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?

altinkum how do you find the lack of sleep are you snappy?

I'm a single parent. I'm also (probably) a high earner. If I don't go to work no-one will pay the bills. What alternative would you suggest, disappeared OP?

If I went to work we would have less money as a family, it really doesn't matter whether the dad and mum share child care costs, surely in most relationships all the money goes into one pot and then expenses get taken from that. I can't work evenings when DP comes home as he is a self employed plumber and he often has to work late.

Also if I were to get myself a job, I would be hard pushed to find a nursery with the space to take both DCs.

But I don't care, I like not working!!

TBH I don't know why people are being so snappy at the (invisible) OP, it isn't really judgemental it's just a question of how people afford for both parents to work, when childcare costs in this country are so high.

It all boils down to individual circumstances and what is right for you - and not only on a financial level. Personally, I think it is really unfair to judge someone where they have had no choice in the matter - whether that lack of choice means someone has to work, or means that they simply cannot afford to. Childcare is expensive. Some people don't earn much. I would hate to be in the situation where I was forced to stay at home because it would cost the family money if I worked. I'm a part time WOHM and I guess I would say I can't afford not to work in my current circumstances - I'm a high earner and we have a big mortgage...but also if I took any more than a year out I would have serious difficulties re-entering my job market. There are also the non-financial aspects - part of the reason I work is that I need to do so to stay sane - that's just me.

The thing that really annoys me about the whole SAHM/WOHM debate is that, where I live, if you are a woman and you work there is an assumption that you must be "poor" - this idea of stay at home wife and mother as status symbol is so destructive for women, IMO.

HowAnnoying - I think the reason that some people are being a bit 'snappy' is mild irritation that someone can be thinking about an issue enough to write a fairly lengthy OP, yet fails to see the bigger picture outside their own little box.

As a WOHM, I can totally understand that if a woman (or man) doesn't have a decent job, if, for example, they don't have a career, but work for low wages, then once children come along, it may be financially impossible to pay for good quality childcare out of the joint financial pot. I can see that. I get it.

So why can't the OP understand the simple facts that some couples each earn a decent amount, and CAN cover childcare? Or they can't quite cover it but need the stimulation and career progression of remaining in work? Or earn lower wages but do shifts to fit around each other?

That's the only reason people are a bit irritated. The OP seems to have thought enough about it post on MN, but can't think further than the end of her nose, and then disappears anyway when people respond!

well since the first response told the OP to fuck off I don't blame them for not coming back.

The OP does also ask how people afford it, are they high earners, low childcare costs, seems to me they are only asking how people do it. Maybe a bit naive, but not worthy of some of the very rude replies.

IMO!

The problem could be solved if we had affordable childcare. Currently we have very, very expensive childcare and childcare workers who are very badly paid - worst of all worlds. People who look after children deserve respect and a decent wage. I'd say at least average wages, not the ruddy minimum.

I gather this government is planning to shut down the Sure Start nurseries that are affordable. If that is the case, it's et another example of their family-bashing - despite all the weasel words about the importance of families.

The charges made by private nurseries while paying poverty wages are a classic case where we need a careful examination of the market by the OFT. Maybe the owners are making only a reasonable profit after overheads, but I'd like someone to check. At a ratio of one carer for three babies, at ds's nursery each worker was pulling in £36k a year yet I discovered they were paid £11k.

If you earn average wages - £25k - and have two children it does become unaffordable. I was paying £1k a month for ds when he was a baby. . If I'd had two children, and was on average wage, it would have eaten up all my gross earnings, let alone net. (Even if I had been lucky enough to get a sibling discount and had one child old enough to get the state funding for 3 hours a day, it would have eaten up net wages.)

So if the charges made by private nurseries are in fact reasonable after overheads and reasonable profits, then we need state subsidy.

We chose to space our children for that very reason, (DS12, DS5 and DD16months) that we couldn't afford for one of us not to work, and if we had two under two's it would mean that we couldn't have afforded for one of us to work either. We would have loved to have our children very close together but as a family it was not affordable either way. I hope that answers your question OP that different strokes for different folks.

You probably wanted to have your children close together which is understandable, but that comes with sacrifices. You will find yourself falling into one of the two categories you mentioned, and tbh I have never come across people in RL who go on and on about WOHM or SAHM as much as on MN, who really GAF tbh whether you work or not. You do what works for your family. Childcare for one child is affordable(ish) but throw another one in the mix and it is clearly very very expensive. I think you probably had a choice of having your children so close together which is why childcare becomes expensive because you have two very young children.

I've never considered the cost as part of the argument whether to work or not. I always knew I wanted to spend as much time as possible with my children. We don't have much money but we have plenty of time together and that's what's always been most important to me.

