UKH

A difficult subject for some I know . How much will the cost of migration cost the UK tax payer , considering the on going cost of furlough and all the other expense involved with Covid etc . 
 

This article in the Daily mail made me think how much good / bad this crowd were doing lighting up and he white cliffs of Dover with messages to

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8698685/MP-issues-warnings-rival-f...

In reply to Plasynant:

Don’t forget to balance that cost against tax income from those same migrants. Net fiscal impact of migration to the UK has often been found to be positive, especially for EU migrants. 

Also “the migrant issue”?! WTF? You make it sound like you’re talking about a bloody rodent problem

In reply to Plasynant:

Are you aware of the percentage of nhs staff who weren't born in the UK? 

In reply to Plasynant:

Cost fiscally or morally ?

In reply to Plasynant:

Fret not, they'll keep your tax bill down:

"The average UK-based migrant from Europe contributed approximately £2,300 more to UK public finances in 2016/17 than the average UK adult. In comparison, each UK born adult contributed £70 less than the average, and each non-European migrant contributed over £800 less than the average.

The average European migrant arriving in the UK in 2016 will contribute £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits over their time spent in the UK (assuming a balanced national budget), and the average non-European migrant will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 while living here. By comparison, the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution in this scenario is zero.

Taken together, this means that the migrants who arrived in 2016 will make a total net positive contribution of £26.9 billion to the UK’s public finances over the entirety of their stay. The value of this to the UK’s public finances is equivalent to putting approximately 5p on income tax rates (across all marginal rate bands) in that year."

https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent-releases/8747673d-3b26-439b-9693-0e2...

Now there's an oxymoron if ever there was.

In reply to Plasynant: what Ciro said.. migrants are net contributors to the economy  

In reply to wbo2:

Even the ones with no papers or qualifications?

In reply to Ridge: i don't know, but given that they don't generally smuggle themselves for the good of their health Id give the  the benefit of the doubt.  The asylum seekers ive met have had a ferocious work ethic

Horrible punctuation tonight ha ha.  And just think, 31 Dec , your supply of cheap European labour dries up so you'll need to find someone else to do the work 

In reply to wbo2:

I thought all our Brexit voters would be queuing up to do those jobs?

I think it's a tricky one in terms of how we handle this. It's going to be a balance of meeting our moral obligations vs likely numbers arriving.

In reply to Ciro:

There are a disproportionate number of older people to working age ones in this country, and the pension bill is already astronomical. This was predicted in the 1980s and called the "demographic time bomb".  The immigration of working age people is one of the simplest ways to counteract this, and it's a strategy that was beginning to work. 

Distressed migrants and refugees in particular tend to be highly motivated to work and rebuild their lives. They are often highly skilled, especially refugees from previously highly developed countries like Syria. They are usually keen to integrate, loyal to the country that takes them in, and motivated to work. They have high aspirations for their children, many of whom become doctors, nurses, teachers or technology professionals.  

History has shown it's a mistake to assume everything will always stay the same and any of us could find ourselves refugees through no fault of our own due to catastrophic global or political events that are impossible to predict. We are complacent and uncharitable at our peril. 

In reply to Plasynant:

Many “Immigrants” are subject to “no public funds” conditions on their visa meaning they are not entitled to benefits including furlough payments. Most of those said immigrants have also paid approximately £2.5k (inclusive of visa, application, language testing, and NHS surcharge fees) every 2.5 years for the privilege of living and working in this country and whilst they are here and doing so, they’re also paying tax and adding to the rich heritage of this country. 
 

Those “immigrants” not paying for visas to live here, ie those with a right to be here that normally come from the EU or commonwealth countries, are generally those that have had the gumption and courage  to move their lives around the world and are thus, normally more highly qualified and / or economic prosperous than the average Joe Blogg in “our” country (whatever “our” means in this sense, probably no more than winning the throw of the dice and happening to have been bore here game) and therefore will not only have a net positive tax contribution but will likely have a more than average net positive tax contribution (similar to what a similar poster said). 

so in summary, a long worded possibly waffley response that can be summarised as: they won’t “cost” us anything, they will in fact contribute to our economic prosperity (not withstanding cultural diversity) instead.

Another more simpler but equally valid response would have been to suggest that you ignore / choose not to spend much time pondering drivel printed by the Daily Mail

In reply to OwenM:

Hahaha....exactly....!

