To think being a SAHP is a privilege if you can't afford it get a job?

[Unpopularopinion101]

We've had the bi-monthly call from Dp's cousin along the lines of 'ive got myself into a bit of trouble with the payday loan people again, could you lend us a few quid until the first'

For which we usually oblige and help him out, however I've recently had issues with my job and had to lower my hours so things are tighter for us and I've said it's not possible this time. However, his wife doesn't work. They've got a school aged DS and I can't understand why if they are struggling so much she doesn't get a job??

When speaking to him and apologising we couldn't help, I asked him if she'd considered working if things are tight and he said 'no she doesn't want to work while DS is so young' their son is 6 so hardly a baby - a lot of mums (myself included) have to go back at 6 mo as they can't afford not too, it's the sad fact of life these days for many of us.

I know childcares crippling but when your sons at school most of the day even a MW job could help?

I know it's not really my business but when we are constantly bailing them out with money I feel it is, and I feel like it's pure entitlement to think otherwise.

AIBU to think being a SAHP is a privilege if you can afford it and if not you should contribute to the household and stop getting into debt by getting a bloody job?

Name changed because I will probably get flamed!

I can never understand the logic of taking child care costs out the mothers wage. I worked, but my husband and I never looked at it like that, it never even occurred to us. It was always this is our joint income, this is the costs

I can never understand how people can't see that the cost is the same either way. If you subtract it from her income or subtract it from joint income, its the exact same sum and the method is neither here nor there.

You do contradict yourself a lot OP.

Maybe the DH could get a second job? Or work harder for promotion? You've chosen to judge her, not him. Is she not working so she can support his career? What's the bigger picture here?

Why don't you contact her and say 'sorry we can't help financially but can I do anything practically? Like help you get a CV together?' In your view you believe to have the answers so why not help her, or at least offer? Or support her in some way if returning to work is a no go for her?

It's a daunting prospect returning to work after a career break. You question your worth, what you are able to contribute and your confidence can take a battering.

I have friends who both work, have career jobs, but struggle - really struggle. They got into debt at there was very little maternity provision, career paths were difficult and meant that they had to work their way up. They are still paying for it, financially and emotionally, despite both being relatively successful. Their children are in childcare 7 - 7.

Neither way is much of a choice. I find it very sad that women judge other women in this way and find it so hard to empathise.

It's so annoying that offices and other institutions are so inflexible really. Trying to find a part time job that doesn't pay peanuts is virtually impossible!
Well paid PT jobs are a privilege too as clearly it would be most people first choice. Unfortunately, the better paid job, the more responsibilities and the more responsibilities, the more the requirement to be there all operating hours.

A few people have managed to have well paid PT jobs, but in all cases, it was after they'd worked FT, made themselves indispensable and so, PT was granted because it was better to keep them happy then to risk losing them.

Not contributing financially means your contribution has no value, isn't that right?

From the generation told 'you can have it all' I can tell you, it's a lie. And while we continue to live in a patriarchal society it will remain so. We should be better than banding around this judgy shit.

I can never understand the logic of taking child care costs out the mothers wage. I worked, but my husband and I never looked at it like that, it never even occurred to us. It was always this is our joint income, this is the costs

X3 kids - childcare £20K per year

I earth £16K - at that time 15 years ago

Tell me how you can't work it out?

I think it could also go the other way though, if you wanted to work and you could afford to spend more on childcare than you make then you should be supported in keeping in the workplace. Obviously as I've said several times it's different if your kids are young/ a different situation but with one school age child, there's not really an excuse. She's choosing not to work, as she's said he's too young at 6yo to work.

