AIBU to say that some people just cannot work full time or even at all?

[thebeesknees123]

This does seem to be an age old discussion among parents, particularly among women with young children.

I can think of various reasons why people can't work:

Just had a baby and breastfeeding
Mental or physical health conditions
Caring responsibilities - e.g. elderly relative
The money does not cover childcare/commute expenses

Personally, I do work (30 hours per week) but I am lucky in that it is shifts around the school so I don't have childcare costs. I would never slate someone who couldn't find something suitable for their needs or pressure them to take something that is going to cause them undue stress because they are put in a position where they are forced to be unreliable, which, frankly, I would be if I were forced to work 9 to 5.

Some people can't and others don't want to. Either is fine. There's more to life than money, and as long as it's a choice rather than something beyond their control I don't see the issue.

Well, for one thing, in countries where it is typical to rent rather than buy, rents are far far lower. Rents are high in this country specifically because rentals are in high demand, because so many people buy. My foreign GPs always rented and saved a huge amount of money which paid for their retirement and old age care, with money left over. I don't think they would have been any better off here had they owned a home and then had to sell it to pay for care.

That doesn't make logical sense - the pool of housing is the same size regardless of how much is in the rented or purchased sector, if less people purchase houses the increased demand for rental properties will eat up and freed up housing supply.

Not everyone can work full time I truly believe that. It's not a one size fits all in life. And there are different versions of what equates to 'work' and 'full time.'

It might not make sense to you but my mum is from one of these countries (hence why my GP lived there) and it is definitely the case there and is in some of the neighbouring countries. Councils here will buy up excess stock and rent it out affordably. I knew someone who worked in housing in a London borough and they ended up buying a load of flats from a developer that, had they remained private, would have cost a lot more to rent. So, in countries where there are lots of affordable rentals, landlords can't charge the earth as they'd never get any tenants. They have to go with market value.

I couldn't work full time. The only people I know with a child like mine who work, don't have their child at home.
In theory very part time might be possible but it would have to be very flexible in the hours that suited ( since there is no childcare - no respite even - for my child) in practice there isn't anything.

I work 24 hours a week. I’m dropping to 16 soon as my fil has a terminal illness so my husband needs me to be around more

I could work more but I don’t want to because

1. We don’t need my money
2. I enjoy being able to be there for my children
3. I enjoy being able to clean my house and do chores in the week so weekends are free
4. I enjoy swimming and gym and seeing friends.

I don’t care if people think I should work full time. I don’t want to and I don’t need to.

What about your career development? What about having financial freedom. What about having a pension in your old age? What about sharing child responsibilities with your partner

Not everyone has a career. Not everyone earns more for working than staying at home. And I’ll get f* all pension anyway because I couldn’t afford to pay one so made zero contributions until it recently became compulsory. DH is the higher earner so we prioritise his job (men still earn more than women - the man is quite often the higher earner). He works long hours and keeping his job is more important than him “sharing” child responsibilities. You may live is a rosy world where people care about sex equality but in the real world couples have to do what provides the most money, and that is often having the woman SAH while the man works.

What about people who genuinely love their job? And those who do a job that benefits society as a whole?
A job you love more than your own kids? And you want to benefit society at the expense of your own family? Come off it. People work for money, or for advancement that will lead to money later on. Even people who love their jobs work for money. If there’s no money in it you won’t work, simple as. Nobody has a 50 hour a week hobby, which is what a job is if you aren’t making any money off it.

My youngest can't go to a regular private nursery due to a medical issue (he's 18 month) and I spend about 30 hours a week caring for an elderly relative. She's entitled to (but won't have) the full care package at home as she has dementia.

I save the government a bloody fortune.

My sister definitely looks down her nose at me but isn't arsed enough to offer to help with the above relatives care despite only working two days a week.

DH works so we aren't struggling financially, I do sometimes feel a bit isolated but looking after my gran is the right thing to do in my situation.

Upto have DSi worked full time, now I work part time. In the 6 years since having DS I have battled with ptsd and depression.

It’s caused me to reevaluate my career. On the face of it it should be well paid and intellectually stimulating with lots of opportunities.

Instead I now see myself as surrounded by a bunch of back stabbing sycophants, working all hours for a few crumbs from the table of the fat cat bosses. People work stupid hours for no extra pay because it’s expected. People are rewarded for being there. Most of the job is “playing the game”. I like the work but the shot that goes with it is pointless and mainly designed for the benefit of others

'A job you love more than your kids?'
Stop being so silly. They're not mutually exclusive.

SGB speaks for many.
DH's employer now offers part time for anyone over 53. He's 53 in April and going for it. There should be more part time jobs/job shares/four day weeks available. Not everyone is career driven/ work until you drop. In fact everyone I know has retired as soon as they possibly can.

I'm a sahm of 30 years, YANBU.
There are times I could have worked but it wasn't sustainable.
I'm looking now, but it's different as it is possible now they aren't dependant any longer. Two are grown ups now.
I think if it's by choice it's easier than if forced upon you by circumstances.
Sometimes, even though working is possible it can be better for your family that you don't.

