Entitled attitude: grandparents must provide childcare

What a stupid and ignorant post
Your assertion that the system has given people of a certain age 'so much' is just so much rubbish. You are suggesting that all old people are living a life of Riley in mansions and going on cruises; if you had any knowledge or the wherewithall to find the facts, or indeed, to ask an older person, you will see how stupid that view is
So no, you choose to have children, you are responsible for them (excluding emergencies of course), not your DPs or PILs

Emotional blackmail by any other name

I just mean that it may not be that simple. Maybe it’s a case of them saying what they’d need to be able to stay, rather than demanding it? No one has the right to demand it, but accepting a financial reality is something else.

I understand most of the thought strands about grandparents offering childcare help, but because our family situation is not one where everyone has always lived in the same place all their lives, the normal rules don't actually apply, because there's no locus. My sister returned to the UK after 40 years abroad a few years ago. Her children grew up in Latin America, Asia, Africa and two European countries. One lives in the Middle East, another in the UK. DSis now lives in a Midlands town close to our mum and her daughter, and they look out for each other but aren't joined at the hip. Sister and BIL do quite a bit of school pick ups and are available for childcare in emergencies.

I live four hours away, 80 miles from where we grew up because I worked in the US and then in London but my DH created his business here, which is 200 miles away. His parents retired 300 miles from us. We have no grandchildren and are unlikely to have any for at least 10-15 years, by which time we shall be nudging 80, so we are thinking of moving overseas to retire somewhere warmer once DM passes away. I've moved almost every five years of my life. Both our families were used to moving for work every few years so we rather enjoy the idea of change. Our contribution to our DC is likely to be financial rather than hands on.

No wouldnt commit to it full T. I see it with my friend always rush back to accomodate the son. It does really tie you I think.... I would help yes a bit. My mam never helped us we coped fine lol.

There is nothing wrong with expecting grandparents to provide childcare. If people were also prepared to look after or support parents in old age. That’s how it works in other cultures. Multi generational households and no concept of nurseries for the young or nursing homes for the elderly.

Yes, how selfish of her. Maybe grandma should sell her house and rent so they can inherit the money early ? How dare she want a life...

😂😂😂😂

It may just be that they simply wont be able to stay living near her, and will have to move a long way away to be able to afford to survive.

if she loses them because she didnt give them childcare they then arent worth keeping anyway.

Yep we will be heading south in our campervan. If our daughters want us to take grandkids with us for 5-6 months that's fine otherwise tough!

🙄🙄🙄

As I will have been working since I was 17 and retiring at 60 I have no interest in taking on a new job. A bit of baby sitting and sleep overs and helping out I have no issue with but I won’t be tied down to scheduled childcare. Many woman from my mothers generation never worked and had kids young. Therefore were young grandparents too. My mum was a grandparent when she was 37. She is 70 and has a number of great grand children too. Many of mates didn’t even become parents until 37.

Times have changed as many more woman are working parents and as I have stated earlier despite that are still the focal point when it comes to expectations around offering childcare to grandchildren when they retire whilst the grandfathers head off to play golf and potter around in there allotment enjoying their retirement.

Not all grandparents are able or want. To care for children when they retire. After all they have bought up there children and now its time they had some peace and quiet . However lm sure they would oblige occasionary. If you cant afford kids dont have them !!

I agree with this. Each generation has to adapt to the circumstances within which they find themselves. Demanding transfers of labour/wealth from older generations is not really a solution.

Realistically, the way people are adapting in practice is by having fewer or no children. On a societal level, this may be a problem but on an individual level it makes perfect sense.

I don't think its a better standard of living at all, just a different one. I'm no happier with a TV in each room than I was with the crackly black and white thing I had as a child, I knew no different. Nor were my children happier interacting via gadgets than my generation were face to face.
Comparing standards of living across decades is largely meaningless, as the relevant comparators are between people living at the same point in time, so these days if you don't have TV or phone, you're going have a worse standard of living than is the norm.
There are some worthwhile comparators between the generations, but they're not concerning consumer goods, they're related to the basic necessities of life. Like housing and food. As has been pointed out, housing was much more accessible then. And we'd never heard of food banks.

Why we are even having this ridiculous argument is to justify a sense of entitlement.
’you had it better therefore it’s your obligation to help out’.
Its just grown up kids not standing on their own two feet by taking the opportunity not to have to pay a whack of cash for childcare when they can get it for free.

agree

I'd argue housing costs are more relevant because it has a more fundamental impact on how you live your life. What's considered a desirable consumer good is going to vary a lot over time but you always need somewhere to live.

Absolutely agree with this. My ILs dumped their kids on MIL full time, 5 days a week. Never any consideration given to whether MIL would have liked time for a hobby, or to go on holiday or anything like that. She was just expected to want to mind the kids. Horrible.

www.ft.com/content/81343d9e-187b-11e8-9e9c-25c814761640

But all the younger generation seem to see about anything pre 2002 is CHEAPER HOUSING.

Because that is huge aspect, well I think it is.

Decades ago, pay was lower and tax was higher. Buying clothes, food, furniture, furnishings etc took up more of your wage.

I thought younger generations were worse off than previous ones & generational progress has halted?

I'll always remember getting lectured by colleagues about how they didn't have a TV when first married. I mean WTAF when a TV cost us a fraction of our monthly income? Should we have gone without it in solidarity with previous generations? What good would that have done anyone?

Perhaps your colleague may have been pointing out that, despite some people not being able to get on the property ladder, we generally have a better standard of living these days than in the past, rather than that you should forgo a tv. But all the younger generation seem to see about anything pre 2002 is CHEAPER HOUSING.

Decades ago, pay was lower and tax was higher. Buying clothes, food, furniture, furnishings etc took up more of your wage. Most people didn't have a credit card or bank loan, in fact the idea was usually unthinkable. People may well have been able to afford a house, but holidays abroad or even at home were out of reach for most people, as was owning a car. A lot of houses didn't have central heating or double glazing. The majority of the population did not go to university. Some people were even written off academically altogether at the age of 11. There was no such thing as the minimum wage or holiday entitlement in work. Men were generally paid more than women. Unemployment benefits were lower and there were no in work top up benefits. Women were not allowed on a mortgage unless they were over 21 and even then they had to be married or have a male guarantor.

This is something the younger generation does not take into account.