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.

I agree with him. Children are a drain in the finances - therefore if we chose to have children we are choosing to spend money on childcare etc. It's absolutely a choice. I don't really know why you were complaining. You still have a choice - stay at home mum or work - it nets out the same. But if you want to work you have to pay for childcare - I'm pretty sure most people know this !

In the grand scheme of things full time childcare costs are very short lived. However one of you giving up your jobs could be detrimental to getting back into the job market and back to a level you were before.

Many employees are more willing to be flexible. I have friends who each condensed their working week into 4 days so they each had a day off covering childcare then 3 days in nursery. I've reduced my hours to part time to keep my foot in the door until I'm ready to increase my hours again.
It's doable but yes you will have less money!

Of course it is because having children is a choice which leads to the requirement of childcare.

The question is not if having children is a choice, it is whether the cost of childcare is a choice if you have them. This man was trying to say it's a 'choice' to spend money on childcare as parents should look after them themselves. I say either way, the loss of income is not a choice.

But it is still a choice.

You could retrain so that you do a job which means that you work weekends and therefore wouldn’t have to pay for childcare.

Or course no one can have children without in someway adjusting their current lifestyle.

That is all that he is saying. One choice is keep current jobs and pay for childcare.

Another choice is don’t pay for childcare and change jobs.

At no point did he say that it is possible to keep exactly the same job and not pay for childcare

I agree @Sabrina124 and I'd like to add that your friend isn't seeing the bigger picture here.

Economically by giving up half your time now you lose more than half your earnings potential even if your childcare career break goes perfectly (ie you can go straight back to work immediately and at exactly the same level you left to continue your original career trajectory). This is because in thelong term any career break reduces the time you spend at your most senior level or another way of looking at it is that you are penalised because all of your promotions are delayed by the career break.

It depends on what choices you make. Some people chose to not leave their old firm and carry on working 5 days, for a non family friendly firm.

Our childcare costs weren't that bad because I fixed my hours to work around nursery hours. I chose to work 3 long days.

Plus, it's only for a few years.

Plus our school breakfast club was only £2.50. Some people say our school doesn't have one. But you could have chosen a different school. Or moved 5 years earlier. Most people have had choices.

It all depends on choices you make.

Economically by giving up half your time now you lose more than half your earnings potential even if your childcare career break goes perfectly (ie you can go straight back to work immediately and at exactly the same level you left to continue your original career trajectory). This is because in the long term any career break reduces the time you spend at your most senior level or another way of looking at it is that you are penalised because all of your promotions are delayed by the career break.

Yes, absolutely. Giving up work is a risky option.

This is why DH and I agreed before having children that he would "pay" me to compensate me for the loss of career potential and future earnings. In our case, the issue wasn't whether both of us could keep working full-time with children (DH leaves at 7am in the morning, is rarely back before 11pm and his hours are unpredictable). We couldn't (well, I suppose we could, but it would mean neither of us every saw our DC except on weekends and we'd need to hire three nannies - day-time, overnight and back-up nanny for weekends). The issue was which one of us would take the career "hit". I agreed to, but only on the basis that he would compensate me to some extent for the harm it would do to my career prospects and pension later on.

The best thing, if you can, is to talk about these things before having children.

Surely what he's saying is that paid 'Childcare' is a choice?

Looking after your own child is not 'childcare'

Yea there's a cost to giving up one jib or two half jobs, but that's not generally referred to as 'childcare'

I think it's a wording issue.

Maybe he just doesn't understand the size of the problem for someone who doesn't have a SAHP or grandparent help on tap and thinks that you are massively exaggerating?
To be fair, I myself did not check the cost of childcare before getting pregnant, I just assumed it will vary, of course, but will generally be similar to other developed European countries (I'm not British).
Oh the shock of £1.8K for a full-time nursery place with a 6 months waiting list.

I am sick to death of people who rant on and on that having children is a choice. Well, somebody Fucking had you and you and your society needs children if you ever want a future and workers and taxes and bloody anything at all!

Oh the shock of £1.8K for a full-time nursery place with a 6 months waiting list.

I have made it very clear to DH (in a not-entirely joking way) that, if we ever split up, he can either meet DS's nursery costs in full as well as paying additional maintenance on top or he can be the primary carer.

It is a choice though. You choose to do it, no one is forcing.
The best place for young children is at home with there parents. Just because you don’t like that fact doesn’t make it untrue.

The best place for young children is at home with there parents. Just because you don’t like that fact doesn’t make it untrue.

Well, it depends, doesn't it? One of the reasons behind free early years education for 2 year olds is to try to narrow the gap in attainment for children from disadvantaged backgrounds (regardless of whether their parents are employed or not).

Home with mum (and, let's face it, it's usually mum) isn't always best, and it certainly isn't best for ensuring mum has a secure financial future.

@SkedaddIe

I agree *@Sabrina124* and I'd like to add that your friend isn't seeing the bigger picture here.

