not to understand people with very young children who say they have no choice but to work?

[nesomja]

Whenever there's anything that touches on being a SAHM / WOHM on here, several people pop up saying how lucky people are to have a choice, that they have no choice but to work and basically to stop whinging about it. I can't work it out because I am pretty sure that next year when I will have two under-3s, it will cost us money for every day I work as childcare is so expensive. So are all the people who say they have no choice those with older children or only one child? Or are they very high earners or do they have access to low cost childcare? For me it feels the other way round, that I will not be able to choose to work - but yet it often seems to be presented as if SAHM are living a luxury lifestyle, propped up by their wealthy husbands. Why is it okay not to be able to afford not to work, but not okay not to be able to afford to go to work?

I can't afford to work and I can't afford not to ATM (am training to be a teacher in a few years)

So I chose to be a SAHM. basically either way we'd be poor ATM!

I'd love to be a SAHM :(
so maybe I'm just jealous.
But we need my income to make ends meet.
We don't have an amazing lifstyle but I want to be able to afford music lessons for my DC, a holiday and to have a car and a house with enough bedrooms and a garden.
If I stayed at home we'd manage but it would be without those luxuries.

agree Kew - I've never met any of the WOH/SAH angst in RL. So we must both live in the same parallel universe.

I haven't read the whole post, but would like to point out the Child Care Element of tax credits can help towards childcare.

However, as a mother of three, I have returned to work part-time (youngest is almost 2). I work because I like my job, I want to expand my career when children are older, I hope that my youngest will enjoy nursery too!!

I value the time that I have with my children ENORMOUSLY!

I think the point of your argument is that all your earnings would go on nursery fees and therefore you cannot understand why people claim to have no choice as they are loosing out by going to work.

But, not everyone who claims this will be the same as you.

The proportion of your salary that goes on nursery fees is probably different to mine because you may earn more/less than me and/or send your two to more/less expensive nurseries than my one.

The length of time and pattern spent in nursery also makes a difference.

We don't all have the same levels of debt/mortgages.

Most importantly, people may feel they have no choice for many reasons, money is just one of these.

For me, it's a combination of things. Yes, we can't really afford for me not to work. Not unless we sold up our nice house and started renting somewhere a lot cheaper. But, it's also because I need to work for selfish reasons. I get too much out of it to give it up completely. And I strongly believe that my dd gets a lot of positives from nursery as well. I wouldn't keep taking her if I didn't truly believe this.

I am always amazed at how both sides of this argument seem to get some sort of kick out of dragging the other down. Or perhaps it is just a defensive thing. I tend to take the view that if your child is happy and well looked after then who cares if you're a SAHM or a WM. There are pluses and minuses on both sides and you just have to find what suits your family best.

The OP was not criticising the choices people make. She was saying that not being able to afford to work seems to be less frequently talked about I think. Many families have two people who earn 50/50 these days. They are generally better off with two workers than a family where one person earns 80%, even after paying for childcare. A high % of mothers with pre-school children work P/T thereby reducing childcare. Many nurseries/CM are much less than the figures quoted too. We also knew we could not afford two lots of childcare at once, therefore spaced our children accordingly (a 3 year gap was plenty). I am sure that lots of people do that too. Put all those together and work can be financially beneficial.

DH and I were poor teenagers when we had DD1. We had nothing, no washing machine, no heating etc. We both worked for low wages until we both got good jobs. However, I hated leaving DD1 in nursery full time so after DD2 became a SAHM which worked out easier as it meant DH could pursue his dream job which had awful unpredictable shifts. It was then better for one to work and one do the childcare..

It's not that we were lucky or that DH earns loads but that we never took on a dual income mortgage, stay in a small house and share one car. We holiday in the UK almost every year. As we started so poor we only got better off.

I am the main breadwinner in my family. When dd was small, I could afford to pay childcare from my wage and still have a good amount left over. If I had stayed at home, however, we would not have been able to survive on DH's wage alone. Consequently, I had no choice but to work. What's difficult to understand about this?

When you have a child (and particularly when you have more than one) the childcare often costs nearly all of one income. If the small profit that you still make after paying childcare is NECESSARY to live on , ie to pay your mortgage or rent and food etc, then yes, you have no choice but to work. If having another child will tip the balance into not having enough money to live on, then you put off or decide not to have another child. Thats the reality. If I was feeling less mellow I'd say 'fuck off, you know nothing if you really think every couple can afford the Luxury of a non working parent'

yabu
I have it the other way round as I can't work due to caring for dd(sn)
people have to do what they have to do

actually to be fair to the OP when DS1 was little I was a SAHM. I'd never considered anything different, exH didn't have a huge wage but - a bit like Jellybeans - we started with nothing in the UK so anything more was a bonus)

I'd decided to not go to Unniversity after half way through my Gap Year I had a penny dropping(or more like dead weight dropping) moment when I realised that actually I didn't want to study my chosen subjects at all (despite having the place sat there waiting for me when I got back). Figured I'd have my family, work out what I did want to do in life and then do a degree later.

