"Can't afford to go back to work"

[sphinxa]

Genuine question ...

I often see people saying they couldn't afford to go back to work because of the cost of childcare when they only have 1 child.

The minimum wage is over £7 and the average cost of a nursery is £5/hr. There's tax free child care or vouchers to reduce that cost.

So what do people mean when they say "my wage wouldn't cover childcare costs"?!

When I went back after my 2nd child, I had two under two and after childcare costs I think I came out with about £50 a month. We decided it was still worth going back to work for the benefits of maintaining my own career, pension contributions, autonomy... and eventually when the kids get their free hours we'll be laughing (hopefully).

If people want to stay at home that's great but do people use "can't afford" instead of "want to be a SAHM"?

It's a short sighted approach. Keeping skills current, maintaining a good work history, being able to find opportunities for better work, pension contributions as well as financial independence should all be factors in making the decision about going back to work.

The real question is why isnt it seen as a shared cost?

This doesn't make sense. Since the SAHP is not working and on parental leave at the point that this decision is made, any family set up who see childcare as shared costs will come to the same conclusion as those who have 'your/my' money - household pot if they continue with the status quo, versus household pot if the SAHP goes back to work.

But it’s not the single parents who get the universal credit who can’t afford it. It is the squeezed middle.

If your DH brings home £2000 a month and you bring home £1900 a month. And your costs including all bill are £1750 a month (without frills) and then childcare was going to cost ) £1800 a month then I would look at that and see a budget too tight to justify. It leave no room for accidents, illness, car failure, the rising price of food or savings.

We don’t qualify for universal credit ( nor should we). So I went back part time and my mum helps out to reduce the nursery bill to £400.

If we had two then I would struggle to afford to work at all without the funded hours. Mum couldn’t do both. She struggles with one. I definitely couldn’t afford full time with two. Many of my friends are in this position. Two under two is a nightmare of nursery costs.

And do you know what. It is their choice. Their money and their life. Butt out.

Your post has mad me quite angry and I'm a childminder so my livelihood relies on people going back to work! You sound very judgmental. A lot of people would see staying at home with their child the better option if they are only taking home £12.50 a week.

There is always work , if you can't do the job you did then you work at night when your dh is home or at the weekends .. too many people I know are just damn lazy !

hendricksy

There is always work

This kind of deluded bullshit is usually spouted by idiots that haven't been unemployed for years.

Yeah, When My older 2 were preschool, I broke even but only if I didn't factor in work clothes, petrol, and all the other costs.
I was lucky. I have a dh that has always been supportive and earns enough for me to choose.
But many don't have a choice.

You pay tax on your earnings too.

I went back to work after each child, in order to keep my skills/knowledge current, for pension contributions and basically to keep my job available to me. For 2 years we just about broke even, with 2 dc in childcare.

You need to play the long game on this. Over the years, your salary is only likely to rise and your childcare bill is only likely to fall.

Based on your example OP, would you work for £2 an hour????

I am obviously putting it very, very simply but that was your example wasn't it?

How is it lazy to spend all day looking after your own kids and yet not lazy to be paid to look after somebody else's?

It's a short sighted approach. Keeping skills current, maintaining a good work history, being able to find opportunities for better work, pension contributions as well as financial independence should all be factors in making the decision about going back to work.

In some jobs yes, not so much in a minimum wage unskilled or low skilled job.

if you can't do the job you did then you work at night when your dh is home or at the weekends .. too many people I know are just damn lazy !

Are you suggesting that a parent who is responsible for their DC all day also works nights?

Would you want your childminder, or nursery staff, to be caring for your child after they have worked a night shift?

We all make different choices.

We chose that having a parent at home was more important to us that me maintaining pension contributions and my career. I have zero regrets.

My sister in law carried on working even though childcare cost more than her salary and she has zero regrets either.

Do what’s right for you and don’t judge others for their choices.

This only works if you have a partner to support you financially whilst you cover nursery costs.

Well, yes. Children have two parents, each equally responsible for the cost of child rearing.

Nursery where I am costs £95 a day That works out at £24975 a year. Once travel was added in I didn’t earn enough to break even when my first was younger. Not everyone lives in places where childcare is £5ph

My comment about the shared cost was more about, for example, a thread on mn this morning. Woman stays home for reasons on this thread. Man then berates any spending as being 'his money' wasted. She uses her savings to make up for her lack of contribution.
You read that all the time on here. It is 'her' wages lost when actually it was a joint household budget decision. If childcare costs were split across both wages, her job would be more economically viable.

I couldn't afford to go back to work because I had unexpected twins, together with a school aged child (who I did go back to work after). We would have been paying £500+ per month for me to work including after school care for oldest and travel.

I don't understand why you'd have DC in the first place if you'd rather put them in the care of strangers and work for nil income.

It depends on what your circumsatnces and long term goals are.

Some will look at the sums like CantSleep shows and will decide that B is a SAHP until childcare vouchers or school makes a difference. They will then re-work the sums and look at part and full time jobs before keeping their fingers crossed they can find something that fits.

Others will see the benefits of working, even if there is a nett loss to the family pot. They are more likely to have a career path over an above 'a job'. They still have the same maths tro contend with but will see working for an effective £2/hr as a ways to a means.

Neither way is right or wrong, they are just examples of the possibilities parents have to work through! I

It's not just childcare costs, it's commuting costs and any other associated work costs.

OP you seem to be speaking as a person who has got a career rather than just a job so it is usually better to carry on a work and use childcare even if you get quite little at the moment.

Many people though just have a job and it would make no difference in the long run whether they left that job or not, pension contributions in these jobs are often very low anyway, (government minimum), so would make little difference

*hendricksy. There is always work

This kind of deluded bullshit is usually spouted by idiots that haven't been unemployed for years.*

What a stupid comment. I am living proof that if you want to work, you will find work. I have been made redundant 3x in the past 15 years. I spend some of that time at home while DC where little ... I have always found a job when I needed / wanted one. Mine ranged from a few hours cleaning to full time highly skilled work.

£50 a month will seem worthwhile to some people, it absolutely wouldn't for others. Myself included.

Thankfully I have free family childcare, but even the "security" of a pension / other benefits wouldn't make it worth my while.

Using an "average" family (2 kids, both parents work FT) The free hours is also a bit of a red herring. Wrap around care is still expensive. You have to cover 12 + weeks holiday a year (paid holiday clubs / taking your annual leave), then there are all the extras like assemblies, sports days, plays, parent participation events you'll be surprised how many there are

The free hours are fab, they do really help a lot of people but they don't solve childcare issues and costs completley.

It’s all relative and personal circumstances I opted to stay home after my first As I worked out that I would have had just over 500 left from my wage.🤷‍♀️ Wasn’t enough for me at the time to bust my guts and have someone else mind my DD so I stayed home. Each to their own, their is no wrong or right. Every circumstance is different

If you work in a job that is considered casual work then you have no definite wage that you will receive whereas you do have to pay for the full day of childcare whether your child is there or not.

Many parents who go back to work do not take on full time hours so do not earn a full minimum wage over the course of the year.

For instance a daycare day is 12 hours yet your shift is only 4 hours... so where do you get the shortfall of the 8 hours from?

What a stupid comment. I am living proof that if you want to work, you will find work. I have been made redundant 3x in the past 15 years. I spend some of that time at home while DC where little ... I have always found a job when I needed / wanted one. Mine ranged from a few hours cleaning to full time highly skilled work.

What a stupid comment. Because your situation and area you live is not everyone else's.