"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"?

I have a career that the tax payer pays for. The tax payer paid my tuition fees and my bursary while studying. I worked hard in my career to become a specialist and to offer a service to my community.

If I stopped practicing for 2-3 years I'd be deskilled. I don't want to be deskilled.

There's already a massive shortage of my profession and hideous waiting lists. I want to continue "doing my bit".

I love my children just as much as a SAHP loves their children. It's not a competition.

I’m a SAHP. My wage after paying childcare would have left me with £100 a month. £80 would have to go on travel. So I’d be away from my child for 40hr a week for £5 a week. So I can’t afford to work right now. My DH’s wave covered everything else. It’s hard but we manage. And before anyone says anything we get child benefit (as does everyone who earns less than £50k each) and that’s all. No other ‘government help.’
The amount of people I know IRL and on here who think I get loads of benefits not working is unreal.

Don't mind anyone staying at home - as long as they are paying for the pleasure themselves and not relying on any government benefits

Wage not wave*

You talk about the 'average' cost of childcare. Many people live in an area where childcare costs far in excess of this. In London, there are nurseries that charge £130+ a day. It's not hard to understand how this makes working unnafordable for many, especially if you have two or more children

Do you think people only need childcare from the time they clock on till they clock off? And if you have two children in childcare?

You’ve also got to consider travel expenses to and from work so if you’re left with say £100 after childcare you might be in negative figures once you’ve accounted for travelling costs.

I am fully behind women not working for nothing. Not causing themselves the hassle and stress involved with being a working parent for a few pounds a month if they’re lucky. Why should anyone do that?

Once kids are at school I think more effort should be made but realistically with before and after school clubs costing a fortune you could still end up in the same boat.

I’m a working parent btw so I’m not trying to defend myself here. I was at home with mine till they were 3/4ish.

I worked shifts out of the usual 9-5 which doubles the cost of childcare, and DH was away during the week so not able to do it either, at not much more than minimum wage I would have been several hundred pounds a month worse off by working.

I did look at other jobs but this was 2009 and there wasn't a lot out there in our rural area - most were also early mornings or evenings so no better than the job I had previously. Obviously the further away you have to travel the more hours of childcare and transport you are paying for, so that limited things too.

The job I'd been training to do while I was pregnant more or less disappeared due to government cuts while I was on maternity leave as well!

I've since gone back to work and we have more kids, I still make a loss for every day I work in the holidays but it's worth it overall.

It really pisses me off when people say it's not true that some women can't afford to go back to work - it's 100% a real situation and pretending it doesn't happen doesn't help anyone stuck in it.

Before DS was born, I was in an unreliable zero hour contract - supply school work, so I'd often find out I was working an hour before I started.

Can't find childcare around that, or fund it on the offchance of work and in the area I currently live in, my classroom experience counts for nothing for getting a permanent role, as I have no qualifications in teaching assistant work (other parts of the country, I wouldn't need them, just a roll of the dice thing)

I'd rather spend my days with my own DC than classrooms full of others', and my DP earns enough to facilitate that - and is happy with the arrangement.

You don’t get the free hours if you don’t work at all. You have to work 16+ hours a week to qualify for the 30 hours at 3 years old.

So, if you have a partner who earns well and you are a SAHM then you don’t get the 30 hours.

The hours at 2 are for low income households and are means tested. They are aimed at getting low income workers back into the work force and getting those children into early years education as they are the group that enter reception with generally the lowest starting point.

So tax payers do pay to get women back into the work force. But if you are a middle earner. With a middle earning DH you could easily find yourself without enough to cover childcare and work full time because you only just don’t qualify for any of the support.

There’s many different reasons it’s finacially doesn’t make sense.

If on a lower minimum wages style job (and so is the partner) then if A works and B works and nursery costs the same amount as Bs wages then they might as well stay at home especially as they will then be entitled to tax credits or what ever the latest version is

Even if both on high wages then there is probably commuting costs, longer day in nursery for the child, cost of good clothes, cost of professional membership fees, cost of lunches out to maintain client contacts etc

You mention two more good reasons to go back OP, deskilling and having to pay back maternity pay. Again, these are not relevant to everyone. The majority of working women in the UK get either SMP or MA, where paying back isn't an issue. This isn't necessarily a low earner thing either, I'm also a professional who'd be deskilled after a long break and I've never seen a penny above legal minimum maternity pay.

Basically, lots of people have jobs with much worse terms and conditions than yours and where there aren't half so many reasons to get back to them.

I can't understand why anyone would want to put their children in to childcare by choice so they can make an extra $50 a month, so many special moments lost that you will never ever get back ....... but I am not stupid enough to think that it is my place to judge them and put up a public post knowing that others will post their rude and ignorant opinions on them.