In reply to Ridge:

Ha ha ha ha!

On the moral obligation front, recognising that we take far fewer migrants than other countries do would be a good start. Might shed some perspective on those hysterical Daily Mail front pages and Britain being 'swamped'.

In reply to Plasynant:

Thanks for the heads up.

I'll continue to avoid Dover at all costs.

In reply to AlisonS:

Well said

In reply to AlisonS:

I'm pro helping anyone in need, but personally I don't see the above in every case, maybe 25%. Have you got any evidence from the mass migrations into Europe of 2015 to support the above claim? 

Of the 1000s that arrived in sweden in 2015 a large percentage haven't learnt the language and have never worked. Their children are, but it will take a generation before anyone can claim they are integrated. In sweden there is no pressure on women to attend language school or work if they have young kids, which suits the men nicely. Like it or not it's cultural, when most of their beliefs centre around women never working etc, it's vastly different to the refugees from the Balkans. If the wife is at home with 4 or 5 kids, the child benefits are good and the men can just hang around drinking coffee and smoking, they have little aspiration that requires more than a very basic income.(Their kids don't get the things other kids get and certainly never have a holiday elsewhere). 

There are some success, those who've gone from being an asylum seeker to self employed in 5 years, but based on my kids classes where upto 50% are Syrian/Somalian etc.  way less than 50% are working and integrated. Most don't even turn up to support their kids at school events, teacher chats etc. 

It's entirely the right thing to do to help, but politicians need to be honest that the lead in time is a generation and not just a couple of years. 

In reply to wbo2:

On average.  Not all of them.

Before anyone jumps on me, I’m not giving a view in migration here but on sloppy interpretation of things.  If you want to make a case it’s better not to do that - and there is a very good case to be made that on average inwards migration is a net benefit to the economy.   There are negatives as well - more pressure on a supply constrained, exploitative and highly over-valued housing market for example.  
 

Inwards migration is not on my top ten list of worries about my family’s future in the UK, although the overt politicisation of migration for other reasons is on that list.

In reply to Ciro:

Immigration and the Economy - Main Points

Despite many misleading claims to the contrary, the research consensus is that immigration overall has been and continues to be a significant annual fiscal cost for the UK. A paper published by the government in 2018 estimated that the immigrant population in the UK added £4.3 billion to the UK’s fiscal deficit in 2016/17.

Immigration into lower-skilled work does not benefit the UK’s GDP per capita, a key measure of economic performance. Indeed, growth in GDP per capita effectively stalled over the past decade, despite the fact that during this period net migration into the UK reached an all-time record level (of 342,000 in 2015).

In reply to Plasynant:

I manage an asylum/refugee charity and I don’t mind saying that generally speaking, people working for similar organisations do a good job at not giving accurate information info - it is their job present a positive image etc. If I get chance, I will try and find the contract details for Serco who manage asylum seekers in NW England, but it is a massive contract.

In Wigan we have about 900 asylum seekers. They get £39/wk each and free housing and utilities, free health and education for children. Serco have 4 or 5 housing officers and management/admin structure for Wigan. I also know that a few years ago they lost over a million a month on the contract.  Their budget per asylum seekers was £350 month for housing etc   There are now contracts for telephone helpline etc, Migrant Help run this.

I know some asylum seeker families who’ve been in the system for over ten years, not allowed to work and contribute. The idea that refused asylum seekers get ‘removed’ is nonesense, nearly 100% stay in the UK either on section 4 support OR illegally. 
The asylum process must cost a fortune, given the numbers of appeals etc, lawyers fees, ‘court’ fees etc etc etc. 
If they get granted leave to remain then they initially go on benefits. Majority end up working, usually doing low paid, high hours work (Amazon, security, taxi driving).

The media gives false impression of where most asylum seekers come from: Iran and Albania are top two countries at the moment. Vast majority of refugees end up living in neighbouring countries in camps, these countries often having more than their fair share of existing problems. UK has a very low % of asylum seekers - way down the list (about 20th I think).
Summary: there is a significant cost and the processes needed to get significantly better (and therefore cheaper) for wealth and health reasons. And they should be allowed/encouraged to work. Refugee Action are spearheading a campaign, but covid has stalled it. 
And whilst I’m at it, I believe the refugee convention needs re- written and more effective systems (eg Gateway programmes, similar to Vulnerable Syrian Refugee Programme).