I can never understand the logic of taking child care costs out the mothers wage

To be honest, I can't see the logic of the "half each" if (obviously the IF is important here), you consider yourself to be a family unit. There is income coming in from two potential sources, each of which is taxed independently. This is the net family income. There is a family childcare cost of both parents are working. If one of those sources of income, is, after tax, lower than the cost of childcare, then it's a perfectly rational economic decision to decide the family is better off to forgo one income stream in favour of having one parent at home. Increased earning potential over time should be factored in, but that's hard to judge, especially in today's world. Today's secure, highly paid job may not be in five years. It may not exist at all in a decade.

It costs £800 a month to have my kids in full time school wrap around childcare after tax. Thats for 2 kids. It's about £1000 a month or more during school holidays. Then there is the £400 a month I need to pay just to get to work. I could only go back to work and make it worth my while if my jobs paid at least £3000 to break even and pocket the change a bit. I did go back to work but that's because I'm in an extremely well regarded profession where there are jobs and the pay is excellent (and where you need experience and high qualifications to match). I appreciate probably about 90% of the female mums don't have this privilege and earning potential. So in that respect, I think you are being unreasonable. I'm in Oxfordshire if that makes a difference.

make it worth my while if my jobs paid at least £30,000 per annum to break even if meant to say.

"You can work 16 hours without it effecting benefits"

That hasn't been the case for a long time. Whatever hours you work are taken off your unemployment benefit so when you factor in any travel costs, clothes, etc. someone who works just a few hours is usually worse off.
I think that's changed with universal credit though to make work pay.

I can never understand the logic of taking child care costs out the mothers wage. I worked, but my husband and I never looked at it like that, it never even occurred to us. It was always this is our joint income, this is the costs

It's just economic rationality (if money is tight) to compare the childcare costs two earners would need with the wage that will be lost.

Doing otherwise is a privilege of being better off.

"Our young PA who was on minimum wage made it clear to everyone that she couldn't wait to be married and have kids so that she would never had to work again. She didn't like working, had no ambition and felt the money was rubbish for what she did. "

Minimum wage is really rubbish for a PA. I've 'only' been a secretary, never a PA and have always earned more than minimum wage. I'm not surprised she has no ambition in that situation.

*Our young PA who was on minimum wage made it clear to everyone that she couldn't wait to be married and have kids so that she would never had to work again. She didn't like working, had no ambition and felt the money was rubbish for what she did"

so? If she can make that work for her then fair play to her. It's as good a plan as any other.

I worked for quite a few years without it making any immediate difference to our overal family income...nursery fees wiped out the equivalent of my salary.

The reasons were:
-Keeping my place on the ladder in the workforce
-Keeping my skills updated
-Keeping pension contributions going (hugely important this one, as I now realise as I've turned 50)
-Ensuring a good work life balance for dh and me (ie neither of us by default being pigeonholed into 'provider' and 'carer' )
-Career progression - no way would I have had the promotions I've had if id stopped working, so my salary is now far higher than it would otherwise have been
-Providing an extra angle of stimulation and social interaction while my kids were small (and yes I know we can all get this from a range of sources whether we work or not, but I mean an additional angle to hobbies, outside interests

I'm not suggesting this is the 'right' thing for everyone- just responding to the posters who are genuinely questioning why many people continue to work even for no immediate financial gain

Everyone's circumstances are different. Some people are low earning so would have to take a big financial hit to work, not just break even
Some people have jobs rather than careers so feel they can't benefit from progression
Some people dislike their jobs and wouldn't want to have to earn regardless of whether they can afford childcare
Some people have a choice and choose to stay at home

The only judgement I'd make is that it's far better to be making the decision from a
Standpoint of having an interesting and at least reasonably well paid work life because then it's a positive choice. I would hate for my dd (or ds for that matter) to be like the PA who 'didn't like working, had no ambition and just wanted to marry and have kids as a reason not to work

I see why you are pissed OP - they are judging your life choices as inferior but are happy to take your money. I would put a stop to that too.

I do get irritated though with posters who say 'I don't know what you do all day' about sahp of school age kids. You really can't imagine how a grown arse woman might fill her day without having an employer tell her what to do for 8 hours of it? You have a very low opinion of other women if you are serious. I suspect you are not serious though and was just having a pop at women who sah because you don't see the value in it.

