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?

What is so hard to understand about the OP?

Some parents make a profit by going to work (and, yes, may well need the additional income to survive). That's fine.

But there are some parents out there who would actually make a loss if they go back to work. The tax credits system isn't perfect and, depending on the size of your partner's income/mortgage etc, it is possible to be in the situation where you would pay out more in childcare than you would earn in a week.

And judging by the responses on this thread, there are posters who find that hard to believe. So in that sense, YANBU.

The maths isn't hard

If you NEED the money left over after paying childcare, then you will both NEED to work. And by need, I mean you've already cut back, scrimped, live in small accommodation already so downsizing isn't an option .
Where a husband and wife earn the same or similar, its more likely that this will be the case, and this is fairly common nowadays- thank god- id hate to live in an age where husbands got all the decent highly paid jobs and wives worked for pin money.
As I said earlier, when we had children, dh and I each brought home the same net income, and we couldn't afford to only live on one of them. Fortunately I wouldn't have wanted to Give it all up and be home anyway- but the point is, we'd have both had to keep working anyway whether we wanted to or not

But violet, unlike you, the OP would make a loss if she went back to work. Her question, as I see it is - why don't people understand that it really isn't a choice for her to be a SAHM? Finances dictate her situation.

Her question is not about herself at all! It's a generalised question about why ANYONE with young children might claim that they can't afford not to work

If you've got several young children, no help with childcare then you would have to earn a fair amount to be able to go back to work at a profit (unless part time/ weekend work when the dad can do childcare). Not everyone was on a good wage, has family to babysit or would get tax credits etc.

OP is only making a loss if one assumes childcare is a cost for the woman alone. If you've moved on since the 1950s you see that both parents are equally esponsible for childcare - whether paying for it for part of the day or doing it yourself.

If you look at joint income, OP and her dh/dp are not making a loss. And by going back to work, OP would be maintaining or developing her career and contributing to a pension which would also benefit the family in the long term. Much harder to go back to a position paid the same as pre-children if you've stayed at home for a while (which is deeply unfair but unfortunately the truth).

Doesn't mean OP has to go back to work - that's a choice for her and her dh/dp that she is fully entitled to make, of course.

Clearly the OP can afford to live on just her dh's income- not necessarily a lavish lifestyle, but they can afford to live.
Clearly she doesn't have the earning capacity to make it worthwhile working and paying childcare.
I think we can all grasp those facts.
Why cant she grasp the fact that other peoples situations are not the same?

But do you accept that some people genuinely are in the position of being worse off if they go back to work?

I worked out when DS was little that I had to go back to a professional (high-paid) job or would end up paying out in childcare more than I would earn. We didn't get much in the way of tax credits etc because of what (ex) DH earned - which wasn't huge - just about enough to cover the mortgage and bills on a good month. In the end I did get a professional job which paid well but I do understand what the OP is saying - that there is a band of people in the middle who genuinely fall between the stools of the high-earners and those who get sufficient childcare subsidies. And I can see that it must be frustrating to be there and yet have your decision judged as a 'choice' by others.

Sorry, x-posts. I read the OP differently, I guess. I took it to mean that she did understand other people's situations but was just frustrated that other people didn't understand hers without judging, IYSWIM.

And actually I totally agree with you anyway Edam- the immediate financial income is one aspect of working. There are many others- stimulation, keeping skills up to date, keeping pension going, keeping yourself employable.... By the time we had 3 children we definitely didn't see any immediate financial benefit , but now they're teenagers and we're both senior managers with good incomes and pension pots we can certainly see the benefits of staying in the job Market.

Also, don't know who else read the guardian yesterday, but there s an interesting article about how husbands are more likely to be happier and contented when their wife works.

I understood it the same way as you ScroobiousPip.

me n the other half share 12k a year between us(+wtc etc..) and we have 2 dds under the age of two....yes we would be far better off money wise if i was working... but me being a sahm was a choice we both made before popping out sprogs....we all get clothed n fed get the bills paid on time and even afford to have a dog.....im not on income support and dont recive job seekers for staying home (had to point this out because most ppl just assume) my kids are not spoiled and never go without. i will go work once they are in school but until then im happy to be a sahm. my opinion is do as you wish and let others get on with there life style choices aswell. i dont get why so much friction between the workers and home makers

me n the other half share 12k a year between us(+wtc etc..) and we have 2 dds under the age of two....yes we would be far better off money wise if i was working... but me being a sahm was a choice we both made before popping out sprogs....we all get clothed n fed get the bills paid on time and even afford to have a dog.....im not on income support and dont recive job seekers for staying home (had to point this out because most ppl just assume) my kids are not spoiled and never go without. i will go work once they are in school but until then im happy to be a sahm. my opinion is do as you wish and let others get on with there life style choices aswell. i dont get why so much friction between the workers and home makers

my mother/MIL helped with the kids, i actually had to pay my MIL to have my twins and my mother picked up my oldest from school.

when we moved down south, my oldest son then looked after the twins for an hour until i got home.

my mother came down in teh 6 weeks holiday/ other school holidays.

if i have understood your question correctly OP in actual fact, both situatios are ok -as for some people work would actualy cost them money, and for others, they can't afford not to. depends on the exact sitation, lots of factors involved.

My job just about covers the childcare, but I love it, With the petrol to get there and other costs of going to work I would probably be better off ( just) by staying at home ....but I would go nuts!

YANBU, I can't afford to work, unless I can find a job that fits around school hours. I got offered a job this week and it would cost me money to do it. I can't afford to spend out money to work. People don't seemk to understand that it works b oth ways and there are people who can not afford to work. and no we do not live off benefits, dh works full time for what I consider to be a reasonable wage, it is however well below the national average (where does that even come ffrom), we manage just fine but on here people do seem to judge that.

I cant afford to work, My childcare and travel costs for two dc and loss in CTC means in would actually cost a £100 a week to work. I have no family to help with childcare. My only option which I plan to take is to work nights in our nightclub.

This means I wont get in till 4am but I will have to get up with dc as usual at 7 because DP will be in work by that time then when he comes home I will go out to work again. Even doing this my travel costs and the amount of CTC I lose mean I do all that for £20 a week.

I think what Many people find a bit irritating about the Op is that it completely ignores all those other aspects of working. It assumes that everyone who works is only doing so because of the immediate financial rewards. Ergo, if you cant afford childcare, you must be working some anti social shift to avoid it, or leaving your kids with a granny to avoid childcare costs.

The OP totally overlooks the huge factor that many of us enjoy our work, use childcare which we actually feel is enhancing our childrens lives ( I would have happily worked just to pay for the 3 days my kids had at a superb nursery!) and also that many of us don't wish to give up employment totally. Just seemed a very narrow view to me

The

I would also guess it depends on what your partner earns if he earns 12,000 then you will get help towards childcare if he earns more then you wont get the help. If your job is higher paid then it will cover the costs plus I would guess it depends on how mant children you have. For some it is more expensive to go to work but for other it is more expensive to be a SAHM.