Childcare costs and wages

[showmethegin]

Am I the only one that gets frustrated when a woman my wage would be cancelled out if I worked and paid for childcare and people say 'but childcare is a shared cost and should be shared'?

In the vast majority of cases in a partnership money is pooled and if money is cancelled out it doesn't benefit the pot in general?

I'm 100% with you. I'm in a semi dead end job and knowing that most (if not all of my money) is going to childcare is depressing.

It may not benefit the pot in the early years, but continuing to work and advancing your career benefits the pot in the long term and should the worst happen and your relationship ends it puts you in a better position.

I understand and the argument that it is a shared cost doesn’t work when it comes to affordability- but why is it ALWAYS the woman’s wage and job which is seen as the optional one?

No, my frustration lies in seeing that YET AGAIN it’s the woman in the partnership who has the lower wage so that they’re the one that feels that their wage is the one = to childcare costs. That frustration isn’t with the individual woman posting, it’s at where we still are, as a society.

Its 2 separate issues so it's a pointless argument. One issue is how finances are split and the other is whether its work working just to pay the childcare (I.e. for no financial benefit).
Working isnt just about money though, it's about independence and security and future proofing your career.

i'm with @Thneedville

It's not a simple as saying I earn 2k a month & cc is 1800k therefore me working is pointless.

The point is "if you have a career" or career prospects for that matter. If you don't then... In our case we have spoken that whoever has the lower wage stays at home.

No, my frustration lies in seeing that YET AGAIN it’s the woman in the partnership who has the lower wage so that they’re the one that feels that their wage is the one = to childcare costs. That frustration isn’t with the individual woman posting, it’s at where we still are, as a society.

100% this.

It seems to always be the woman who earns less and so it’s always the woman who has to give up their job.

It’s really frustrating.

It is frustrating, but no more so than people who don't understand that splitting it 50/50 makes no difference to costs, and that lots of households have no option but to make decisions based on the short term affordability of the lower earner working.

I totally understand what you're saying, it is depressing that women seem to be the default choice for childcare. It's just people on MN that seem to find it difficult to grasp the basics of joint finances.

DP and I will hopefully have children soon (we've had three miscarriages) but I earn more than him so won't be the one to give up work, DP will be going part time

It's the one size fits all attitude many have thst gets me. In some cases it may well be worth paying to work if there is likely to be career progression that will dissappear completely if they have a few years off. In other cases there is no career progression potential to begin with or a few years will not make a lot of difference.

@Thneedville

I understand and the argument that it is a shared cost doesn’t work when it comes to affordability- but why is it ALWAYS the woman’s wage and job which is seen as the optional one?

The comparison is normally made against the woman's wage because this is the lower (often because they are going back to work on a part time basis). You don't see this argument where the woman is the higher earner. Also, on a high proportion of these threads, the woman is keen to become a SAHM and is seeking to justify this.

My main frustration with these threads is that they so often seem to be posted after baby has arrived and is a few months old. If you're planning a baby (or even when you find out you're pregnant) sort these things out in advance!!!

@showmethegin

I totally understand what you're saying, it is depressing that women seem to be the default choice for childcare. It's just people on MN that seem to find it difficult to grasp the basics of joint finances.

DP and I will hopefully have children soon (we've had three miscarriages) but I earn more than him so won't be the one to give up work, DP will be going part time

So in that case you aren't doing anything fundamentally different to most of the couples where the woman gives up work/drops her hours: you're choosing for the higher earner to stay full time and the lower earner to reduce their income, because that's what is in the best interests of the family unit.

Isn’t this a short term v long term question really?

A woman who leaves the workplaces to raise children exposes herself to the risk of (a) struggling to get back in again when the kids leave nursery; and (b) having no income if things go wrong in the relationship and either she wants to leave or they split. Both of these things come up a lot on Mumsnet.

So even if the family only breakeven if the woman stops working compared to if she didn’t, she is protecting herself (because let’s be realistic, there is a 50/50 chance that the relationship will end, and MN shows how often relationships get worse after children) and doing more to ensure a higher family income in the longer term.

I don’t say any of this in a judgmental way, people who chose to not work to care for young children aren’t doing anything wrong, but I think it’s way too simplistic to think that the only relevant question is monthly income when the children are at nursery. I personally would never voluntarily leave myself without an independent income to rely on if I need to.

Yes this annoys me too.