In reply to wbo2:

I’d also put a wager that the French authorities are increasingly turning a blind eye to refugees leaving their coast. 
Lack of eastern euro labour means giving asylum seekers the right to work is a no brainer. 

In reply to mick taylor:

Informative. Thanks Mick . 

In reply to Plasynant:

Just checked: The contracts for housing and support are worth £4 billion over ten years. 48,000 asylum seekers, £560/month each. Add the £39/wk each to this. Then you’d be guessing at health, education etc. For example, in Wigan we have two dedicated  Local authority workers, 6 health staff (cover other cohorts inc sex workers and homeless but asylum is biggest theme) and 4 dedicated education staff (also cover other cohorts).  My charities budget is about £80k per annum, plenty of other support (not from the public purse). 

In reply to mick taylor:

And this is just Wigan I presume ? . I know a few city’s have hotels fully rented off to councils for migrants . And the cost to the uk for its contributions to the French ports for border force /security etc which at present is something like £135 million. Staggering sums when all added up . 
 

In reply to Plasynant:

Do you mean “migrants” as you wrote, or do you mean “asylum seekers” as Mick Ward wrote?   You seem to be conflating the two where it is misleading to do so.

In reply to Plasynant:

Just Wigan, and the sums are indeed staggering. Did some maths earlier and in Wigan it costs at least £10k per asylum seeker excluding costs associated with the asylum process, border control etc. This is partly why we need a better system. 
Re hotels: none in use in Greater Manchester other than to house homeless people (including refused asylum seekers). There has been in the past - two.  Wigan has just about more asylum seekers than any other Borough - two in hotels during Covid, none at the moment ( and I should know coz I referred them both).

The refugee/asylum issue is big and multi faceted.  It highlights the massive disparities that exist and how oppressive many countries are. It also highlights the loopholes in the system that allow people to successfully claim asylum when basically they want to live in the UK simply for a better life (I would if I was them). I bet it surprised many readers to see that it’s a European country that has second largest number of UK asylum seekers (way more than Syria).

Regarding numbers: if we have say 25,000 new arrivals (much higher in previous years) then a significant number will bring wife and family over via Family Reunion. They basically have the same status as their husband/dad so in essence are not ‘counted’ as refugees/asylum seekers.  So whilst it is easy for people like me to say we only accept x number per annum, the real number of people migrating due to asylum/refugee is much higher.  Many European countries will have significantly larger numbers  

In reply to wintertree:

Sorry I meant asylum seekers . 

In reply to mick taylor:

That's £0.4 billion per year. A gentle reminder to the poster saying "staggering sums", but UK public spending this year is £840 billion. So the asylum seekers are costing us 0.05% of our annual public spending. Or about £14 per household, per year.

Staggering sums indeed.

In reply to seankenny:

That’s just for housing and associated costs. When you add everything else it will be significantly more. When you say £14 per household it doesn’t seem much, but my wild guess for full cost would be to double it:  £800,000,000. per annum. Probably more than most people think.

BTW, no value attached by me, I’m just being the messenger boy. 

In reply to Plasynant:

What we really need is an exchange program. Boot all the chavs,neds,sacllies etc out of the country and replace them with people who have traveled half way round the world with nothing in the hope of finding a better life.

I would be more than happy to see half of the estate I live on be replaced with people who want to work for a living regardless of where they came from.

In reply to Plasynant:

Wasn't Plas y Namt some dodgy christian evangelical boot camp ?

In reply to seankenny:

Yes but some of them are the "wrong" colour and/or religion and provide a convenient scapegoat so let's not let boring facts get in the way of a good bit of bigotry. Also let's deliberately equate people we choose not to allow to work with people who don't want to work. 

£400m per year. Remind me how much the extra admin costs for industry from a hard Brexit will cost. But at least we will have taken back control and, having stuck two fingers up to our continental neighbours, I'm sure they will conscientiously strive to keep all the asylum seekers for themselves.

In reply to M Lyons:

Pretty sure that furlough payments are NOT a public fund.  Not as though this effects asylum seekers coz none of them can work (crazy exceptions exist, like for ballet dancers and brain surgeons !! True).

