I personally couldn’t care a less how rich the rich are becoming – this really has no bearing on me. The priority is that we need to care for the vulnerable in our communities and this is the base line. Elon Musk briefly became the world’s first trillionaire in June 2026 after SpaceX went public, with a net worth peaking near $1.45 trillion. This drastically increased the gap between himself and most people. But this did not make anyone poorer, in fact quite the opposite is happening, his discoveries and research have created wealth for others. He directly employs between 150,000 and 200,000 people across his companies, including over 4,000 SpaceX workers who became millionaires through employee stock ownership. His services like star link help us personally work from home.

Another left-wing misconception is that rich people are villains. This comes back to the time of gentry where if you were rich, it was because you inherited generational wealth and there were few options to change your class or status. Now the story is very different, most of the wealthy are so because they created a product or service that large numbers of people voluntarily choose to support.

Chris Walsh of MoneyHub has coined the phrase ‘the divide between the financially responsible and the financially reckless grows wider yearly.’ Financial discipline plays a major role in building wealth. We may see the mansions, holiday homes, and helicopters of the wealthy, but for most it didn’t start this way. It started with a focused approach. The few businesses that do start with jet planes, mansions and luxury cars, quickly find their demise. Property developers, Kenyon and Charlotte Clark, of the Du Val Group are a prime example of this. Racking up around $240 million in debt and unfortunately taking many mum and dad investors down with them.

Back to common misconceptions, there is a new self-centred movement among the left that the 3,428 billionaires in the world are somehow responsible for sorting out all of society’s problems. This shifts the responsibility off themselves and onto a small elite group of people. This is very convenient, as it leaves them with only the responsibility of whining and complaining about another group of people, who they envy.

So, who is responsible to care for those who are truly vulnerable and in need around us? The answer is simple: all of us.

One way of thinking about social responsibility is to consider where assistance should primarily come from.

Family

The family is often described as the “little platoon” of society. It is the foundation of our communities and plays a crucial role in raising the next generation and caring for older generations. Grandparents help care for grandchildren, while parents support both their children and their ageing parents.

Friends and Neighbours

Friends and neighbours also have responsibilities toward those around them. This may involve checking in on someone who is struggling, helping a family through a difficult season, providing meals, offering childcare, or simply taking the time to listen.

Wider Community

Local communities provide support through social groups, community gardens, food banks, neighbourhood patrols, sporting clubs, and other initiatives. Churches and faith-based organisations also make significant contributions in communities throughout New Zealand.

Charities

There are more than 2,800 registered charities performing vital work across our country. Organisations such as Hato Hone St John, the Cancer Society, CAP, and Citizens Advice Bureau provide services that many New Zealanders rely upon every day.

Government

Finally, government serves as the ultimate backstop for vulnerable people. Through agencies such as the Ministry of Social Development, Ministry of Disabled People, and Oranga Tamariki, the state provides support where other systems have been unable to meet a person’s needs.

I place charities ahead of government because charities must continually demonstrate effectiveness if they wish to retain their support base and funding. Donors expect accountability and measurable outcomes. Government agencies, while often doing valuable work, operate differently. Taxation is compulsory, and bloated bureaucracies can make it difficult to function efficiently and effectiveness. Sure, voters get to keep the government to task every 3 years on election day, but government waste is often hidden behind large levels of bureaucracy, and the lolly scramble of election promises.

My next comment could be hugely unpopular, but it is important - the poor and vulnerable in our community have a responsibility to improve their own life through their own self effort. Every person has agency, they may be a victim for a moment, but remaining a victim is completely their choice. Education, skill development, good financial management, strong relationships, and personal discipline all play important roles in improving one’s situation.

G. Michael Hopf wrote in his 2016 novel ‘Those Who Remain’,

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And weak men create hard times.”

Through the peaceful and prosperous times in our country many have become weak and full of excuses, expecting strangers, in particular the taxpayers of New Zealand to rescue them.

When discussing poverty, it is important to distinguish between two different concepts.

Absolute Poverty

The United Nations defines absolute poverty as:

“A condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services.”

Relative Poverty

Relative poverty is measured as household income falling below 60 percentage of the median household income.