My reaction is the same as HowAnnoyings. I assumed the OP was wondering how/why others experience the opposite to her own situation e.g. how their salary would not be eaten up by childcare so that working seemed less of a viable option,

Edam has outlined the dilemma brilliantly. I earn a good wage but about 60% goes on childcare for my ds. This is not a nanny, btw, just a bog-standard local nursery at a bog-standard local rate. If I had, say, accidentally had a small age gap between ds and another dc (say, 18 months) there would have been a period of time where I couldn't really afford to go to work and pay nursery fees for two children. Meanwhile, the nurseries appear to be cleaning up while the women and men working in them are paid just above minimum wage.

I agree with violethill - it does seem a little naive not to be able to understand why it is perfectly affordable for many people to work and pay for childcare. Yes £25k or whatever is the average wage, so by definition, many people earn more than that, and some by quite a lot. Not that difficult to understand. Likewise nor it is difficult to understand why, for other people, it is not affordable.

I work and ds goes to nursery 3 days a week which costs £700 pm. after paying childcare (both me and dh using childcare vouchers) and i pay the remaining balance from my wages. i then have approx £400 per month to pay my credit card, car ins petrol etc and use the rest for my spends/savings etc

If i didn't work we wouldn't starve and the bills would get paid from dhs wages (as the majority do now!) but he'd also have to pay for my petrol, credit card, savings for xmas and also provide my spending money for the month. this would mean that he wouldn't be able to save any money so we wouldn't have a nice holiday every year or money for extras, or any savings at all really!

so yes, i have to work to have a decent standard of living and not have to have dh pay for absolutely everything.

You always have a choice. Many of us work because it's better for children and society and helps other women that we do too. It's the best and moral choice.

Rubbish Xenia. In a situation where child care costs will always exceed wages, and the cost of childcare cannont be absorbed by the 2nd parent, working is no longer a choice.

YOu can choose to work at a loss. We did - the first nanny's wage was more than one of our salaries which were both about the same then. It was worth the sacrifice because there were 40 more years of work ahead of us. Some people can get no work and then they have no choice.

I actually meant my post the other way round - that in the UK if you choose not to work tax payers like I am pay for you to stay at home and not work. Thus if we think three under 3s do better with one to one parental attention then perhaps it is morally wrong for mother and father not to giev up work and live on benefits in order to give children that attention (if you're into that parent, contact stuff). If you think children benefit much more with two working parents you'd take a different view.

"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?"

OP does appear to have a good idea of what other people's circumstances might be. I am not sure exactly what she is asking, but she seems to want to make the point that some people can't afford to cover the loss of earnings that paying for childcare would entail.

Its not exactly news, but I'm not sure she deserves this level of scorn.

If you understand something that another person doesn't, why not explain the facts in a straightforward manner rather than criticising them for the gaps in their knowledge?

Xenia - you sound a bit worthy though I'm sure society appreciates your choice 'best and moral' as it is - BOAK!

I have to work because I am the higher earner. So my situation is like a father choosing not to work. If I didn't work our income would drop by 2/3. It's not a problem for us cos I'd hate to be at home all day - all the kids are at school now, although holidays are becoming a complete nightmare as my in=laws get older!

well in that case look at summerclubs you can afford it

But Xenia, some people will only ever be able to find jobs which are...jobs; not the begining of a career.

For example, lets take a mother who is not academic, or creative, etc. She may be limited to working on a supermarket check out. Nothing wrong with that, but lets face it, she's never going to be promoted, and working while her 4DC are pre-schoolers is going to be financially pointless. If she doesn't work, she won't recieve any benefits, because her DH is working 6 days a week, earning suficiently to provide for the family. This woman can't afford to work.

Don't get me started on teh summer clubs around here.

None of them take DC until they have had their 5th birthdy. Noth very useful if you have a DC who has finished recption, but isn't 5 untill the end of August. I could go on, but that is a whole different topic!

[waves at Xenia]

Thought this thread might attract your attention. :)

When my first DD was born (now 12) and my partner left us, there was no such thing as WTC or help towards CC costs. My first job paid just £13k per year and for about 18 months I worked at a loss. I did this because, a) I didn?t want to be on benefits, b) I knew that if I worked hard I could increase my earnings over time and c) I wanted to set a good example for my daughter.

12 years on, I no longer live in an overdraft, I have career and a reasonably high income. With my 2nd DD I have a choice; I can return to my job or stay at home and run the company my DH and I set up, using the skills I gained through working.

Working DOES pay and whats more its easier than ever to get help towards childcare costs, flexible working hours, more favourable employment rights etc etc...