Economically by giving up half your time now you lose more than half your earnings potential even if your childcare career break goes perfectly (ie you can go straight back to work immediately and at exactly the same level you left to continue your original career trajectory). This is because in thelong term any career break reduces the time you spend at your most senior level or another way of looking at it is that you are penalised because all of your promotions are delayed by the career break.

That is fair, to those for whom 'earnings potential', 'seniority' and 'promotions' are pre-eminent considerations. For other people, there is an alternative 'bigger picture' that doesn't revolve around those priorities. In my case, that applied to both me and DH (latter took a pay cut to enable him to spend more time with our children).

If those compromises are being done by the woman as default, they're not always fully informed. But I think it's important to challenge this idea that our default worth in life depends on how much money we make (or rather, make for others). You see it all the time as the main metric in which happiness is assessed: 'children brought up with xyz do better in life', with 'better' generally defined as earning more money - rather then something like 'less stressed and anxious', or more socially fulfilled.

@Airyfairymarybeary

It is a choice though. You choose to do it, no one is forcing. The best place for young children is at home with there parents. Just because you don’t like that fact doesn’t make it untrue.

This is not the 1950s and children don’t. Need just the parents and other family, they also need to learn to be around other children and see the world in that perspective.

I chose to compress my hours to 4 days a week. DH is a chef so works weekends, so my Wednesday off is our 1 day a week as a family.
DH has another weekday off so they spend the day together.
We are very lucky that we have grandparents that can help out and have DS 1 day a week. They offered to have him full time but we chose to do 2 days at nursery as we thought it best for his development. So we have chosen to spend £350pm on this.

We have also chosen to wait to start ttc a second until January, so that we will never be paying 2 lots of childcare as DS will receive 30 hours free by the time a second child would start nursery.

I would agree though that once a child is here, if you don't have grandparemt help and compressing/changing working hours isn't an option, you will always have a drop in income no matter which option you choose. That's the result of the original choice to have children.

What he means is free/family childcare v paid childcare . The 'free' childcare comes with a price to his wife and his mother though and not apparently him. The fact is though it is often the women who make the sacrifices. I assume his wife's pension will be significantly reduced and she cant necessarily depend on his.

Ask him if his mother couldn't do childcare or his wife could not work part-time in her career would he have forgone having children? Or would he like many of us just muddled along.

And to those stating they were SAHM and its do able- you have no idea of OPs circumstances versus yours nor a crystal ball to see what the future holds economically that might put an economically inactive woman at risk, times change.

As you have highlighted a bit by rephrasing your statement, it is down to semantics.
Yes, once a child exists, then provision has to be made for someone to care for them.
That is automatically halves your spending power is very personal and down to individual circumstances. It might be the case for you, but it isn't the same for everyone. Some people are family that are able (and willing) to do it for free, or low cost. Some people have a huge disparity between their incomes, so one giving up work doesn't mean the family income is halved. Some will get childcare subsidised through tax credits, childcare vouchers and the like . Some will be able to work different shifts (evenings / nights / weekend work) and live as a sort of a tag team for a few years. Some will take on extra work / a second job to balance the books.

Then some people will have made wildly different choices before having their dc - earned well and spent easily.... others had dc before starting work or having chance to save.... other worked in low paid jobs. Some will live in more expensive parts of the country than others. Some will have enough flexibility in their budget to be able to cut back on luxuries they had been used to, to fund childcare that way. Some will do things like arrange to move to interest only on a mortgage, or to extend the term of their mortgage. Some will live in smaller, more cramped accommodation that others would deem unsuitable. The list goes on and on. Most people will pick and mix from several of these.

So yes, most people have a choice over what they do and how they fund it, even though, obviously a baby or small person needs looking after by someone, and yes, when you are at that stage in your life, it takes up a large proportion of your income.

@thewitches
The world is overpopulated. We don't need to all have children. It is a choice

[quote gottakeeponmovin]@thewitches
The world is overpopulated. We don't need to all have children. It is a choice [/quote]
So who decides who has children and who doesn’t? What is the plan for future? Stop having children altogether? Is there any planning involved in any of this at all? Who do you think will pay taxes when you are retired but still need to use the infrastructure and other facilities? We need planning, not blanket statements. And until then, we should accept that the children of today will be the men and women of tomorrow, running our society and the people raising these men and women are doing a great job generally.

Where I live 2 days, the minimum amount of time a child can be enrolled at nursery, is over £550 pm at the cheapest place we found.

However, you dońt need to drop your earnings, you can work nights with no childcare costs if you’re willing to struggle.

Of course it's a choice. You chose to have children, now you have to choose how they're going to be looked after.

Of course it’s a choice , if you choose to have children then you know that you either need to pay for childcare or sort out your working arrangements so that you don’t need any childcare , it’s not as if you have the baby and then suddenly realise that there is nobody at home to look after it . It’s really no different to any other financial decision that you make like getting a larger mortgage for a better house or going on a holiday .