According to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment date, the median household income is $123,000. So, a household income of $73,800 would categorise a household as being in relative poverty. Is the definition relevant or is it just a term of envy? While this is not a lot of money, this dollar amount does not tell the whole story of a household’s circumstances. How many live in the household, what are their ages, what is their housing arrangement, what are their debt levels, what region do they live in? I would argue, we can’t categorically say a household income of $73,800 automatically means a family is living in poverty. This is inequality not necessarily actual deprivation and poverty. The numbers of those living in absolute poverty, as defined above is not tracked in New Zealand. People live so differently and have different aspirations and priorities. Rachel Leutele of ‘The Savvy Saver’ lives in Napier with her husband and 3 children. They live off a household income close to the ‘relative poverty’ number, but she describes their life as rich. Follow her on social media to find out how she does it.

Alongside sound financial habits, long-term reductions in poverty depend on efficient support systems, wealth creation, economic growth, and opportunities for people to participate in productive work. A flourishing economy creates businesses, jobs, wages, and investment opportunities that help lift living standards across society.

The ultimate solution to poverty is not simply redistributing existing wealth. It is creating more wealth.

We need to be planting fields of tall poppies, not cutting them down.

For more than two decades, New Zealand has faced persistent talk of the housing crisis, reaching its peak with record-high property prices during COVID. Yet, despite this volatility, homeownership rates have remained relatively stable in the mid-60% range for the last 25 years. This stability sits just below the historical peaks of the late 1970s early 1980s, when national homeownership was in the low-to-mid 70% range.

One thing that has changed, however, is home and section sizes. Home sizes peaked around 2010, with the average house floor area of 200 square meters and section size of 617 square metres. Now in the 2020s the average floor area is around 145 square metres and section sizes are 400 square metres, with even smaller spaces in high population areas like Auckland. I suspect land and home sizes are going to continue to shrink, with rising costs.

Kiwis are realising it makes financial sense to not borrow the maximum amount that the bank will lend them. Many financial commentators say a common sense rule is your mortgage repayments and other everyday homeownership costs, like rates, and insurance should not be more than 28% of your regular gross household income. Otherwise, a household can come under stress, with even small changes in circumstances, like an increase in mortgage rates. That said, being realistic, often people stretch themselves beyond this to enter the property market, hoping for future pay rises.

MoneyHub has also made a comment about this and run the numbers:

For example, a “nicer” house may cost an extra $400,000 - this means $2,398 of additional monthly repayments (assuming 6% p.a. over 30 years), a total cost of $863,353, which includes interest repayments of $463,353. Not only are there costs with interest, but there are also higher bills for rates, insurance, and maintenance because bigger houses cost more to run, not just to buy.

As a family we have found this and made consequent lifestyle choices. For 32 years I lived in my 6-bedroom, 376 square meter home, on 1,558 square meters of land where I raised my five children. While it was wonderful, it took an overwhelming amount of my time and money. We made the decision to move into a 50 square meter apartment on the same street, that we fully renovated. There was fun in the challenge of the task. Selling, donating, or disposing of two-thirds of our possessions; maximising the kitchen space by adding toe kick drawers; and finding room for storage in the bedroom ceiling of the apartment by adding an attic and ladder. When my youngest, at 22, decided he wanted to move back home we had a small cabin built on our patio. Now the three of us quite happily live in a total 57.5 square meter space.

Three of my five adult children each live with their plus ones in New York city. When each of them arrived there, they lived in very small studio apartments. As the years have gone on, and they have begun to prosper, with multiple moves and job changes, they now live in slightly larger apartments, where they have each created comfortable homes. One of my favourite pastimes is to watch YouTube clips of singles, couples, and families transforming their tiny New York rental properties into cosy homes. New York does seem to be more generous in what renters can and cannot do. They paint walls, change light fittings, add stick on floor tiles, wallpaper and more. Families of five or six will live in two-bedroom apartments, using ingenious space savers like triple bunks and fold out murphy beds. Their recreational time is spent exploring the city, heading to the theatre, museums, and local parks. One of my sons lives with his fiancée in a new build. The apartment building has an entire floor dedicated for common use. It has an indoor playground, huge gym, large kitchen and dining area to host dinner parties, lounges and a movie room. Communal roof top gardens and barbeque areas are also common. More and more couples and families are choosing to leave the suburbs to reduce the commute time and live a different kind of life.

I grew up in a large family. The eight of us lived off one low single income. My parents did not own their own home until well into their fifties, this was a constant source of insecurity for my neurotic father. Whether conscious or sub-conscious I think each of us children became focused on homeownership. I owned my first home in my early 20s. I should note we did not have insecure housing as my father was a Baptist minister and we lived in the church manse, right next to the church. It was a cold, rambling old house that was always full of people coming and going, friends and friends of friends, everyone was welcome. My mum spent most of her time in the kitchen preparing budget friendly food to feed the masses.

