Being a SAHM is not because partner earns loads, it is because childcare means it is unaffordable to work

[Yesitismeagain]

Why do people think SAHMs a lifestyle choice? Most people I know are SAHMs because they can't afford the childcare to make working worthwhile! With only 1 income coming in, the 'lifestyle' is one of watching every bloody penny.

Most of my well educated friends who had decent jobs - not top earners in the City, but earning over £30k each year. Had children, and then found they couldn't afford to go back to work as the childcare (+ commute and parking) would make no financial sense.

Their husbands salary means any tax credits on the wife's wages are minimal or zero.

I am fed up of being thought of as loaded as a family just because I don't work. I don't work because I can't afford to!!

Im with jack on this one. 30k is a lot of money so therefore its affordable and a lifestyle choice to stay at home.
My dp works 2 jobs a full time daytime job and an evening/weekend job he only earns 18k working over 60 hours a week...therefore meaning in order to pay rent i also have to work i work nights so we dont have to pay childcare. I work at night come home get a couple of hours sleep deal with child go back to work and do it all over again...result im exhausted we still dont have extra money to go out EVER ! Or have a holiday. And i also never see my other half because as he comes in the door i go out to work. This is not a lifestyle choice but its something we have to do to live. However if my dp was earning 30 k i would make a lifestyle choice to give up work in the morning as we would be able to even live comfortably on that and it is a lot more than we are bringing in now with 3 jobs between us !

Yesitismeagain Having three children is a lifestyle choice in itself.

Not sure what your AIBU question is, but your assertion is generalising as much as the next person's. There are many reasons why one parent doesn't work outside the home, not all the same as the one you are facing.

It could be either.

Personally I chose to go back to work. Financially the difference was minimal.

I do think a lot of people think "can't afford to go back to work" is the same as "not prepared to work for the amount I'll be taking home after childcare costs".

ts not semantics. its the lazy stereotype that childcare is the womans responsibility

I was a SAHM for a bit and I didn't consider it to be a lifestyle choice. Financially we broke even when I returned to work and I went back because pre-children I had enjoyed my job and thought it would be worth it as childcare costs wouldn't always be so eye-watering.

Then we went through a 12 month period where my eldest caught every bug going and I was always getting calls from nursery to collect him. The nursery wouldn't have him there if he had so much as a sniffle and yet we still had to pay them. It got to the point where we were no longer breaking even, we were using our annual leave entitlement and taking unpaid leave to look after a child who was off colour and he was always ill at the most inconvenient time. If we had family nearby who could have helped it would have been easier. The job that I had enjoyed so much before didn't have the same appeal, I couldn't do the travelling that I had once done and I couldn't apply for promotions. I eventually gave up work for a few years then worked voluntarily and did some freelance work. If I'm honest my heart is no longer in it and I want to retrain. 15 years ago I
would have been very surprised to see myself now as I always thought I was career orientated.

I don't have preschool children any longer but used a childminder for holiday care a couple of years ago and it was £7.00 per hour. If you have a low paid job in a shop or factory there is no way you would be able to afford that. So for people in that situation being a SAHM is not a lifestyle choice.

But you can easily see how, if you were on £17k for example, full time childcare costs would eat most of that. Then add the costs to travel to and from work and it could easily end up costing money to stay at work.

£30k is loads!! Really?

For years we had one salary coming in at just under £35k, and by the time mortgage, food, gas and electric were paid out there was precious little left. Especially with three children to feed and clothe. Looking back on it, I don't know how we managed. We had no nearby family support, and it was the only answer. All working mums I knew when my children were younger had parents living locally.

I am with the OP. I returned to work when my first baby was just three months old, but as soon as my second was born (who is now 16), the childcare bills more than wiped out my earning potential. We had a third baby a further 3 years after that, who is now nearly 13. I managed to start part time working again just over a year ago (it took years to find suitable employment after so long out of the jobs market).

I guess you could say that having babies is a lifestyle choice, but if we had waited until we could comfortably afford it then we would still be waiting now, 20 years on. I was going to do it anyway, I did and I am not sorry for that. We have got by, but in order to do it I had to spend years as a SAHM. Not a route I would have chosen really, but I would have regretted more not having the children.

Love it when all of these people begin posting on a thread like this saying how they had all childcare associated costs worked out down to the last penny before becoming pregnant. All I knew at that stage about childcare costs was that they would be expensive.

It's still a choice. You chose to have three children, it can't have come as a surprise to you that childcare X3 was going to be expensive.

You are not forced into being a SAHM because you couldn't afford to work, you chose to become a SAHM by having the number of children you did and by having them close enough together that you'd need to pay for more than one lot of child care at a time.

Your choices were perfectly reasonable choices to make assuming you don't need to to claim benefits to pay for them, but be honest and admit they are choices.

It always amazes me when people talk as if having children is just something that happened to them, like getting a spot on their chin.

