To say childcare costs are not a 'choice'

[Sabrina124]

I was speaking to a friend of mine, and we were discussing children and the costs of children today. I said the main concern for me is the costs of childcare as it would wipe out half our joint income one way or another. He said that childcare is a 'choice' and it is better for children to be looked after by their parents. His children were looked after by grandma and his wife worked evening jobs to look after theirs.

Ugh. Even if one of us gave up work, it would still obviously wipe out half the income. Which was my point. We don't have grandparents who could help. And my career is not something I can do in the evenings (nor is my husband's). So I don't think there would be much of a 'choice' in childcare costs? My point is the childcare would wipe out half our income whether one of us gave up work or they were in a nursery.

Sorry, just needed to vent as I find it so frustrating. The cost of childcare is the main thing stopping us from having a child and it's quite upsetting tbh.

Everything is a choice. With my first child I chose childcare. With my second I gave up work and claimed working tax credit. We have less money now but I spend more time with them.

This is stupid. I know so many women who really didn't feel ready to go back to work after mat leave, and wanted to stay home with their babies/toddlers, but couldn't afford to.

Everyone's situation is different and not everyone is able to have a parent stay home, even if they want to. And as for those who suggest wider family for childcare? That's lovely for them but not everyone has this luxury. I would love to be able to call on mine or DH's family for help but they live on another continent so it's simply not possible. Again, every situation is different.

He said that childcare is a 'choice' and it is better for children to be looked after by their parents. His children were looked after by grandma and his wife worked evening jobs to look after theirs. **
What he means is he thinks women should take on this responsibility

surely the income drop due to childcare is not a choice? Either one salary drops due to staying at home, or half the joint income is wiped due to childcare costs.

This is true. Depends which would cost you more - is it more beneficial for both to work and pay for childcare, or would you actually save money by not paying for that childcare and just staying home, even if income drops? Depends.

To clarify - I am not talking about having children or not being a choice, of course that's a choice. I'm saying when they are here, surely the income drop due to childcare is not a choice? Either one salary drops due to staying at home, or half the joint income is wiped due to childcare costs.

It depends.

For some people, one salary doesn’t pay basic bills or an average mortgage (average as in average U.K. house prices). They have no choice but to BOTH work and pay an amount every month for childcare.

Some people sacrifice the big house, new cars, holidays, latest clothes/gadgets so that one person doesn’t have to work and choose not to pay for childcare.

Other people want 2 salaries and lots of disposable income for the above and choose to pay for childcare in order to keep the money rolling in from both parents for all of life’s luxuries.

You can’t generalise.

I also think your ‘friend’ is talking from a position of privilege.
If they can live comfortably on one wage it’s an easy choice to make.

Childcare costs are a choice to the extent that having a child is a choice.

But once you have a child, you have to work to keep a roof over your head and feed them, so of course you need childcare and the costs are not a choice.

I think poeple being a bit hard on the Dad perhaps theway he and his family have divided the childcare was their choice. Choosing traditional roles is not a bad thing if it is a choice. If he was a higher earner, if the morther was happy to go part time. And perhaps he looks afterthe children when mum works eveings a lot o judgement because he is the may bread winner. But ofcourse choice does depend on circumstance and some poeple have more choices then others.

People/Nurseries who do the actual childcare need an income to make a living.

Therefore if you can’t afford childcare don’t have children and don’t blame the costs of childcare.

Argh I hate people like this. I have been made to feel so bad that our family don’t want to help out with childcare as most people that do have grandparents or sisters etc that help out can’t understand putting your child in nursery full time. I’ve had comments such as I feel so bad your kids are in nursery in one room all day or can’t believe your parents wouldn’t want to help, my mum absolutely loves looking after the kids and get sad when she doesn’t see them every week.

I'm guessing people that say things like this have never moved away from home to go to study and/or work, and live close to their parents and see them all the time. Lots of people go to university and end up staying and working in that city, or do jobs that can't be done in every town in the country, so don't have parents nearby to do everything for them (not that I think grandparents should have to give up work/their retirement to provide full-time childcare anyway).

I only slept at home 3 nights a week when I was tiny. I was practically raised by my grandparents whilst my mother worked. Fine by me, I don't remember it and I had this amazing relationship with my grandparents, whilst my mother had a short temper.

I am not talking about having children or not being a choice, of course that's a choice. I'm saying when they are here, surely the income drop due to childcare is not a choice? Either one salary drops due to staying at home, or half the joint income is wiped due to childcare costs. But that is the choice, either you pay for childcare or a parent cares for them. The drop in income isn't a choice but paying for childcare is.

People do get round it in different ways, a friend of mine was pregnant at the same time as one of her other friends, they agreed the other woman would go to work and my friend would do the childcare and they split the pay. Once my kids were at school another mum had my kids after school, basically walked them home, gave them a snack and then they played with her kids and when I got home they'd all come to mine. I paid her back by having hers on Saturdays when she worked in her husband's business and I took them all to swimming lessons, in the week I dropped them all off to cubs and picked them up. No money changed hands but it worked for both of us.

It isn't easy but it doesn't last forever.

They are totally in the wrong, childcare is only a choice in as much as you can choose whether to have a child. Beyond that point you have to pay for childcare one way another, either by paying someone else or taking time off work yourself (by which I mean either/both parents, no just the mom).