In reply to mick taylor:

 

You mean the legal system, the Home Office and so on, much of which has a high fixed cost, and so is impervious to efforts to bring down numbers, at least in the short term? Well, maybe that’s significantly more - and it’s a guess you’re making, nothing more - say double. We’re at 0.1% of all public spending. 

Truly, staggering amounts. 
 

That’s because in the context of a large, rich state like the U.K., it isn’t much. 

£28 a year! Fuel tax is a little under half the overall cost of petrol, so most of us will have paid for asylum seekers at the pump barely halfway through January.

The problem is that any amount of money sounds large in relation to an individual’s tax payments, and very few people have a grasp of how much the government spends overall, so they cannot put the spending into any kind of context. 

In reply to mick taylor:

Hi Mick, I didn’t think those who were we on a spouse / work type visa were entitled (or at least they weren’t, it might have changed) although I may be wrong. 
 

I think you’ve indirectly hit the nail on an important point, many people are grouped within the “migrant” category however their individual circumstances, rights, costs, and contributions vary massively from:

1) asylum seekers who don’t pay to have leave to remain (and rightly so) 

2) spouses (/other family members) of UK who do pay to stay but can’t access public funds 

3) professional / trades people on work visas 

4) EU citizens with a right to move and work (as we have)

they all get broad brushed into one category and the same stats incorrectly applied to all. 
 

My humble opinion is that overall migration is “good” in terms of not only benefiting our economy (If you look bored brush at most of the above categories they’re either likely to contribute or at least not be a drain) but benefiting our society culturally. 
 

that’s notwithstanding that many migrants (eg the asylum types) are genuinely in a bad place and need our support and whilst overall they may be a net drain (as they’re unable to work in some cases) its the right thing to do to support them. 
 

afterall and as one previous poster said, we happen to be in a privileged and lucky position right now where we can, but in the future things can change and we may find ourselves on the needing end...particularly with Brexit etc coming our way. 
 

In reply to seankenny:

Agree. 
My approach on the issue of asylum seekers and cash is:  because opinions are so polarised then I want to get accurate info into the debate. Lots of people in the pro asylum debate are quick to say ‘they only get £37/wk and live in rubbish accommodation and we should be ashamed’ when in reality it costs probably nearer£20k per asylum seeker (full cost). Fully get that my guess contradicts the accurate aspect, but it’s an attempt. 
Worth noting that there is a significant number of refused asylum seekers (many families) who have stayed in the system for ages.  Anecdotally, HO does seem to be granting more and more people like this. 

In reply to M Lyons:

Aye, it’s waaay complex and some people choose language to purposefully complicate the issue to try and help make their argument. 
An elephant in the room for my profession is; we often don’t want to give a view/opinion on the number of asylum seekers who do not have a valid case. This number is impossible to know, but at one point the HOs figures would put it at about 50%.  I know people who reckon the % of ‘genuine’ asylum seekers could be as low as 25%, others would say 100%.  And as I said earlier, the number of refused asylum seekers that leave the uk is very close to zero. These are some reasons why the system has to change. 

I also believe that most of those people crossing the channel who are not fleeing persecution etc will be trying to get into the uk for, in their eyes, valid reasons, mainly economic, and once in the uk they correctly enter the system, often for years - some will get granted, some wont.  Those that don’t often end up working illegally, being exploited, not paying tax, no proper health care. 
 

In reply to Plasynant:

We probably spend a lot more keeping them out than it would cost us to actually help people, educate then and have then as tax paying members of society.

In reply to Plasynant:

This has taken some time to understand. It seems your quote comes from this site: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org and specifically from this page: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/269.

The site is clearly biased and while it sort of gives references it doesn't for all quotes and it has taken some time to track down the references that they sort of give.

The statement 'This concluded that in 2016/17 migrants overall paid in £4.3bn less than they took out.' (referencing to https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...) is not true.

They report that 'In 2016/17, EEA migrants as a whole are estimated to have paid £4.7bn more in taxes than they received in welfare payments and public services.' while 'This contrasts with the UK-born population who had a deficit of £41.4bn and non-EEA migrants who had a deficit of £9bn.' which is where they get the £4.3 deficit figure from.

