Seriously? This is The Times idea of an average family being squeezed for cash?

[ItchySnoof]

How fucking out of touch are these people? Given that some families literally can't feed themselves?

Genuinely thought this was a joke

You think a hedge fund manager doesn't earn enough to fully fund a nanny!?

Maybe he isn't very good ? more of a herbaceous border manager ?

@Confusedteacher

“She and her husband, a hedge fund manager” annoyed me a lot- surely if they have a full time nanny she has a job too?!

“… Keplinger, an interior designer who is retraining to be a health coach…”

Love this/ it’s the opposite of poverty porn where the daily mail or channel 5 shove a fag in a single mother’s hand whilst they ask them about universal credit

You think a hedge fund manager doesn't earn enough to fully fund a nanny!?

Happy to be corrected but I think the point confusedteacher was making, wasn't about the cost. It was that surely the mother also works, or else she wouldn't need a full time nanny to care for the child.

They’re going to give up their Audi and hire a Tesla instead… HOW WILL THEY COPE???

@Whinge

You think a hedge fund manager doesn't earn enough to fully fund a nanny!?

Happy to be corrected but I think the point confusedteacher was making, wasn't about the cost. It was that surely the mother also works, or else she wouldn't need a full time nanny to care for the child.

Which is quite normal in high net worth families

I couldn’t move beyond the veg box info because of paywall. I don’t want to register as I’m having to make changes because of the rising cost of living.
By the way she’s probably switching to au pair because her child will get free hours as he’s 3.

Wow this is in such poor taste.

Some people are genuinely struggling to pay for food and rent and they decide to print this. For what reason other than a big slap in the face to those who aren’t wealthy.

That poor woman . Could we arrange a crowd fund for her perhaps? Nobody should have to be put in the position of having to fire their nanny. Please don't tell me she had to let the cleaner, gardener etc go because I won't be able to sleep..

So they are sacking their nanny? Making the children experience that loss of attachment figure? Then exploiting someone from overseas.

I can’t read the whole article but anywhere do they recognise how bloody fortunate they are and how other families will struggle to eat, stay warm and keep a roof over their head? Tone deaf if they don’t.

Libraryghost

Ha ha. Yes. Crowd fund. Good idea.

@funinthesun19

Who do you imagine reads The Times, an expensive paywalled broadsheet newspaper? People who can’t feed themselves are hardly the target demographic.

It should have been worded differently then.

“Living squeeze”??
Yeah right.

Of course it’s a squeeze. Not nearly as hard and difficult a squeeze as it’s going to be for people who don’t have the same choices or possibilities to cut back, but nonetheless it’s entirely possible they’re facing higher mortgage costs, increased fuel bills, higher taxes - what would you call it?

Or does a fall in income/increase in living costs only count if it leaves you destitute?

As for exploiting the au pair, she’s probably going to put the kid in nursery or preschool for the thirty funded hours now he’s three and have the au pair (if she can get one) do wrap around. It’s not particularly unusual to have an au pair for after school care in certain circles. I don’t imagine she thinks the au pair is going to work full time for that kind of money.

If she is re-training to become a health coach, then she has made a concious decision to become a student ? Which is a slightly different slant on needing to cut back because of inflation, fuel bills , increases in council tax etc, a financial squeeze because of circunstances beyond your control ? This is more how they are adjusting their personal finances to cover a short term deficit isn't it ?

I hope the nanny reads it and spits in their tea

I say short term, not sure how in demand health coaches are or will be in the 'squeezed' demographic ?

Well there's a nanny in there who's shortly about to be dismissed, the cost of living "squeeze" is going to affect everyone and it's silly to pretend that because they're very wealthy it doesn't matter. It does - maybe they won't suffer personally but others will indirectly.

Them having to cut costs means someone else is out of a job. Others having to cut costs means cold houses or skipping meals. None of it is good news.

Why shouldn't they talk about how people are being affected in the media? Despite the fact that there are many people way worse off than this family, they are still a normal family.

Or is it that newspapers should only be allowed to talk about people at the bottom of the income spectrum because no one else is worthy of consideration?

@WonderfulYou

Wow this is in such poor taste.

Some people are genuinely struggling to pay for food and rent and they decide to print this. For what reason other than a big slap in the face to those who aren’t wealthy.

Those who are poor tend not to read the times

It's all relative though. If people like that are worried and tightening their belts, then what the hell is going to happen to the rest of us? Plus that's a nanny out of work, how many others will be joining her. We may scoff at their lifestyle, but what happens to them will have a knock on effect on us.

It’s The Times equivalent of clickbait bollocks.

Probably an MNetter.

Who do you imagine reads The Times

I do, and I don't have a nanny. I'm not "feeling the squeeze" either, mind you, because I know how to manage a household budget, and I certainly don't need "tips" from a newspaper to do that (just like I don't need tips on how to tie my shoelaces)

Plenty of financially savvy people (the kind that also reads Money Saving Expert) happen to read The Times (for the actual financial news, not the click-bait trash), that doesn't mean they're all rich. This hedge-fund manager family is NOT the Times target demographics, it represents the image the Times like to project, and what some of the actual target demographics aspires to be.

A bit like the Daily Mail constantly covering royalty and celebrities. They're not their target demographics either...

It's a bit cliched isn't it - hedge fund manager and wife who was an interior designer training to be a 'health coach'.

Reminds me of that Harry Enfield sketch 'I saw you coming'.

@RobotValkyrie

Who do you imagine reads The Times

I do, and I don't have a nanny. I'm not "feeling the squeeze" either, mind you, because I know how to manage a household budget, and I certainly don't need "tips" from a newspaper to do that (just like I don't need tips on how to tie my shoelaces)

Plenty of financially savvy people (the kind that also reads Money Saving Expert) happen to read The Times (for the actual financial news, not the click-bait trash), that doesn't mean they're all rich. This hedge-fund manager family is NOT the Times target demographics, it represents the image the Times like to project, and what some of the actual target demographics aspires to be.

A bit like the Daily Mail constantly covering royalty and celebrities. They're not their target demographics either...

No, but the content on the royals is what their target demographic like to read about

You seem to not understand how publishing works

The times wouldn't print it if they didn't think their audience would read it.

They aren’t claiming they are the average family.

They’ve stuck them first because it’s a bit tabloid and lifestyle porn, the two families coming next seem fairly typical middle class, which most of the audience will relate to.

The Times is an expensive paper, with lots of swanky lifestyle sections. They are speaking to their audience, but anyway - economising happens at all levels. We are all different etc.