The depressing cost of childcare

[Juicylychee]

I’ve been reading about March of the Mummies yesterday, I didn’t know about it in advance to go. I have an almost 2 year old and pay £1k a month for three days of nursery. Really wanted another baby close together but we just cannot afford it. It’s maddening.

In some European countries, you pay a very very low sum for full time childcare. This means women can go back to work full time and it's the norm as all babies are entitled to the childcare. This also means the mums can progress in their careers, earn more and pay more tax.

I work 22 hours a week, I earn more than some but a lot less than I'd be earning if I'd gone back full time and was able to go for promotions etc.

It's all backwards.

@Tillsforthrills nobody thinks this is the fault of childcare providers and everyone knows that if anything childcare workers don’t earn enough and that’s why staff retention is so difficult.

The problem is with how the government interventions currently work and the lack of further subsidies which would make a big difference to the amount of women in the workplace.

The money for funded hours doesn’t cover the cost of an hour and leaves providers at a loss and I don’t understand why tax free childcare is capped, for us it isn’t even that close 20% off.

As I said up thread in Denmark the cost is subsidised at around £400 a month which though still a lot of money seems much more manageable for ordinary working people. In Canada they found that investing in early years childcare and keeping the costs very low meant that the government made more money as it allows more women to remain economically active should they want to.

I also think more affordable childcare will really help teaching and the NHS which have large proportions of female staff but are struggling to fill roles at the moment.

The eye watering costs of childcare in this country are a political choice and one that disproportionately impacts women.

If those on good salaries think it is extortionate what about us on minimum wage? A day of nursery is more than what I get a day.

@Eastie77Returns I hear this argument time and time again on mumsnet. When will be people get that it is IN THE COUNTRY'S BEST INTEREST TO KEEP WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE.
I work in the NHS and people are leaving in droves. Many, many women do not return after having a baby due to childcare. It's £60 a day where I am, a band 5 nurse takes home £82 a day. Add in petrol and parking, add in a coffee. That person is taking home nothing and missing out on time with their child.
We have a nursing shortage.
We have a teacher shortage.
We have a TA shortage.
We have a social work shortage.
We have a care home shortage.
So you can 'well you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them' all you like. But who's fault is it if granny can't be discharged from hospital or A&E has nine hour delays or the paramedics can't come out or your sons speech and language progression meeting is missed by constant staff shortages. Who's fault is it if you can't get an autism assessment or a CAHMs appointment or a GP appointment for contraceptive?
Subsidised childcare won't solve all the issues but it will solve a good few of them.

It's one reason why more and more people are not having children or only one.

The only issue is a lot of nurseries are only open 8-6 so if you do compressed hours 8-6 and you have half an hour commute you need someone else to drop off/ pick up from nursery. We’ve got help for that which is the only way we’re able to both compress our hours but a lot of people don’t have additional help.

I've got a 3 year gap for that reason, the free 30 hours will kick for my son in just after my baby is born in June. By the time I'm back from another maternity leave my son will be nearly at school, just a couple of painful months crossover. Grandparents don't live nearby anyway, but if never expect them to look after my children on a full time basis for free. I'm they would do 1 say a week or so though. They've already raised children. Older grandparents probably lack the energy and imagination to entertain a young child every day too. My son loves it at the childminders and has formed a lovely bond with his carers and the other children.

We had to time trying for a baby when my son was past 2 to make sure there was a big enough gap.

I used to live in Australia (and intend on returning) I just received an email with some details of their new federal budget and childcare and parental leave was top of the list.

Australia is by no means perfect but (like many other countries) it recognises that in order to get mothers back into work, childcare needs to be affordable!

There is this awful attitude in the U.K. that if you can't afford childcare then you just shouldn't have children, grand, we shall just all die out then as the country spends £125billion per year on bloody pensions.

@Lostintuesday I fully agree with what you have written with regards to the importance of women remaining in the workplace.

Yes, childcare should be subsidised. I have 2 DC and if I think about the amount I’ve spent it almost makes me weep.

However, the sad reality is childcare isn’t properly funded. So my question to you is: if you want to have children but realise your household income is so low you cannot afford to put them in childcare when you return to work does it make sense to
a) have the child anyway, knowing that you can’t afford it and find yourself forced out of the workforce

b) wait until you/your partner find a better paid job such that you can childcare and then return to the workforce?

I am simply advising people to think logically before making what is a huge financial commitment because children cost a lot. Maybe, if enough women do this, the government will be forced to take action once the birth rate drops even further. My partner is from a country where there are now many financial subsidies offered to women in order to encourage them to have children.

It might sound simplistic but look for a job that has a subsidised nursery. When DS was small, I worked in the Civil Service. They had an OFSTED standard nursery on-site that was 40% of the price of all the local nurseries. There was an 18 month waiting list so you had to put your name on the list as soon as you found out you were pregnant but it was so worth it. Maybe something to consider? It got even cheaper once the 30 free hours were applied.

The concept of 30 free hours is a massive con. It if just not a real thing for many families. I’ve seen some posts on here saying there’s already a lot of help because of the free hours… bollocks to that.

I have a 3 year old. My bill for November is still £1000. I will be celebrating next year when both of mine are at school.