Life has changed and I think New Zealanders are accepting it is inevitable to move on from the 60s dream of every family owning their own weather board house with the quarter acre section. Ultimately the size of one’s home is not what’s important. Stable, secure housing where singles, couples and families can build a home, create wonderful memories and flourish is what really matters.

In 2021, then Revenue Minister David Parker, used hard earned taxpayer money to have the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) carry out an investigation into 311 of the New Zealand’s wealthiest families. To be included in this group, each family needed to have a net worth of more than $50 million dollars. The project was called the IRD High-Wealth Research Project.

The conclusion from this research stated that the wealthy only pay a median effective tax rate of 8.9%, compared to 20% or so by other kiwis. A headline grabbing conclusion as you can imagine.

This report, however, is a misrepresentation of some very basic factors when it comes to taxation in New Zealand. Firstly, we don’t tax families, we tax individuals. Secondly, we tax income and have never (or not to date) had a capital gains tax nor taxed unrealised gains on assets. Through the methodology used in this report, the assets of the wealthy were added up; imagined capitals gains added; and from that, what the total income would be for the wealthy family. IRD then took the difference between this made-up amount of income and what the wealthy family’s declared income was (or actual income, by law) and said therefore, that they are currently only paying 8.9% tax.

It is important to note, that the IRD report itself admitted that the wealthy are following New Zealand tax rules, are not using tax evasion, and pay around 30% of their income in taxes.

The report took made up capital gains and made them capital income, allowing the IRD to create an effective tax rate based on inflated, unrealised income.

For example, if a farm goes up in value, then the IRD is claiming the owner has not paid tax on that increase in value. An increase, bear in mind, that is just on paper and an assumption. It is also an assumption that the farmer will have the money to pay this new tax and have the funds to continue farming, or is the farmer expected to sell the farm to pay the tax! Alternatively, if a farm goes down in capital value, is the IRD then saying they owe the farmer a significant tax return? I think not.

By comparison, the same study estimated that the average Kiwi effectively paid 20.2% tax on their income, once GST and benefits they received from the Government were considered. The median average annual salary in New Zealand is $69,836, meaning the average New Zealander pays $14,106.87 annually in tax. Minimum wage earners working a 40-hour week earn $49,816 annually before tax, with an effective tax rate of 15.3%, would pay $7621.85 in tax per year. All of this parallels what one would expect of our progressive tax rates – the lower your income, the lower your effective tax rate; the more you are earning, the higher your tax rate. As noted earlier, the wealthy are paying somewhere around 30% in effective tax.

The Guardian stated each of the 311 wealthiest families investigated paid an average of about $640,000 tax annually, that’s 45 times what the average New Zealander pays annually and 84 times that of a fulltime minimum wage worker.

‘Diary of a CEO’ host, Steve Bartlet, when discussing with Konstantin Kisin, raised the potential loss of tax to the United Kingdom when billionaire Revolute founder, Nik Storonsky, talked of leaving the UK for the UAE because the UK was no longer business friendly. Bartlet describes a £300 billion potential loss of capital gains tax to the UK if Storonsky left for the UAE. It would take roughly 450,000 average UK taxpayers to pay this one tax bill, because the average taxpayer pays £7000-7500 a year. That is the size of a small town!! If I have read correctly, there is some dispute as to Storonsky’s ultimate decision around where he resides but regardless, the point remains - chase someone wealthy from your country, and it takes many individual average taxpayers to cover that difference in tax take.

Research has just come out from the Taxpayer Union here in New Zealand showing:

• The top 20 percent of earners pay nearly two-thirds of all personal income tax.

• The top 10 percent pay more tax than the bottom 80 percent combined.

• And the top 1 percent contribute more than the entire bottom half of taxpayers.

The Taxpayer Union states:

“People can debate whether the rich should pay even more, but they cannot honestly claim the wealthy are not already paying the largest share. Just 46,939 taxpayers pay more income tax than 2.35 million people combined.”

Ultimately the wealthy have options. If they feel they are being overtaxed, quite simply they will leave and our country will be the poorer for it. New Zealand is a beautiful country; the rich want to live here, and like everyone, they don’t want to be overtaxed. If the people who are going to create wealth leave, this is not good for our country.

