To think nurseries are not safe for young babies

Covid was horrendous settling in sessions were stopped so you had to do exactly that.

The amount of stick I get for working very part time and getting a UC top up confirms that only the wealthy should have children and if the poor have children they should ship them off to nursery and work all the hours of the day instead according to MN anyway.

I suspect the poster isn’t actually interested in logical answers

Or benefits.

I know it’s bizarre, I’ve tried not to get too drawn in but I can’t help myself!

Money should be given to new mums or dads in the form of maternity / paternity care to encourage a parent to stay with their young baby. Not the measly amount currently given.
Enough so that at least 1 year can be taken. Preferably 2.
Instead, because the government want you to work every hour to pay more tax, people are getting incentives to put very young babies into childcare earlier and earlier.
Soon we will be like the US where new mothers need (and it’s normal to) put their baby into full time childcare from 6 weeks old

If you're going to go round telling people about the 'sub optimal' choices they're making, you ought to at least acknowledge the one thing that data is clear about - the role of household income in outcomes.

I've continually said on this thread people should make choices that are right for them and no one else has any real insight as to what that is. But if you're just going to push one side of the story, then of course people will push back.

You have several settling in sessions before they start. You don't just randomly hand them over and off you trott.

Yet ''Don't have a baby if you don't have a rich husband to fund you'' isn't simplistic?

So who should be allowed to have children then? Just people married to the top 10% of earners? What about everyone else? Who is going to pay for them to stay at home? There isn't going to be much money when you decimate the workforce by 50%. What about the elderly? There won't be any money left to pay for triple locked pensions either after that. Nor will there be many workers to look after them. We already have an inverted population pyramid. If you say to people ' If you can't afford to have children on one income, don't have them' most people won't have them. That's happening already with people who can't afford to have a child on one income.

A room full of nursery workers are not strangers? What are they then?

Right!? Only people who can afford to have one parent working and one at home can have kids.

This thread is absolute bonkers.

If only all this energy hating on each others choices/circumstances was spent being angry about the cost of living, inequality that women face when they become mothers, poor availability of quality childcare, shit wages childcarers are paid.......

Disagree sorry. Too simplistic and not telling the whole picture.

They aren't strangers.

Pigs, the most intelligent of domestic animals, make good parents. Indeed, they are one of the few species where the group - including the boar - take care of all the young. They also mourn the loss of one of their members, being low and unhappy for several days after such a loss. The sow eating her farrow is a religious item btw it is Ceridwen (a form of the Morigan, a moon diety) who eats her farrow - i.e. her children, human beings.

As an aside, I’ve had 11 emails this month about networking events - all breakfast so 7/730 starts, how on earth is it practical 🤦🏼‍♀️

I did 🤷‍♀️

Well then make that choice for your family.

How else do you keep a roof over your head without working?

It's not skewed, it's the clearest marker of outcomes. Very simple.

Agree entirely, and get rid of the culture of presenteeism and ' networking' outside of work that excludes mothers. Workers should be seen, both men and women, as people outside of work. It would benefit men too, that instead of being expected to work long hours because they didn't have to donthe school run, or go to parents evenings or sports days or be home to collect children from nursery, it was expected that they could ask for those things without being penalised. Do they get accused of not being proper parents when they never see their child during the week and never turn up to any of their school stuff?

If you can’t keep a warm roof without giving your baby to strangers- don’t have a baby!! For goodness sake. We don’t all get to the age of 30 automatically become pregnant.
There are choices. Why are people so fucking entitled and selfish.

It is nothing like how my DS' nursery is at all. Staff turnover is low, ratios are excellent for the baby room especially and he certainly doesn't spend all day staring at the same walls.

There is 1 teenager who is there once a week because she's at College the rest of the week. No other teenagers in sight.

It isn't a new nursery either.

They aren't strangers, DS' old keyworker is now our babysitter and part of our family. He also has a wonderful bond with his current keyworker now that he's in the toddler room.

Of course some nurseries are poor, as are some childminders and some parents. But some nurseries are also excellent.

But that’s skewed because many houses on higher incomes will generally have had their children at home more under age 5.

The ratios are often very loosely applied. A friend removed their toddler from nursery when they found out that they were being creative with the truth. The administrator left so they borrowed a member of staff pretty much full time from the toddler room. Then when a nursery nurse left they dragged the woman who worked in the kitchen in to cover breaks and counted her in the ratios. That's before any staff rung in sick.

Good Nannies are worth their weight in gold.
All the Nannies I know of absolutely love children.
But obviously a Nanny is significantly more expensive- so tend to be obvious hired by high earners.