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!!

Yes its what are the pension contributions during that time paid by employer/employee ? That can make a difference. long term.

Every single family I know who have both parents working full time have grandparent help, in fact I don't know anyone who works and doesn't have family help with childcare we never had that option.

When my husband and I both worked FT we only had the odd day of grandparent help in the holidays. Otherwise we paid for nursery/childminder/holiday club/after-school club.

The cost of childcare was one reason we only had one child.

I also totally agree that childcare is a joint cost and should not just be seen as the mother's (or lower earner's cost). It's short-termist to only think "oh we'll be £100 a month worse off if I work." Think of pension contributions and other benefits that you may receive such as private healthcare.

"When my husband and I both worked FT we only had the odd day of grandparent help in the holidays. Otherwise we paid for nursery/childminder/holiday club/after-school club."

Same here - have occasionally called on grandparents for sick days (for which we're very grateful) but otherwise we pay for nursery and after-school/holiday club.

Sorry just seen your figures.

But it goes back to my previous point. You choose to commute into London. You choose to live in the South East. You choose to put 2 children in childcare (there may be cheaper options (nanny / nanny share / childminder).

The fall out is that you have limited choices for child care / being a SAHM but that is a result (in many ways) of the other choices you have made in life.

Not saying its wrong, just that it is a choice.

It's up to the couple - everyone is different. The ones I know who gave up working (which is a tiny handful) did so because their husbands were earning big salaries and could easily afford the big house/holidays abroad/wife at home etc. I honestly don't know anyone who gave up work to scrimp and save on one income - and those of us who didn't just bit the bullet and accepted a few years of debt or breaking even so that once the DCs were at school we still had careers that we were rising up through, whilst keeping our pension pots filled and our staff benefits in place.

If you are in a position to live on one wage - then yes, you've made a lifestyle choice, and you've been in a financial position to make that choice. Whilst childcare is expensive, there are alternatives for parents to split care/working hours.

£12k Gross a year for the first 5 years. Then significantly less, probably even break even for about another 8 years (until eldest can provide either side childcare).

But I still think that going back to work after such a long break will see your income shrink by easily that amount Vs the growth you would have seen had you stayed and had promotions etc. Not to mention pension loss.

"This is not unusual. "

It's extremely unusual! You're talking about a small minority of families in one little corner of the country.

Most people don't commute to London. Yes, really. Even in the south east. Have you even considered a job which is (gasp) not a commuter job?

But if we didn't have 'commuter' jobs we would need to take a big pay cut, so the figures would still not work out.

Also, commuting to work in the South East that isn't London often requires driving (rather than train), which means 2 cars if both are working (in different locations) and the cost of running 2 cars, paying for the fuel for the commute... there isn't a huge difference in cost of getting to and from work. But there is a difference in salary.

3 million people do commute into London though, so a hefty amount.

I agree the example given is unusual. I childmind for commuters to London and, in 14 years, none has ever needed 12 hours care 5 days a week.

How much do you think is a reasonable charge for a childcarer to charge for 2 children 12 hours a day, 5 days a week? It's hardly the childcarer's fault you want such long hours!

We live in the south east.

We have two cars.

We earn nothing like your figures.

We not only paid for childcare which the kids were little (we have two, three years apart), we've paid for secondary school fees. Out of income.

Either you live a far more extravagant lifestyle than I do or there's something wrong with your maths.

OP you said upthread that your 3 children are at school so why are you using nursery figures for 2 children in your calculations?!

I think the point of the post is that most people accept that in the nursery years Salary A + Salary B - Nursery Costs = Practically nothing (for most people it is a negative figure). That's irrespective of where you are in the country I think.

The costs once children are at school are much less - you're certainly not paying £1500 a month per child even if you have to do breakfast / after school club every day and holiday clubs. Most parents find some way to juggle it all and no, I don't have family living near by.

So its not a question really of working out what you're left with for those years you're stumping up for nursery fees. Its a question of looking at in for the long term. And then you make your choice. But as I keep saying, it is a choice.

How on earth do you manage to pay for 2 lots of private school fees from a salary that is much lower than £75k gross?? An average mortgage in the UK , for example, is around £100K - more, I would imagine in the SE. Add in 2 cars, 2 kids, utilities, food and so on, and there is no way a salary of far less than £75K gives you a spare £20K a year.

Not all working women who are embarking on children need to consider their career. Not every woman HAS a career. If your paid employment is the kind of work that has not much prospect of promotion, then staying in that job and working at a loss is MAD. unless she needs to be out of the house for her own sanity, in which case she will do the sums and figure out if that is worth what is costing her (or them, if a couple).

What I want to know is why so many people, like OP, seem to think: this is how it is for me/what I think, therefore this is how it is for everyone/how everyone thinks. It's mad.

The opening post here is ridiculous. Of course for some people childcare is too expensive so they have to be a SAHM. But equally obvious is that this isn't true for everyone. I can't begin to understand the mind set here.

And lets be clear, its still your choice to be a SAHM, because you CHOSE to have children, and 3 at that. You chose to have children you wouldn't be able to afford childcare for, so you CHOSE to be a SAHM. Don't try and justify your choices by pretending you didn't make any.

I agree with Nutella. I have a friend who worked in a clothes shop. She gave up work after her second child. She probably didn't earn much more than minimum wage. It would've been bonkers for her partner to subsidise the cost of childcare for her to carry on.

countessmarkyabitch - "Like".

The implication from almost every pp in this thread is that a couple's decision to both work or for one to stay at home should be based on finances. Roughly half of you are saying childcare is too expensive in the preschool years to make 2 workers worthwhile, the rest that in the long term two full time workers is the better financial option. Did nobody think of anything other than money when deciding how to bring up their children?

Everyone has a limiting factor and for most it is money. It seems a bit odd to say "I want my children to see me work so I'll do that, but I can't afford childcare" or "I want to stay at home but we won't be able
To pay the mortgage. Not to worry"

You do realise this is a thread about "childcare means it is unaffordable to work" i.e. it's a thread about finances. There are plenty of other threads on here about the other things involved in raising children though. Not sure what your point is?

We thought about more than money. Of course we did.

My primary thought is for my own mental health/happiness. If I am not happy I will be a shit mum. So I know I need to work in order to be happy.

Also, I am planning for when my kids are at school to adjust my working hours so I can be there for pick up and to be able to help with homework etc (although I am dreading the maths, i'm so bad).

Im sick of people bashing CMs I charge less than £4 per hour and wouldnt get any children if i charged more.

Please dont put all CM costs in the same bracket

All of my friends are back to work some(including me) on tiny wages.

Expensive childcare is temporary,it is an expense of having children( you will either have to pay childcare or fund a sahp), really no sympathy with people who don't think ahead.

Very,very few people are sahp for life.Being a sahp is a very valuable role,celebrate it instead of excusing it.

I'd say most people think about more than money, but its a pretty big deciding factor. Your principles about childcare for example have to be of secondary importance if you're unsure you can afford to pay the electricity bill.

For some SAHMs it is a life style choice

Yes and so it is for many wohm too