Many families who can't afford childcare and don't have family to help end up working around each other to allow them both to work. We have done this for 15 years now since our ds1 was born. It's not exactly fun working nights after looking after 4 kids all day but that's what I have to do because we need the money. The vast majority working mum I know are doing similar- nights, evenings in a supermarket or bar, care work etc. It may not be the career they had pre- kids but it brings in the extra money they need. I do understand not everyone can do this or though or that the long hours that the main breadwinner works may mean it's impossible to do.

Your maths doesn't really add up, assuming you have 5 weeks holiday each and take 2 together then 3 separately each that's 8 weeks covered, so you need 5 weeks of full care and 39 weeks of school day care, comes to around £15k. Whereas assuming you have to pay the full whack at nursery for 51 weeks a year that comes to around £42k. So if that was the case and you were each earning £30k, I can see why you wouldn't feel able to work at pre-school age, childcare vouchers wouldn't make a big dent in that bill. But you could have probably had a nanny and paid a lot less in childcare. However come school age it ought to be a lot more manageable.

I don't assume SAHMs are rolling in it BTW, just that they have made the best decision for their families.

Boo-fucking-who. If you choose to have children then you can choose to either stay home with them or go back to work. Your choice. Finances, career paths, household layout, partners, pets, whatever are all part of the choice you make.

I personally don't give a shit what you do. But don't bitch to me about how shitty your life is when you have already made your choice about the circumstances in which you choose to live it.

Surely it just depends on your earning power? We only have one dc, and no longer have any childcare costs in any case, but even if we did have to cover the costs described by the OP, we'd still be better off with both of us in work. Hence for us, having a sahp would be a lifestyle choice - just one that we happen not to choose.

I recognise that some people don't have the choice to work, and that's difficult. Having said that, I also think it's a lifestyle choice to have three kids close together in age.

Your maths doesn't add up was a bit of a harsh thing to say, sorry, all I wanted to say was that by my reckoning your childcare bill once they're all at school should be about a third of what it was in the early years, I was also not factoring in the 15 hours free childcare, posted in haste. However I would still guess it about halves?

So in that sense the worst part is definitely temporary.

I think that lots of people assume that families with a SAHP are wealthy and lots of people assume that families with 2 parents working full time are also wealthy. Whereas the reality may be that both families are struggling and doing their best to get by. Having a family is expensive and it's not just a case of saving before hand. We saved but the savings didn't last long.

I too am constantly surprised at how many people think being a SAHM is related to being well off financially. Even for one child, a FT nursery place where I live is £1,200 per month. To clear that after tax you'd be earning £20k, and that doesn't include any travel etc costs. So many jobs- retail, hairdressing, reception etc don't pay that sort of money, so is it any wonder there are plenty of people who can't work at a loss?

Yes 30k is loads. If you choose to live in an expensive area or large house and choose to run a car (or 2!) then it does go faster but those are choices.
People spend money on things they see as essential but aren't. One thing I notice people spend a lot of money that is completely pointless is pets! Don't own a pet if you want to save money.

For many it is part lifestyle/part benefits trap. If your OH is on a lowish income then with tax credits and housing benefit you are no better off going out to work.

Having three children is a lifestyle choice in itself. not with multiples it isn't

I had no choice but to quit work; I couldn't afford the childcare/travel- ie I would have been in deficit- and I couldn't adapt my work to fit nursery hours or cover sickness- my employers were grim, as were my partner's. If you work outside the public sector you find an awful lot of employers wouldn't wipe their arses on a 'family friendly' policy

this bullshit trope about rich banker husbands and women swanning around gets right on my tits

Where I live, £30k wouldn't stretch very far.

Childcare costs are ludicrous though. They're keeping lots of women out of the job market. Which can only be a bad thing.

I really want another child but I have to wait at least another couple of years so that my eldest will be in school by the time my mat leave would end. Otherwise we couldn't afford childcare x 2 and I'd have to give up work.

So instead of having to 'choose' to give up a job I enjoy, instead I 'choose' not to have another child yet.

But neither are choices I particularly like. And that's the fault of the cost of childcare.

I think it's just easier and more flexible during the early yrs to have one parent around, which is what we have done, it's not forever and it's a situation that needs constant attention and management....
I'm often baffled by some of the lengths that people go to stay in employment, kids are like cattle ferried here, there and everywhere and the couple hardly ever see each other because of work schedules... Daft..

What muddhaofsuburbia said. Word for word.

Living in the South East with housing, commuting and parking costs as they are, £30k is bugger all for a family of 5.

Yes having 3 children close in age is a lifestyle choice. I do not believe having children is a lifestyle choice, having up to 2 children shouldn't be deemed a lifestyle choice, otherwise the human race would end.

But when people say that childcare costs are temporary, they are being short sighted. Childcare costs are not only for a couple of years before school age. The costs for childcare can be considerable even once they are at school.

Also, most people get 4 weeks holiday each and have to allocate considerable days to cover when their children are ill. Since January this year I have had 4 days with children at home. At this rate I would have needed to take at least 2 weeks of holiday to cover illness - that is if my work allowed it!

Really another sahm v wohm thread?! YAWN.