To think that MOST women would not be able to have children if it depended on them being financially independent

[KateWinceyette]

I said most, not all. So I'm not talking about CEOs or corporate law partners or hedge fund managers.

It's come up on a couple of threads, that you shouldn't have DC if that makes you financially dependent on their father. But I think the majority of women wouldn't be able to afford mortgage, bills, childcare etc without a significant contribution from the dad. Or the equity from the house they bought together.

Am I missing something?

In Ireland lone parent families have a 30% poverty rate and 30% of our homeless are children- ie having children or being a child are the main risk factors for homelessness.

It's difficult even for couples!

The comment about being financially dependent on a man is normally aimed at women who give up work to have children, are not married to the child's father and have limited skills or experience to fall back onto.

They are in a much more vulnerable position than a women who has a solid history of work experience that will enable her to get a job in the future and is married to the children's father. Or have other independent financial means.

Yes, most people would struggle to raise children on a single salary these days. Costs are just so high.

The problem comes if one parent relies on the other financially without protecting themselves for the event of a split - usually marriage is the simplest way of protecting oneself but not the only way.

I'd be ok on my wage alone if I wasn't paying for childcare (and assuming I had a cushion saved before my mat leave to cover the SMP only bit). I think I'd only be able to afford one child comfortably, though.

There’s a massive difference between being financially dependent and financially vulnerable.

I earn good money but I depend on my DH wage to pay childcare on top of our usual bills (we live fairly frugally in a small house).

So In that sense I do depend on him financially but equally if I was on my own I could get by

What is this magical quality that men have, and women don’t, that makes them able to raise their DC entirely financially independently?

@UhtredRagnarson

What is this magical quality that men have, and women don’t, that makes them able to raise their DC entirely financially independently?

Quite.

What is being talked about on this thread isn't financial independence, is it? Financial independence means being able to pay the bills without a job. (IE live off the interest from your investments, probably inherited). I rely on a job to pay the bills. Two jobs, actually, mine and DHs. If we split up neither of us would be able to keep the house as the mortgage is more than we could afford on our own. I would say I depend on him, I'd say we depend on each other and both of our jobs!

@UhtredRagnarson

What is this magical quality that men have, and women don’t, that makes them able to raise their DC entirely financially independently?

Presumably the fact that the woman is usually the resident parent so the man can continue to work without crippling childcare bills. Unless he is widowed.

I disagree, why only women? Education in this country is available to all to A Levels as a minimum. There’s no reason men and women should be different in the workplace and salaries unless they make different choices.

I think it’s very possible to be financially independent and have a child if you cut your clothes accordingly.

Some want multiple children though, to not work or do a few hours, live in an expensive area etc. We all make lifestyle choices.

I’ve seen posts suggesting that and I wondered if that was possible for many women or men. I have a well paying job but if it was just my income we were relying on then I’d have enough to pay the bills and childcare and pretty much nothing else. That would change as my DC got older but to me that’s part of having DC; DH and I are dependent on each other rather than one dependent on the other

I could easily raise my three boys without financial support as FT I would be earning 43-45k per year. However, with three children, one of whom has a disability, I had to make the best decision for them and reduce my hours to 22.5 and therefore earn far less (25k) and rely on state benefits to top that up instead.

I mean in practice I could be full time, but my children would suffer massively and that is something I am incredibly grateful for state support so their lack of father does not impact them quite so much.

On my 2 week days off I do all the cleaning, errands, food shopping, laundry etc so that the evenings and weekends are spent doing their reading, supporting with homework, taking them to extra curricular activities, spending quality time with them and all the other parenting duties that would ordinarily be shared by two people - but instead just have me to do them all.

I don't know about others situations, but I can only share my own story. It would be doable if they had another parent who had them EOW and days in the week etc. But for mine, they don't have any contact at all. So everything is 100% down to me, with no family support. Hence part time work.

We earn about the same amount and contribute fairly equally to all expenses so I'm no more financially dependent on him than he is on me

Co-dependent then.

that you should protect yourself before becoming a SAHM if it leaves you financially dependent

How?

What is it you're hinting at then?
No two people should ever have a family together unless each of them earns enough individually to pay for everything in the event the other vanishes? Sharing resources in a family isn't abnormal.

