Knoxville2410]

paulrockliffe said:

There's also so much more stuff to spend money on. It's all optional of course, but lots of it has such high utility that it makes sense to buy. Have a look around and see what you can see that your parents wouldn't have been able to spend their money on.

There are two sides to this coin as well, although broadly everyone is working harder, progress - standards of living, life expectancy etc - depends on that work, so there's been more progress as a result.

Childcare is more efficient, parents' resource better allocated towards stuff that creates progress.

So are you getting less? Directly yes, indirectly, I don't think so.

Think about it like this; if women had stayed at home looking after kids and homes we'd be looking forward to the first iPhone sometime in the next year or two.

This plays a big part.

Growing up I had a very comfortable childhood, annual summer holiday abroad, nice detached house, clothed, fed etc. My parents were very careful with money, we had a new but cheap Peugeot hatchback (only 1 car), mobile phones barely existed and the only real luxury my dad has was going to the pub every Friday and probably spent £20.

Our CRT TV lasted from 1995-2006 and was replaced by an LCD that lasted another 6 years. We didn't have flat screens in every room either.

We hardly ever ate out unless it was a birthday, never had takeaways apart from the occasional McDonald's and all food was home cooked.

Younger couples these days seem to be constantly keeping up with the Jones's, both have a car each, latest tech, often more than 1 holiday a year, nails and hair done every other week, designer everything.

Social media has a huge part to play in all of this. If it didn't exist I don't think half the population would be bothered about many of the above.

The definition of essential has changed over the years too.

Edited by Knoxville2410 on Thursday 4th November 11:55

[deckster]

poo at Paul's said:

And there is about 8 million people who get up in a morning and do nothing, all enjoying unprecedented levels of free money and services.

AKA: we don't leave people to starve to death in the gutter any more. On balance, that's probably a positive change.

But the essential point is correct. As a society, we look after people better. Through benefits, through the NHS, through increased public services (this point I will concede is debatable ). This costs money, and the burden falls on those who can pay - and so we pay more.

Of course there are many other factors to consider. Higher accommodation costs. Smaller household sizes. An aging population. Higher expectations of a standard of living. More shiny things to spend your money on.

Also, and not insignificantly, people want to work and earn their own money. Whilst 50 years ago it was unusual for women to work post-children, that doesn't mean they didn't want to; they just didn't have the opportunity. So when it became normal for women to go back to work after having kids, the proportion of households with a double income rose sharply. So people had more money. So they spent more, which drives inflation and makes things more expensive. So over time, we get to the point where actually to maintain the same relative standard of living that a single income used to provide, these days we need a double income. Running to stand still, if you will.

[JagLover]

mat205125 said:

True cost of living has been accelerating faster than income for years

Yep

If you properly factor in housing costs I doubt real incomes have grown for the average worker since the early 2000s.

New Labour represented the capture of the political classes by Davos man. Ever since they have governed in his (or her) interests not the average person. That is why everything seems to be getting crapper, because it is, if that is you are one of the mases they hold in contempt.

[BoRED S2upid]

poo at Paul's said:

And there is about 8 million people who get up in a morning and do nothing, all enjoying unprecedented levels of free money and services.

Yet there are 2mill vacancies. Something not right there.

[paulrockliffe]

deckster said:

So over time, we get to the point where actually to maintain the same relative standard of living that a single income used to provide, these days we need a double income. Running to stand still, if you will.

The point I made earlier was not to think of it like this, the bigger picture is that all that extra work is valuable as a whole and you do benefit one way or another. It's problematic if you want to live on your own in a modest house on a low wage and live the lifestyle of your parents and die early, that option has gone, but if you embrace our collective progress over the last generation, you're probably better.

The difficulty is that many of the benefits are intangible, the costs are easily quantifiable. How would you attach a value to being able to ask and discuss this question on a random internet forum for example? If we're all listening, we all learn, we all gain a better perspective on life and the world. Or just have something to pass the time over lunch.

[paulrockliffe]

Knoxville2410 said:

The definition of essential has changed over the years too.

There's two elements here isn't there and it's helpful to keep them separate. It's definitely much easier to waste your money these days, there's so much more stuff that you do want or need, but equally that means there's even more stuff that you don't want or need and no end of marketing wkers trying to convince you otherwise.

But that's not the same as doing a cost-benefit analysis and deciding to buy a robot mower rather than spend 40 hours a year mowing the lawn. A working week just mowing the grass, you earn £500 a week, a mower is £400 and will last 10 years. No brainer. You're buying back your time at a very low rate.

There's much more scope to spend money on things that give you your time back. My parents spent far more time doing mundane stuff that I wouldn't entertain and less time doing things they wanted to do. Paying for that, or for convenience, isn't essential, that's not the right word, but it makes sense a lot more often than it would a generation ago.

[valiant]

poo at Paul's said:

And there is about 8 million people who get up in a morning and do nothing, all enjoying unprecedented levels of free money and services.

Bloody pensioners again!!!

[Biggy Stardust]

poo at Paul's said:

And there is about 8 million people who get up in a morning and do nothing, all enjoying unprecedented levels of free money and services.

Add to this the demographic timebomb of pensioners & the unsustainable combination of generous public sector pensions & unexpectedly high longevity. Also look at the proliferation of non-productive jobs such as compliance officers, auditors, inspectors, etc.

[John145]

I’ve been thinking about this and how it applies to my professional experience.

Speaking to older generations of engineers work was slow, communication slow, development slow, but then the engineers doing this work could afford new cars and large houses.

Nowadays i can do all this work an order of magnitude quicker. Therefore, due to technology, I’m significantly more efficient and get lots more work done but I can’t afford new cars or a large house with lots of garden.

But then Jeff Bezos can do what only states used to be able to do - put humans into space. Makes me think all of the efficiencies have resulted in the money going up the pyramid and not down…

[garagewidow]

This is fitting for this thread, i stumbled upon a phenomenon which is gaining traction in China.

The 'lying flat movement'.

Hadn't heard of it before.

It seems the younger working classes over there are having enough of working endlessly for not much return.