Note I say overtaxed. I think most are happy to pay tax and contribute to those who need help and to play their part in developing our country. While I am sure there will be exceptions, I don’t believe the wealthy here in New Zealand are selfish or greedy.

Wealth creation, not redistribution, is good for our country. If governments want to raise more revenue, they should focus on growing the economy rather than introducing new taxes or increasing existing tax rates. Many people face genuine challenges, but we have too often trapped them in welfare dependency because it is easier than helping them build the skills and confidence to support themselves. Of the $183.5 billion in total government spending for the year to 30 June 2025, $57.6 billion was spent on social security and welfare. The welfare state was set up in better times, when there were more young people and more workers.

Simplicity chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub states

“If you want nice things, you have to pay for it. You can’t just rely on other people to do it for you … And I think that sense of responsibility and having to do it yourself is quite problematic for people….post the Second World War, when the welfare state was built, the broad idea was trust central government, they’ll take care of all these things so you don’t have to……..that has broken down…..when we made these promises, we used to have loads of young people, we could tax our workers, and we had a surplus, we had an abundance of income to buy things.”

There are four main ways for governments to raise more revenue:

1. More types of new taxes.

2. Higher taxes for specific groups of people, like the wealthy or landowners.

3. More workers, this is achieved through population growth by either birth or immigration, or a combination of both.

4. Wealth creation, by growing the economy.

Fundamentally, the issue is not a lack of government revenue, but how those funds are managed. The state possesses ample resources to fulfil its core duties; it has however become deeply inefficient, slowed down by excessive bureaucracy and red tape.

A more effective approach is to lower taxes, allowing everyday New Zealanders to keep a larger share of their weekly take-home pay. When families retain their hard-earned money, they are empowered to budget for their own unique priorities and secure their own financial future.

The government cannot—and should not—attempt to solve every single problem faced by its citizens. Instead, there needs to be a cultural shift back toward personal responsibility. The adults needs to adult. They must manage their essential life milestones independently. This includes simple daily tasks like packing school lunches for their children, saving up for parental leave, living the life they can afford, and building a nest egg for retirement.

Over time, society has grown overly reliant on state intervention to solve our everyday challenges. To break this cycle of dependency, we must look toward both social and structural changes. Part 3 of this series will take a closer look into better ways to support the truly vulnerable in our communities.

I will admit that personally I have never met a billionaire, but I am sure if I did, I would like them. As I am a teacher, I will do what teachers do, that is, firstly define what a billionaire is. A billion is one thousand million, so a New Zealand billionaire has a net worth of one thousand million New Zealand dollars. Some think a billionaire has a billion dollars in their bank account, but most have their wealth tied up in their business or shares in either a large company or multiple companies.

Explaining who Action Station are is also straightforward. They are a group of far-left activists who harvest emails by encouraging people to sign what often seem like reasonable petitions. I must have signed one years ago, and now I am on their email list, although I have no idea what the issue may have been.

I have stayed on the mailing list as I’m often curious as to what their latest crazy allegations are. One of their many agendas is more tax on the rich to solve all poverty issues. If all we had to do is spend more money to solve these problems we would, but poverty is much more complex than just a monetary issue. However, that is an issue for another day.

Contrary to the likes of Action Station, I believe New Zealand actually needs more multi-millionaires and billionaires, and we should be grateful for the ones we have. This Substack is going to be the first of three that I will write around this subject.

New Zealand has twenty-six billionaires, mostly self-made and come from humble beginnings. We will look more closely at the top three New Zealanders by wealth.

Mat and Nick Mowbray started their toy company in their garage before moving to China, with a $20,000 loan from their parents, at the relatively young ages of 24 year and 18 years respectively. Today, they directly employ 6,000 people across 34 offices in 120 plus markets. The Mowbray’s are now moving into building efficient, affordable, housing using automated technology. This should be an absolute game changer for all of us. I can’t think of a better way to help the poor than to provide accessible and affordable housing solutions.

You can read their story here

Graeme Hart left school in 1970 at only 15 years old. He did various labouring jobs, including as a mechanic, builder, and driving a tow-truck. In the 1980s he went back to school and then university where he earned a MBA. His thesis addressed the processes for buying and fixing underperforming companies. Hart’s strategies included looking for undervalued stable businesses, like packaging and the timber industry, that had reliable and predictable cash flow.

He then turned his thesis into practice, buying into the packaging and timber industries, using large amounts of money that he borrowed through leveraging his other businesses. Hart would then focus on restructuring the companies, reducing operating costs and streamlining management. He would often merge this new company with his other businesses to maximise efficiency. Hart would also buy smaller rival companies, to help dominate his share of the global market.