No I agree
I earn 87k but have 3 kids and a mortgage of £2.3k.
If I was single I'd have a cheaper mortgage but not much cheaper.
My take home is around £4.7k but after mortgage and bills money would be tight and no holidays or cheap camping trips etc and probably no kids hobbies
Pretty crap on such a high base salary really

A full time career with decent pay is the only way any single parent could survive without needing benefits.

Not true. I own my own house (bought young, mortgage is paid) and I work 3 days a week in a reasonably paid job which I was established in before DS was born. The only benefit I get is child benefit, and I could absolutely survive without it.

I get a bit tired of the assumption that I must be claiming benefits. Not because there is anything wrong with claiming, it's just a bit galling when I'm not getting any money!

Even war widows after WW2 struggled on their own. War pensions were small and there were no nurseries. My aunt's family coped by 2 sisters who were both widows moving in together. One went out to work, the other looked after the all the children. (About 6 in total).

I don't necessarily think that an RP to young children who relies at least in some part on benefits should be deemed dependant though, as in, be at fault somehow. We're all dependant on something.. Whether that's an employer or a partner or the state.. I'm quite happy to live in a country and pay taxes that ensure (or aim to) that the many, usually women, who get left holding the baby can manage until the child is old enough to make work / childcare etc a feasible option. I work ft, professional role, no benefits other than CB, ex pays cms minimum. Its not remotely realistic to suggest that no-one should have a child unless they have bombproofed their future with 100k in savings or investments, which is the only alternative.

I've often thought this when it's been -sometimes fairly aggressively -suggested that the poster hoping to meet someone and have kids should go it alone.

I'm not saying it's not a valid choice and an option for some women and I do agree with PP once kids are here women will cope - and there's often some state and/or family support - most frequently free or subsidy childcare help from families.

It's just think it's a harder option without family support or unusually large resorces behind you or housing costs are lower than normal ie paid mortgage off early or inherited hosue.

It's childcare and housing costs which are the potentailly prohibitive high costs but they're an issue for many families.

Its not remotely realistic to suggest that no-one should have a child unless they have bombproofed their future with 100k in savings or investments, which is the only alternative.

If this is what's being suggsted then no - most people get in best poistion they can and hope they'll cope with what life throws their way.

It’s not depending on a man though, it’s a partnership paying for children. The days of 1 income families surviving is over.

Presumably the fact that the woman is usually the resident parent so the man can continue to work without crippling childcare bills.

That’s not independently though as the OP is talking about.

It's not about each parent being able to fund the whole household and all children expenses on one salary.
It is sensible when people advise posters to think very carefully about any decisions that substantially affect their own financial security long term.

Whilst it might be nice to think 'oh but nobody would be able to afford everything', it doesn't change the fact that in the event of a split a woman who has been out of the workplace for several years, with no family money paying into a pension for her, no claim on the house they share because they moved into DP's house, and so on, is in a much more vulnerable situation than her male partner.
If this couple split:
Man: several years of decent pay, likely pay rises, career progression and opportunities for development, up to date in his area should he need a new job, a house he owns in his name, pension contributions for several years, and he's probably going to become a NRP paying CMS rates that don't come close to half the costs of raising a child.
Woman: several years out of work, needs to find a job, has to find a job that fits around the children because she is the RP, has to fund childcare to facilitate her going back to a typically lower paying job, doesn't have her pension contributions, doesn't own any property, and has to set up independently with extra weights pulling her back.

I don't know, many of us could be financially independent but would sacrifice too much family time which wouldn't be fair on the children.

I would have hated to put my babies in full-time nurseries from 3 or 6 months onwards, to after-school clubs and every possible holiday clubs. I would hate to miss every single school event, nativity, sports day etc..

It makes a huge difference that there's 2 of us sharing the day and the days off, the sickness and so on..

Now some parents have a lot of family support, and grand-parents offering free child-care several days a week or full-time, so they don't have the same concerns.

One of the main issues to deciding that one stays at home is the huge costs of nurseries. Some people plan to have an age gap of almost 4 years so one is leaving nursery/starting school as the other starts nursery so only paying one lot as it is so expensive.