However, this is not their final conclusions as this is a static snaphot for that fiscal year alone. A few paragraphs further on they employ a dynamic model. 'The 515,000 migrants who arrived in 2016 are expected to make a discounted net contribution of £26.9bn over their lifetime in the UK. We estimate that each additional migrant from the EEA will make a total discounted fiscal contribution of approximately £78,000 over his or her lifetimein 2017 prices. Non-EEA migrants, who had a negative net fiscal contribution in the static analysis,are estimated to have a positive lifetime contribution of £28,000 per head. '

This is the final conclusions reached and as reported in https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent-releases/8747673d-3b26-439b-9693-0e2....

Further to this the site also claims: 'The MAC reported that the average contribution to UK public finances of migrants from the EEA in 2016/17 was £2,310. The equivalent for migrants from the rest of the world was minus £840'.

This is again inaccurate and clearly skewed to portray their agenda. The numbers are above and below that contributed by the average adult UK resident. The true quote is 'The average adult migrant from the European Economic Area (EEA) contributed approximately £2,300 more to the UK public finances than the average adult resident in the UK.The average non-EEA migrant contributed around £840 less than the average adult resident in the UK.'

I havent got the time or inclination to go through everything they say, but since this is the first thing I've seen and clearly obfuscates information to meet their own agenda, I do not consider this an unbiased and/or credible source.

In reply to kedvenc72:

A further unsubstantiated quote from the same section of migrationwatch is 'It is worth bearing in mind that nearly two-thirds of non-British immigration in the year to September 2019 was from outside the EU.'  This is a further attempt to bolster their argument but is completely flawed. This does not logically follow on since the net contributions from EEA and non-EEA are as quoted above, the relative proportions do not matter. It is simply a flawed inflammatory statement to say 'hey, look, not only are these ones not paying their way, they also make up the majority and thus cost you EVEN more!'

In reply to kedvenc72:

You have produced a very insightful take on the "Migration watch" content.  

Being lazy, I looked at their website for a postal address, saw "55 Tufton Street" and jumped right to the conclusion they're being paid shills putting out a thoroughly biassed spin on things for their puppet masters with the intent of legitimising the message from a legion of "grass roots" citizen activists orchestrated into a layered network, some of whom perhaps aren't aware that they're part of an orchestrated campaigns network.

They describe themselves as an "independent and non-partisan research organisation". They're registered in the UK as a company not a charity.  In my book, if someone wants to claim to be an independent research organisation there should be a register of member's interests and a publicly stated conflict of interest policy.  

The phrase "conflict of interest" doesn't appear once within their web site. 

In reply to mick taylor:

I found your posts very informative. How did you get involved in the charity?

In reply to neilh:

My career path has been varied: failed science degree - security guard - youth hostel warden - outdoor pursuits instructor - community education degree - youth work - community development in various guises. I was a trustee thirteen years ago for two years. Five years ago I got made redundant but then applied for the job as project coordinator and got it. It’s a very interesting line of work, some of our people have very interesting stories. I sometimes get invited to tea to my Syrians friends house - stunning food, Shisha pipe comes out then he tells his story. In fact, the children’s author Cathy Cassidy based one of her books on his sons journey and life. She gave us  a healthy donation once the royalty’s arrived. 

In reply to mick taylor:

Interesting, never heard of Cathy Cassidy, there again my children are now early twenties. You suggested earlier about economic illegal migrants being allowed to work. How do you think politically that is going to play out especially with rising unemployment following Covid.I cannot help thinking that just plays into a hard right agenda and its going to get pretty ugly.

In reply to neilh:

My comments would have been about people claiming asylum being given the right to work.  

1. Some asylum seekers are in the system that long they become dis-empowered from working - not good for if/when they are granted and should work.  Working is good for people.  Asylum seekers working would counter some of the stereo-types.

2. No matter what Covid throws at us, there will still be many low paid jobs that we will find difficult to fill (and found difficult to fill pre Covid).  If asylum seekers are happy to do these jobs and contribute to society etc, then that is a good thing.

3.  Some hard right's would no doubt say 'we are giving asylum seekers our jobs'......these are the same folk who say 'they should be working rather than sponging of us Brits'. They are also the same people who expect to pay 5 pence a kg for their sprouts at Christmas but would only do that job themselves if paid £20/hour.  You can't win with these folks, so we should try and discuss then challenge then ignore (in that order).

4. Some hard right my actually like to take advantage of 'efficient' labour, especially when they realise they are often good workers and many of our unemployed will not work for those pay/conditions (which is another issue altogether).  

Until Covid gets sorted then this political item will not move forward so can't see anything (ugly or otherwise) happening.