The argument that its not worth working as all income would go into childcare comes up all the time. These posters are usually the ones who post when their kids are at secondary school and moan that all they can get is minimum wage jobs.

The main advantage of working when the kids are still young is to give oneself the chance to get up the ladder. I am in the clan of those who return to ft work when both my kids were little and paid a fortune in childcare. It was hard, I missed them and of course I would have preferred not to work or at least PT.

20 years on though and I'm the one others envy. The mortgage is paid, money in saving accounts and I can now consider reducing my hours whilst still enjoying a good lifestyle whilst also planning to retire by 55. All this because of the sacrices I made as my income almost double during that time.

If you don't want to work because there is no financial benefit at the time, that's fine but you can't then expect to start working after years out and expect the same salary than those who didn't stop. It's a choice indeed.

Surely at the end of 3 years, Mum A is in a better position for higher earnings than Mum B who if she comes back into the job market would potentially come in at the same or lower place she left it. Mum A may have been promoted or received a pay rise already.

That’s only true if Mum A is in a career where she can expect promotions and pay rises. If she just has a “job” rather than a career then she won’t be any better off after 3 years.

Let’s say both mums stack shelves at Asda. For 3 years Mum A stacks shelves while Mum B is a SAHM. Then Mum B re-enters the workforce as a shelf stacker alongside Mum A. How has working benefited Mum A? Assuming she spent her wages on childcare and didn’t make a profit, she’s no better off for having worked and might as well have been a SAHM.

Swing

I've never heard one person, or seen on here sahp returning to work and complaining about min wage jobs.
It's what I'm doing now, just looking pt after raising the kids, having been there for all of their childhood as they are more important to me than a career.
You can have both, but unfortunately to do both well, something has to give.
It wasn't going to be my kids and I don't/ didn't want a career post dc.
In fact was already a HR tax payer and gave career up, entirely.

A job you love more than your kids? Stop being so silly. They're not mutually exclusive

Of course they are. You can’t be in two places at once! You’re either at work or at home with your kids. You’re not going to work for zero profit if it deprives you of time with your kids.

people when on their deathbeds don’t say
‘I wish I spent more time at work’

A job you love more than your kids? Stop being so silly. They're not mutually exclusive

I find most working parents put their jobs first, they have to by definition.

Mum, I don't want to go to school anymore, will you H.ed please?
Erm, no love I'm off to work, sorry.

It might not make sense to you but my mum is from one of these countries (hence why my GP lived there) and it is definitely the case there and is in some of the neighbouring countries.

You can't say that it's a cause and effect thing though. It could simply be there is a greater supply of housing there OR housing is more subsidised or any number of other factors unrelated to ownership rates.

I'm in Sweden and here you can be partially signed off work. I'm permanently signed off 50%, which means I should be able to work 50%. Great in theory, but my condition fluctuates. So I could do 100% one week and 0% another. It could change in the middle of the day or it could be stable for weeks. Overall it's 50% but who's going to employ someone on those terms, never knowing if I'll be in today or not?

The main advantage of working when the kids are still young is to give oneself the chance to get up the ladder

And as I’ve said before, there isn’t always a ladder to climb. If you’re a cleaner, a shelf stacker, a sales assistant, a dinner lady, a window cleaner, a TA, or even a teacher at the top of the pay scale, there isn’t always a higher position to aim for. Sometimes a job is just a job. If you have a ladder to climb you’re very privileged.

Could you imagine a working parent being free to do exactly what their child needs at that time, whilst being at work.

Or telling your boss you won't be in tomorrow because your child is educated off site from school and they have an interview they have to attend at the other side of the country.
Because they got so good doing at a particular sport, dancing, music, etc, because they had a parent able to travel the country with them, rather than having just the local provision, that doesn't cut national level.
I suppose things like this are possible if you can afford to pay someone as a chaperone, or have active gp's who could help.

I love my job... Always have, does that mean I love my kids less than a sahp loves theirs?
What nonsense... Honestly working is good for lots of reasons, money yes but what about self esteem, expanding your mind and education, personal development, the tax it produces which funds are social services for those that can't work and need help.
If you can afford it and want to be a sahp that's great but do not say that those who want something different love their children less... I love mine fiercely but frankly found small children and housework boring as feck...

You love your job but you still want to be paid for doing it! And if it pays £0 then you won’t do it.

CosmicComet many jobs (even retail) do have advancement opportunities based on years of work. Not sure why you are ignoring that for your argument. At a minimum wage level benefits factor in as an alternative to working so that’s not my focus in this discussion.

I personally know professional women who decided not to go back to work for the childcare cost issue - funny the husbands salary never gets factored into that calculation - and now their children are school aged, they’ve missed out on years of potential advancement.

There was a study done I think in the US that showed taking those few years off for motherhood effects women’s lifetime income significantly for the worse.

Of course children need care and society needs to better accommodate working parents. But just stepping out and becoming dependent on a partner can and often does have detrimental impacts on a woman’s financial security.