Some of the companies he has bought include Whitcoulls, Carter Holt Harvey, and Alcoa’s Packaging & Consumer Group (which he rebranded Reynolds Consumer Products). He paid down his debt through publicly listing some of his business empire on the stock exchange and/or selling some of his businesses for large profits.

Sir Peter Beck grew up in a working-class family, in Invercargill. His father was the museum director and a gemmologist, and his mother a teacher. In his spare time Beck built high-speed contraptions, famously modifying the family’s car to add a turbocharger. Instead of attending university, he completed a tool and die apprenticeship at Fisher and Paykel. While there he began experimenting with rockets - creating propellants, a rocket bike, and a jet bike. It was also at Fisher and Paykel he met his wife, Kerryn Morris, an engineer and designer.

Beck then switched companies, working at Industrial Research Limited, between 2001 and 2006. During this time, he met Stephen Tinsdall who became one of Rocket Labs earliest investors.

Another significant influence in Beck’s journey to Rocket Lab was a work trip to the United States with his wife. Taking to the road, he visited various aerospace facilities, US defence contractors, and experts from NASA. He also met with a rocketeer, Ky Michaelson (known as Rocketman). This was a game changer for Beck, inspiring him to start Rocket Lab in 2006. While originally a New Zealand company, in 2013 he moved Rocket Lab’s headquarters to California while keeping the manufacturing in New Zealand.

Rocket Lab’s key achievements and milestones include:

• Southern Hemisphere First (2009): Became the first private company in the region to reach space using the Atea-1 multi-stage rocket.

• Electron Rocket Debut (2017): Launched the low-cost Electron rocket featuring 3D-printed engines from Mahia Peninsula, the world’s first private orbital launch site.

• Universal Space Access: Developed advanced rockets, spacecraft, and satellites to provide reliable space access for commercial and government sectors.

• U.S. Military Partner: Established itself as a primary alternative to SpaceX for rapid-response U.S. military launches.

• Major Acquisition (2026): Announced the acquisition of Iridium Communications, a multi-billion-dollar global satellite network operator.

• Founder Wealth Surge: Driven by these successes, founder Sir Peter Beck’s estimated wealth grew from $650 million in 2025 to roughly $11 billion in 2026.

Read more of his inspiring story here

Steven Adams is New Zealand’s wealthiest sports star and while not a billionaire, his total career earnings now surpass $200 million. His success follows a remarkably challenging upbringing; he was only seven years old when his Tongan mother, Lilika Ngauamo, passed away from cancer. His British father, Sid Adams, fathered between 14 and 21 children before passing away when Steven was just 13. Following his father’s death, Steven left school and joined the Mongrel Mob gang. He was rescued by basketball coach, Blossom Cameron, who became his legal guardian, moved him from Rotorua to Wellington, and enrolled him at Scots College. There, she introduced him to American basketball coach Kenny McFadden. From Scots College, Adams transitioned to a basketball preparatory school in Massachusetts, launching an elite career that eventually led to his current role with the Houston Rockets, where he recently secured a three-year, $US39 million contract extension.

You can read his story here

Achieving lasting success and wealth isn’t easy. A rare alignment of luck, timing, networks, and innovative ideas certainly help. However, a relentless work ethic, discipline and determination remain the ultimate foundation. The reality of modern entrepreneurship is highly unforgiving. In 2025, company liquidations in New Zealand peaked at 2,781, marking the highest level of business failures since 2010. Furthermore, long-term business survival is incredibly rare. Looking at the data for companies launched in 2015, a mere 27% survived to celebrate their 10-year anniversary.

To return to our initial point regarding Action Station’s assertion that we don’t need more billionaires. Our nation actually needs more billionaires. Instead of criticising them, we should look up to these high achievers and take pride in what they have accomplished for our economy. We need more wealth creators, not wealth takers. As a teacher, I am convinced that education is the ultimate solution to our societal challenges. Instead of vilifying wealth, we should ask successful entrepreneurs to teach us how to flourish. Our curriculum needs to shift toward practical financial capability: teaching students accounting, how to balance a budget, and the vital role of turning a profit. Ultimately, we must equip the next generation to dream big, innovate, and create tangible value. Just as with all three New Zealand examples, they might be individually wealthy but in becoming so, they have also contributed to the economic well-being of their employees and their families. That is something to be proud of and not, as Action Station would have us be, jealous and resentful.