Refugee Actions campaign:

https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Lift-The-Ban-C...

Some 'asylum seekers' have had all their claims and appeals refused.  Some of these can apply and get section 4 support - this means they say they will try and return to their original country but can't because it is unsafe (roughly).  These people get similar funds/housing support and it would not make sense for them to work as, theoretically, they should be looking at returning home.  Those that don't get section 4 end up staying here and working illegally - often in an exploitative manner.  How many of these people 'have been unfairly treated by the system' versus 'never had a genuine case in the first place' - anyone's guess.  But they formerly classed as destitute, cannot access proper health care and have a grim future.  They drift towards the bigger cities where they can 'disappear' and easier to find casual work. Many of them would be better off back home but they get caught in a trap.  They rarely get deported (usually have to get caught committing a crime first).

Oh, here's the book....

https://www.cathycassidy.com/books/samis-silver-lining/

In reply to mick taylor:

A confusion of terminology between us. So what you are saying is give asylum seekers the right to work whilst their claim is being processed.

Thanks for the pdf.Although from my intial read it does focus on those people with skills who are succesful( painting a good picture), which I understand.

You do a good job by the way.

In reply to neilh:

Yes, and thanks.

In reply to summo:

"I'm pro helping anyone in need, but personally I don't see the above in every case, maybe 25%. Have you got any evidence from the mass migrations into Europe of 2015 to support the above claim? 

Of the 1000s that arrived in sweden in 2015 a large percentage haven't learnt the language and have never worked. "

Do you have any evidence to support that? In the US it is sink or swim. They can't get public funds so they work. In fact migrants working cash in hand allow the agriculture industry to continue. When Bush tried to crack down on immigration it was the farmers who stopped him.

When I moved here I couldn't work for 90 days so worked cash in hand clearing houses, painting houses and cutting grass. Not one of us workers was a US citizen, only the boss spoke English with me. Everyone else was hispanic and undocumented or an immigrant like me between statuses at the time.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

https://www.ft.com/content/838d60c2-0961-11e7-97d1-5e720a26771b  I'm sure there is newer stuff in English too. Summary is migrant unemployment is 4 time higher than native levels. Of course my own experiences may be skewed, but it's hardly a secret which kids have working or not working parents and our kids have been in the same classes as them for 4, 5, 6 years etc. 

That doesn't really protect the vulnerable, but also aren't most USA migrants economic from central America? They are not the same as those fleeing oppression and war in the Middle East or previously the Balkans. 

I don't think in reality there is a perfect solution.  

In reply to summo:

From Oxford Uni:  UK asylum migrants (I assume they mean asylum seekers who have been granted leave to remain) 51% employment rate.  My opinion is that once they have been here a while, especially those who have achieved citizenship, they will stop being counted as 'asylum migrants', so this figure is likely to be higher. In fact, I can think of people from certain countries where, after a while, nearly all of them work (e.g. Sudanese people).  Also from Oxford Uni, asylum migrants:  21% self-employed (14% UK born) and of these, they are more likely to have employees than UK born, indicating greater entrepreneurial ambition.

In UK, once they can claim benefits, the job centre will insist they learn English - they get sent to college.

Of interest is that Sweden allows them to work 'quicker' than all but one country in the world (Australia is top), your observations may well be due to an overally generous benefits system ?

In reply to mick taylor:

Benefits for an adult aren't high, but sufficient if they have zero aspiration, house, heating etc all paid for and some pocket money. However, child benefit is roughly £120/month per child and if you have a large family there is an extra supplement. So in the extreme with 6 kids you get roughly £600 plus the extras of another £400 month. Suffice to say women of certain religions and cultures aren't exactly encouraged by their husbands to learn the language and work. 

In reply to summo:

Given your last sentence - plus Mick's stat about 51% employment it would interesting to know how many households have at least one employed adult and how many households have no employed adults. 

There are plenty of households in the UK where the employment rate is effectively 50%.

In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

Don't know. But of all the Swedish or European families I know of (two differing kids classes, orienteering, ski, run and mtb club members) not one has a stay at home parent (before covid).

When parental and maternity leave is equal. Employer rights after having kids are the same for both, child care costs are capped at about £200/mth  etc.  There is very much a culture of both parents working and everything is set up for that, with near free before and after school clubs for those with irregular hours.