@Babyroobs how are people expected to make it until 3 though? Plus as a nurse, you would lose a lot of your skills and training in that time. You wouldn't keep up your registration etc. Things change all the time and taking three years out can be detrimental in terms of progression.
I had huge childcare bills, and even on a band 3 salary, partner working in retail, we only got a small amount on UC, definitely not 80%. I don't think people want the whole lot for free but when you look at other countries with subsidised childcare, they do not have the same problems in recruitment and retention. My sister does exactly the same job as me in a European country and it is regarded as a profession rather than a nosey busybody or useless admin like it is here.

I’m sorry but when I read many of the posts on this thread I’m trying so hard not to be judgmental but all I keep thinking is do people know that having children is a choice? It’s not obligatory? If you and your partner both want to prioritise your careers over your children when why have them? Genuine honest question. I just don’t get it. I’m sorry but it’s madness in my opinion to have children and then spend most of your time trying to find someone else to look after them and paying through the nose for this to the point that what you’re earning is not even covering the cost of someone else looking after them. It is up there for me with people who keep having children when they can’t afford to feed them or buy a house big enough for them to live in. It’s the opposite end of the spectrum. You have more money than sense in my opinion and it’s not fair on tiny little ones to be pushed out from the safety of their family for most of their childhood so you can live your life the way it was before you had them.

That’s a very simplistic view. They aren’t going to put house prices down just because only one person is working.

You sound judgemental. It's not prioritising one or the other. Some people need to work as well. If you want to and can afford to stay at home with children all day that's fine. Some people can't or don't want to and it doesn't make them less of a parent. I don't judge either choice.

I’m sorry I know I sound judgmental. I genuinely honestly don’t get why people do it though. It’s a life choice having children and it changes your life completely. Do people realise this when they’re moaning they have to pay for someone else to look after the child they decided to have? That’s all I’m wondering. And if your career is so important to both parents that you’re spending less than half of your waking hours with your children and moaning about how much money it’s costing for someone else to look after them, I genuinely don’t understand why you give yourself the problem.

85% of nursery fees paid on Universal credit?

@Eastie77Returns Ah the mythical Mumsnet better paid job.
Ok so we all leave and get jobs doing whatever the fuck most of mumsnet does all day, working from home, commenting on threads every five minutes and then what? Who runs our most essential services?
Your logic is backwards. Make people unhappy by not allowing them to have children and then in twenty/ thirty years time the government will realise there's a social care, mental health crisis and they will then make changes to childcare?
Why not direct action now? Why not tell the government how unhappy we are now? My friend has just had a baby and is despairing that she probs won't be able to return to work. This is not progress! We have women who want to work, children who thrive in childcare settings rather than at home with a mum who feels skint and undervalued due to being a SAHP, a crumbling public sector and for what?
There's always an element of superiority in these threads, from those who claim that they made astute decisions in order to have children and definitely would not have procreated if this had not been the case. I call bullshit on that. People will always want children, it's a biological urge for the majority. If you were on minimum wage and in your mid to late thirties, are you really waiting to get this mythical 80k job before you have children? News flash: some of us will never have the skills, brains, connections, accent or polish to get those jobs.
It reeks of a new form of eugenics.

I feel the same when I hear people saying they don’t have enough money to feed their children or a big enough council house and I feel awful but I think why do you keep having children? I want to know why, when there is contraception, people are putting themselves in this position. Fair enough if your circumstances change once you’ve had children but that’s often not the case.

This is all well and good until an employer takes you aside at 8 months pregnant and says 'we assume you won't want to come back...' or refuses a flexible working request for a specious reason or just makes your working life impossible, because suddenly you're tired and messy and your boss in his fancy suit just doesn't like looking at you any more.

Which happens to women every single day in this country. There is a reason the charity is called Pregnant and Screwed, and even without the basic unforecastability of fertility and pregnancy, the mathematics of these decisions isn't as easy as you imply.

This is all well and good until an employer takes you aside at 8 months pregnant and says 'we assume you won't want to come back...' or refuses a flexible working request for a specious reason or just makes your working life impossible, because suddenly you're tired and messy and your boss in his fancy suit just doesn't like looking at you any more.

Which happens to women every single day in this country. There is a reason the charity is called Pregnant and Screwed, and even without the basic unforecastability of fertility and pregnancy, the mathematics of these decisions isn't as easy as you imply.

HappySalmon I’m afraid you sound very unpleasant so your efforts to be non judgemental didn’t really work…

’If you and your partner both want to prioritise your careers over your children when why have them?’

Many people can’t afford not to work. We probably could afford me stopping work but by us both working we are able to provide a lovely home in a nice area. The option of private school remains on the cards for secondary. My children can do the activities they want to. My children have benefited enormously from nursery so even if I was at home I’d want them to have that experience. I will have the security of a good pension when I retire and fulfilment from an intellectually stimulating job. There are absolutely times I wish I wasn’t doing the juggling but I’m sure my children will benefit in the longer-term.

we can afford nursery but most definitely notice it. I don’t think the high costs are good for society.

@Bunnycat101 I’m not trying to not be judgmental I’m owning my judgments and asking people who put themselves in this position to explain why. Thank you for your reply though it does help me to begin to understand.

There is that but you have to have the money to pay it up front first.