If they were both supporting themselves by working and fell on hard times then fair enough. But they are expecting to be bailed out by you, when one of them chooses not to work...and that is the key-their choice! not yours. YANBU.
The only way they will learn is by living within their current means, or the SAHM getting off her arse and getting herself a job.

babbityrrabbit you are spot on as to why it's important to take a financial hit in your dc's early years. I've kept my career ticking over with my 4 and 2 year old and earn over £20k for 3 days a week and as a household we are happy with this and I get best of both worlds.

I would never in a million years not earn my own money or pay my NI stamp/pension. You never know what the future will hold.

Why is that so often this is portrayed as though the cost of childcare comes out the mum wages e.g. After I've paid £10 for childcare I only have £1 left from £11 wages. It should be after WE have paid £10 childcare I only have £6 left....
I hear this all time inc from friends who are in well paid jobs and so do have more left over.
Childcare pre school and After school expensive where is am. Holiday care is a killer for sure. But it's responsibility of both parents to pay it.

Why is that so often this is portrayed as though the cost of childcare comes out the mum wages

There hve just been about six specific answers to exactly that question.

Aren't you RingTT?

Taking the financial hit in the short term is fine if you still have enough money coming in to survive, but for some families the cost of one parent woh is more than they can afford to lose.

Just stop lending money and stop thinking about how other people live their lives, I mean really who cares. You are happy in your situation. Pay day loans are the work of the devil and I feel sorry for them being in the position, must be awful. Hope they seek proper advice and get out of the situation.

Oh and Babbitty spot on. My mum asked why I wasn't giving up work after DC2 u til they started school as I'd be spending as much on childcare as earning. After I said as above we were both paying for childcare not all ''my wages' I also asked her what she thought I'd be able to get as job after 5 years out workplace less in pension etc etc.
What I think our society has got totally wrong is part time or flexible working/reduced/compressed hours . If this was more available to BOTH parents it would help all parents be able to work and do the bringing up babies balance partic in early years. Then the work we do at home would be so much more valued, our role as parents bringing Up our children equally be more natural.

I find for dads they are turned down for suggesting way more than women and women get the "sticky floor" where they stay in jobs where they have reduced hours because there aren't any p/t flex jibs to move to where they may have career progression or more earning etc.

She didn't like working, had no ambition and felt the money was rubbish for what she did

Does she think raising kids is a doddle? 24/7 no pay no holidays no sick pay/days

I hope you put her straight

I take your point op BUT until I became a single parent and was then made redundant I didn't realise how difficult it was to get a job, especially part-time.

I applied for Tesco and Morrisons and even though they wanted shifts evenings and weekends I thought I could try to work around it but got rejected before interview (age and over qualified I suspect, not sure.) I have applied for catering and bar jobs where there is a high turnover of staff. Again got nowhere. I don't see any admin jobs in my area at all.

If I was younger like the mother in your op I would be looking at training eg TA qualification so I could work school hours.

My dc are in two different schools with different start times. One finishes at 2.35, the other at 2.40. It's a short day. What job am I going to get between 9-2? I have never seen a single job advertised with those hours.

When I was working full-time I used a nanny and a childminder but it was unsustainable. Then I was made redundant anyway . Sometimes it beats me how anyone gets to work if they have a young family. I am single now but even with a partner it was hard as he was not flexible about looking after the dc for me to work although he liked the money.

"My mum asked why I wasn't giving up work after DC2 u til they started school as I'd be spending as much on childcare as earning. After I said as above we were both paying for childcare not all ''my wages'"

In that case one partner is paying the other to work outside the home. Doesn't seem very logical to me, unless you're in a career job with progression. Why would your dp's wage go towards childcare fees for a low earner to earn less than the couple pay in childcare in a job the low earner doesn't like?