The term tradwife has basically been deployed in a derogatory way as it rejects second wave feminism. Critics view the lifestyle as regressive and submissive, yet despite the criticism it seems to be trending across social media and in society. Maybe this has something to do with what the French second-wave feminist pioneer Simone de Beauvoir stated in a 1970s interview with Betty Friedan:

“No woman should be authorised to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.”

The irony of all of this being that many in the tradwife movement are becoming wealthy. This is achieved through the sale of sponsored products, products they have developed, like home organisation schedules, and paid partnerships. That said, those that are successful work hard for their money and often employ staff to help in all aspects of their business.

Liana Graham, a researcher from the Heritage Institute, discusses the tradwife phenomena with Evie Magazine:

“Women who share similar experiences on social media are shamed, mocked, and told to stop peddling tradwife propaganda. Flippant use of the intended insult has produced a phenomenon I call ‘tradflation.’ The tradwife label, once reserved for stay-at-home mothers, is now a pejorative catch-all for women who embrace traditional gender roles to any degree.”

One could argue Martha Stewart was the first tradwife as she transformed the art of homemaking into a multi-million-dollar business. Martha Stewart was the first US self-made female billionaire, reaching this milestone in 1999. Fluctuating stock markets and her legal scandals have now reduced her net worth to around $400 million USD. Interestingly, her first career was as a Wall Street stockbroker.

The modern-day tradwife poster child is Hannah Neeleman, (though she rejects this title). She is married to Daniel Neeleman, the son of a billionaire. They purchased a 328-acre property in Utah and named it Ballerina Farms, as a nod to her graduating as a ballerina from the prestigious Julliard School in New York. They successfully developed a homestead and food brand that sells meat packages, protein powder, bone broths, kitchen goods, and more. I first found her on social media when she was Mrs. American. She won this title when 20 weeks pregnant with her 8^th child. Hannah then competed in the Mrs. World competition just 12 days after she gave birth. Hannah currently has 9 children and 20 million followers across TikTok and Instagram, where she promotes her products. Her posts include farm life, family life, and making complex meals from scratch, while surrounded by her children.

Another prominent ‘tradwife’ is 24-year-old Nara Smith, mother of four, known for cooking convenience food from scratch in extravagant outfits. Her combined social media following is 17 million, with 12.5 million on TikTok alone. While her earnings are not public it is estimated she makes $US200,000/month, with an estimated 374 million views per month. In one of her posts her husband craves ramen. She makes the entire meal from scratch, which takes 24 hours. Her audience understands the tongue and cheek nature of her posts, with comments like “Babe: I’m hungry, Me: Dinner will be ready in 24 hours” and ‘the seasons powder from scratch threw me off my chair.’

Brooke Christen of Nesting with Grace has become so successful in her homemaking skills and delightful family posts that her husband gave up his career as an athlete trainer for a professional soccer team to join her in the family business. This is a common theme for many in the industry, where the ‘tradwife trade’ becomes a family business.

Louise Dickinson of Louise’s Kitchen Garden first came to fame making her builder husband’s large work lunches in an effort to stop him buying McDonalds. This included baking the now ubiquitous sour dough bread, curing ham, smoking salmon, collecting vegetables from her abundant garden, and inventing healthy muesli bar equivalents. She currently has 640,000 followers on her Instagram account and another 921,000 on TikTok. Some of her posts have amassed 21 million likes. Louise has now gone from the family bread maker to the main family breadwinner.

Meghan Markle has jumped onto the tradwife trend, in an effort to rebrand herself with the Netflix show ‘With Love Meghan.’ It has had limited success and may not return after two seasons. On her show she demonstrates making breakfast for her children; and friends and celebrities popping over, who she cooks, crafts, and flower arranges with. She even sent 50 jars of homemade jam to her friends as gifts. Yet, she also claims she is not a tradwife, instead she says she is an entrepreneur. Most woman who take up traditional roles have had significant careers pre-kids. I suspect the fundamental difference with Meghan Markle however is her husband is more of a puppy dog than a patriarch.

With all the negativity there has unfortunately only been one narrative for woman, you have to be a feminist in a particular way. Now social media is changing that. Love or hate them I suspect this trend is only going to grow, as surely it is good to love your husband and children. What could be more empowering for woman, to love and be loved, to be creators, to be self-employed, have workplace flexibility, and last but not least to often make more money than their adored husbands.