I see both sides. It isnt the womans cost. Childcare is a shared expense.i believe that strongly. But realisitically it cost our household £9 a day for me to work as childcare was £9 more than i brought in. As a family unit we had to agree that being £2000 a year worse off was a good plan. (Two children, SE england) not every household can afford £9 a day loss.

I had to focus on long term things like pension contributions, career progression, and basically its easier to get a job from a job. But again, being realistic not every job has career progression. Lots of jobs are jobs, not careers. And pensions contributions can be tiny in low paid jobs and not 2k a year! Not worth getting into £9 debt a day for. It can all just boil down to having a reference for your next job.

At one point we were 'paying' for me to work. It cost £10 a month for me to work.

And I am always great full that I stuck it out. Because of that part time min wage job I managed to get a much better full time job in the same company.
Yes. Costs are still massive with three children 6 and under. But it's not forever.

I am sick to the back teeth of women making stupid decisions and the dumping the blame on others when shit hits the fan. The information and education is there to prove what we should be doing.

But oh no. They would never ever separate from their one true love. And if they ever did he is so wonderful he would never see her without.

Im totally with you OP. Not everyone can afford to be at a net loss from the woman working. If the after tax&student loan wages of the lowest earner are less than the cost of childcare then you are better off not working.

I’m on maternity leave atm with my third DC and nursery costs around us are so ridiculously high, it’s 1800 a month just for the little one, nevermind after school club, holiday club and breakfast club costs for the other two. I would just about make money if I went back to work but I really don’t know if it’s worth it as I would actually quite like to be at home and not deal with the mad rush of getting kids off to 3 different sites every morning and after work... DH has a very inflexible job so I end up doing all the school runs and he earns above 100k so we don’t even get the “tax free chidlcare”.

For arguments sake what about couples where the lower earners wage wouldn't be enough to live on anyway? There are plenty of essential low paid jobs out there and inevitably people who are going to be vulnerable.

Pooling the childcare cost is because it keeps both jobs / careers going, to increase the future earning capacity and financial security of the family

it is a family investment

I also get annoyed at people missing the point about the amount in the family pot vs childcare costs when they bang on about 50/50.

Every couple has their own circumstances to consider. I’ve chosen to be a SAHM to facilitate DH’s great career. I did enjoy my job but I wasn’t career orientated at all. I also can’t relate to all this ‘independence’ talk as I’m in a loving, healthy relationship with DH and I’ve never felt like my independence was ever even remotely threatened.

Obviously if the family cannot afford that investment in the short term - can't pay all the bills - that is different,
but high childcare costs are normally only for a few years

Im totally with you OP. Not everyone can afford to be at a net loss from the woman working. If the after tax&student loan wages of the lowest earner are less than the cost of childcare then you are better off not working.

you mean you are better off financially in the short term, not working? There are other benefits from working (as per a couple of posters on this thread).

Many couples have the largest amount of disposable income before they have children. I'm surprised how few (or perhaps there are lots of them, they just don't post on MN with childcare dilemmas because they've worked it out in advance) of them choose the pre-children time (or even just the time when pregnant) to save some of this disposable income so that it can offset the hard financial times when the DC are pre-schoolers. But then it's clear from the number of "if you waited until you could afford it you'd never have a baby, you'll find a way somehow" posts that lots of people don't really financially plan.

50% of relationships ending

plus the chance of the sole breadwinner dying, becoming unable to work due to illness / accident, becoming abusive or losing their job and being unable to find one at the same pay

makes giving up work and relying solely on a partner a hefty gamble

It works for some, but for others means a life of poverty later on

I don’t think it’s that people on MN don’t grasp joint finances. When posters point out that’s it’s a shared cost I think they’re generally trying to address the mindset of There’s no point me continuing to work as I’ll only be covering childcare costs that a lot of women have. And yes it’s always women. It can be a very shortsighted way of thinking and framing it as woman’s income pays for childcare plays into the societal view that childcare is the woman’s responsibility.

I totally get that if someone works in a low paid job with no real prospect of progression or wage increase then it can make perfect sense to SAHM for a few years and aim to pick up something else down the line. I’m WC and that was very much the norm where I grew up but those women weren’t well educated and didn’t have careers

It’s quite different to step out of a career that has opportunities to progress and earn more. Yes, childcare might be equal to most or all of what she earns at that particular point but a) that’s only for a few years after which that money is freed up, b) It doesn’t take account of pension contributions and c) the woman is often overlooking the impact on her future earning potential as it can be very difficult to get back into the workplace even just at the level you left.