In our house it is always 'our money' and one parent working for $50 a month while our children are raised by strangers makes no financial sense to 'our money' situation.

*I do think some nurseries are out of touch with reality and what people can afford to pay.

the workers there are usually paid the minimum wage, I am always astonished that people are happy to spend £10-£15 an hour for a cleaner but resent paying anything to look after their baby! Of all the things that matter, surely that should be your most important spend. (I know not everyone has a cleaner, but nurseries are an expense you shouldn't resent)*

I don't know anyone that can afford a cleaner, let alone one costing £10 to £15 an hour. I earn less than £9 a hour, as does half the country. So nurseries will need to make savings somewhere and less profit if they want to keep customers, especially when we say goodbye to the benefit system as we know it.

When I had twins in London, the nursery bill for 5 days a week would have been £42k per year (£100 per day each) and that is paid for out of net post tax income. So would have to earn around £60k per year gross just to pay childcare costs. Most of my twin mum friends gave up work as just not possible for those kinds of numbers. I ploughed on and worked for a loss for a year or two but glad I did

I think for many, MANY people it really isn't worth it.

Travel expenses? Not insignificant for lots of people.

The women who go back to full time work at the end of maternity leave are either in above NMW jobs (usually graduate type jobs) or have family (free) childcare at least part time.

In 20 years I’ve never come across a full time NMW working mother paying for full time childcare from mat leave.

Working comes with additional costs, travel, lunches etc. I can make a meal much cheaper at home than a lunch to take into work. Besides which, your child is likely to be at nursery for at least around an hour either side of your work hours, so that's additional cost where you're not earning anything, which could add up very quickly if you're on the 'living wage'.

I am going back to work full-time after my maternity leave as it just about works out financially and I want to keep at it so I'm not struggling to get back on the ladder once DS is older. But I earn an ok wage well over the minimum and yet still after paying the high nursery fees in our area for a full-time place (8-5.30 to allow me to get to work and back, even though I only work 9-5 and that's going to be cutting it fine in the evening) I'm left with about half my wage, which isn't a massive amount. I'm lucky that DH is the higher earner of the two of us so we can afford to do it as my wage will just about cover our mortgage after nursery fees, so is worthwhile, but if I were on my own I don't know how I would manage.

Ha at my old job we earned over nmw but given we were expected to start 45 mins early and work unpaid overtime daily. So I'd already be paying for extra hours. Flexi working was also mandatory, as was travelling and staying overnight for training.

Part time was frowned upon and any failure to work extra hours was commented on in appraisals and you were eventually managed out.

I'd love to know how I would have practically managed the logistics, never mind the financials.

"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."

Depends on the kind of job you do. Taking a few years out wouldn't affect 'keeping skills current' in a lot of jobs and being left with 50 pounds once you've paid for childcare is hardly 'financial independence' anyway.
The argument on MN is always based on women with career jobs. The 'pension contributions' argument has always been made even though workplace pension contributions have only become compulsory in the last few years.

I was thinking of the MN demographic and the amount of "can't afford" posts.

Many many posts on here are about high income partners, well educated women, career questions, people buying houses in Winchester, having space in a London home for an au pair... the general demographic sounds very middle class.

Absolutely if you're a single parents or on UC it's impossible. And with multiple births... these aren't the situations I was talking about.

I would've loved to have stayed at home but I also would've hated for my career to have been wasted. I don't get paid a lot but my job is very important to the people who access the service. I love my children AND I love my career.

Don't mind anyone staying at home - as long as they are paying for the pleasure themselves and not relying on any government benefits

Stupid attitude which would mean only the rich can have children. If you want to force everyone back to work you'd need to move to a system like most other European countries have where they heavily subsidise childcare.

"I have a career that the tax payer pays for. The tax payer paid my tuition fees and my bursary while studying. I worked hard in my career to become a specialist and to offer a service to my community.

If I stopped practicing for 2-3 years I'd be deskilled. I don't want to be deskilled."

You have a great career. Great for you!
What about women with ordinary jobs? Why would it be worth their while to work for 50 or a 100 pounds a month?

I love how people have a problem with mums on benefits but not with using the nhs, public roads, free education...

There are plenty of people on MN who are low earners. Sure, there are lots of posts from people who are or claim to be really well off. There are also posts from those struggling to manage on benefits or poorly paid jobs.

Also the reality is that for many people, childcare for two pre-schoolers plus associated working costs such as commute would wipe out even a pretty decent salary. Au pairs are often a cheaper childcare option than nursery, particularly the way some people (mis)use them.

as long as they are paying for the pleasure themselves and not relying on any government benefits

Newsflash.

More benefits are paid to people in work than out of work.
Police officers: benefit claimants
Nurses: benefit claimants
Child care providers: benefit claimants
Care home workers: benefit claimants

Have a think about that..