Just one thing though, if the cost is what’s preventing you having a child. When considering childcare costs could you:

1. make use of tax-free childcare
2. take out a loan that covers the cost until they’re at school (or age 3 when you get 30 free hours) but spread that loan over a longer period. I am lucky to have relatively low childcare costs (no family help just term-time only, tax-free childcare and in a cheaper part of the world) but it’s still around the 19k mark in total. If I took out a 20k loan over 7 years the cost would only be £250 a month, which is a lot less than I currently pay. I appreciate the childcare costs your discussing are substantially more than mine but a loan may still be a more manageable way to pay for the childcare.

Love the way his choice is which of the available woman in his life looks after his children while he contributes nothing to the equation!! I would have said this to him.

But paying for childcare IS a choice, but only IF you have a choice of grandparents or flexible working available, many don't, and are willing to accept the consequences of either decision.

Having children is a choice - it's the initial choice.

But I hate people who say "you shouldn't have had children if you couldn't afford them" yada, yada etc. They are some of the most irritating people on the planet and should be whacked hard over the head with the nearest frying-pan and, when unconscious, drowned in a large vat of superiority complex. The ability to reproduce is a fundamental right and we don't want to live in a world where it is only acceptable for rich people to have children.

So, having had the child, is childcare then a choice?

Yes, if (as in our case) the family can survive comfortably on one salary. We could survive very comfortably on my DH's salary (not on mine, unfortunately) and he would be completely fine with me not working, but I choose to work part-time. So, in our case, having childcare is a choice we make for 2 reasons: (i) so I can maintain my career; and (ii) because our son benefits from the structure, socialisation and expertise of the lovely staff at the first-rate nursery he attends and comes home every day brimming with enthusiasm and happiness having spent time with his friends and the lovely carers there. Although I try my best, I cannot compete with them in terms of some of the activities they offer. Being away from mum and dad for a little while might not suit all children but it suits him.

No, if as is the case for a lot of families:
(1) it is a 2-parent family and they can't afford a decent standard of living on one salary; or
(2) it is a single parent family and the single parent doesn't want her children growing up in poverty on UC.

When discussing whether childcare is a "choice", we should also remember that SAHMs who give up their careers to look after the kids and then their relationships break down are generally in a very poor financial position later on. Indeed, DH recognises the adverse impact that being primary carer for DS (and the one doing all the nursery runs and other 'life admin' and generally being default carer) has on me financially and, as well as having joint savings, he gives me money every month specifically for my own individual savings to offset the opportunity costs that this represents.

I’m another one who made it work. DH worked Monday to Friday, I found a job working evenings and weekends. It was really hard for a few years as both of us were either working or looking after children, but it was our choice to have them.

It is also a very blanket statement to say that childcare wipes out your wages. I dropped from 5 to 2.5 days and nursery here is £5 an hour. We qualify for tax-free childcare, and due to tax my wage didn't halve for half the hours, so it's ended up costing us about 40% of my take-home wage. DH used to cover the half day by changing his hours. You go with the situation at the time. TTC and pregnancy took us 2 years and DH changed job in that time.

Your friend is a dick. Notice his job and life didn't change; his wife's had to. And grandparents had to be called in, probably arranged and facilitated by his wife as well.

of course it's a choice op. just like having children, in most cases, is a choice. just like eating too much and becoming overweight is a choice. it doesnt mean the choice is a fair and easy one, but it is still a choice.

I think I should have rephrased my question to 'to think that loss of income if you have children is not a choice'

You live in the South East - that's a choice

This is a good point. When we decided we wanted to start a family we moved back to my hometown and DH continued to commute to the SE for a few years. It was a pain at the time, but the alternative would have been to either delay starting a family or to go ahead but struggle financially.

I think I should have rephrased my question to 'to think that loss of income if you have children is not a choice'

But paying for childcare isn't the same as "loss of income" is it? Unless getting a mortgage is loss of income, or having pets is loss of income, or leasing a car is loss of income because you have to spend money on them. But if you don't give up work or cut your hours then it's not your income that's reduced, it's that you've increased your outgoings. Obviously you can't choose to have children and expect it not to affect how much money you have.
So if you have no family help and you can't work opposite shifts then yes, it's a choice between one or both of you giving up work or reducing your hours (which is loss of income) or your income stays the same but you use a significant amount of it to pay for childcare.

We have 4 kids and spent years working round each other so I would look after the kids all day and then work all night or look after the kids all week and work all weekend. It was a horrible existence but we could not have afforded childcare costs otherwise. If I was working all weekend ( it wasn't every weekend) then my dh would have the kids all weekend on his own. When I look back I wish I hadn't done it and had claimed all the childcare help we could have had I worked more day shifts. There's no easy solutions but thinking on the positive side it is only a few short years that you have high costs.

You're justified in being upset, OP. Children are a "cost" (in terms of lost income/childcare) and they are a greater cost in this country than in other developed countries where more help is provided for families and the cost of living is less expensive.

I would be upset too if I couldn't make the maths work in terms of providing my child with a sibling (though I should interject here that I believe many only children have a very happy childhood ).

It’s not necessarily a loss of income. It’s increased outgoings. Like a massive mortgage or an expensive hobby.

One individual living in a flat share and only eating bake beans is going to have much lower outgoings than someone who lives by themselves and eats out every night