As a consequence I had no idea of the cost (or not) of working. It was only when things went arse over tit when DS2 was 2 that I needed to look for work - and realised that we couldn't afford the childcare, even with the Tax Credits. Working was going to make us even worse off, and that wasn't something we could afford at that time.

So basically for the first 5 1/2yrs of motherhood I was genuinely clueless about "being able to work" "not being able to afford to work".

I also think that the point has to be made that some women really enjoy their jobs and wish to pursue that avenue of their lives further.

I have found that my children are interested and enjoy my stories of work. A positive example I would say!

I should point out that I have been a SAHM and enjoyed it, but maybe never made the most of it!

Oh dear, poor OP.

I think she is just making the point that, for most people, paying for two under-3s to be in formal childcare (ie. outside of family), is going to cost more than they earn.

If the average salary in this country is £25,000 (ish?) then I can see where she's coming from.

I don't see her being judgemental about anyone's choices, but there's an awful lot of defensiveness on this thread.

Well, as someone pointed out to me when I was having one of my 'can't afford to work' rants, it wasn't that I couldn't afford to work, I just couldn't afford to work in the manner which I would prefer. I couldn't afford to continue with my career at the time, as it is a 9-5 job, like my DH's.

BUT, had we been in more dire financial straits, I could have worked the evening/weekend shift at Sainsbury's down the road to keep the bills paid until the DDs started school and I could get on with my career.

So, as I grudgingly had to concede, claims of not being able to afford to work are not always strictly true.

When we had our first child in the early 90s, we were both teachers.
Dh's take home pay was @ £750 per month
My take home pay was @ £750 per month
Our mortgage was @£800 per month ( not some luxury house, but a tiny flat and interest rates in double figures)
On top of that we had all our bills and food etc
Childminder cost @ £ 250 per month

OP- you do the math

Answer your question?

I think the thread title is a bit judgemental of working Mums

''not to understand people with very young children who say they have no choice but to work?''
Most Mums don't relish leaving their kids to go to work, the title implies that there is no reason that they should, and that she can't understand why they say they have no choice but to work.

what would you have preferred she said "I'm a bit thick about it"????

i had choice.chose to work.i love working it fulfils me in a way sahm couldnt.it was always part of the plan

do smile at the well work only if you had to caveat

also some people work for long term career maintenance and progress.taking short term financial hit for longer term gain

I think people are being a bit harsh on the OP. I think the AIBU question was worded badly...you should be able to understand others choices but I also think I know what you mean. My husband works a strict 8-6 trade job, no option to swap shifts, hours etc. We don't have access to any regular unpaid childcare in the form of family etc. At the moment I have a 22 month old and a 4 month old. Before my youngest was born I didn't have a career, rather a job that was not high earning and would fall about £300 a month short of full time child care for 2 children. At the moment my husbands wage covers what we need it to (no childcare) with not much left over. I'm not complaining about it at all, just explaining an example of a situation that people might be in. If I felt it was necessary for us to have a better quality of life I could obviously choose to work in the evenings while my husband looked after the children but I think I would rather see him every night than have the extra money if you see what I mean

WhereTF is OP?

Well said bangbangnosleep.

It would seem an awful lot of people cannot imagine themselves in to your position, whilst at the same time pouring scorn on the op not being able to put herself in to theirs.

When I left work in 2000 I was earning £24,000 pa. I could not have paid for two full-time nursery places or a Nanny out of that without making a loss.

Its NOT rocket science, is it?

What a lot of horrid posts!

When I had two preschoolers, it would have cost me money to work so I chose not to. I did how ever go back to work when DS2 went into reception, and working was once again a profitable option.

When Ds1 was born we lived in a small house, with a small mortgage (bought in 1995) and DH's below average wage was enough to keep us going. We certainly didn't live a luxurious life style (SIL who was a single mother on benefits had more disposable income than us). The people from baby groups who said they couldn't afford to stay at home were the ones who earned a reasonable wage, and had purchased a nice house and two cars, and took holidays, all of which required two reasonable incomes.

I felt very fortunate that I didn't have enough earning power to make going to work a sensible option (I had nightmares about leaving DS and going to work), and that I had married a man who earned just enough to support the 3 of us.

People who can't afford to live on one wage, must be earing a reasonable amount to be able to afford childcare, so I'm not feeling to sorry for them.

YABVU and lucky for you that you have the choice (or will the rest of us be propping you up in benefits?)

We do not qualify for any tax credits etc so I will be losing money for every day I work when I go back until DC get their subsidised nursery (at 3) or until they go to school BUT I will still be paying NI and accunmulating my works pension and will be able to maintain my job/position which will make it worthwhile in the longer term.

MaMo, I think she wanted to make the point that she couldn't afford to go to work as the childcare costs were prohibitive.
The thread title was a bit more inflammatory though.