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

@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.

She has a full time nanny cos she can, it makes life easier and they can afford it. Lots of very well off families do this.

Them having to cut costs means someone else is out of a job

Do they have to cut costs though ? or is it a case of realising that they can cover what they need for a lot less, which would make financial sense ? Nothing wrong with an article about how to make savings on your particular demographics every day expenses, horses for courses and all that.

Have you ever actually read the Sunday Times?

Well, I don't know about speaking to their audience. I read the original Times article earlier on their online version (I paid £1 for 3 months subscription) and the below the line comments were much, much ruder than anything anyone has said on here! I too assumed it was a joke!

To be fair there are other couples in here with more modest circumstances so they are presenting a spread of people on different incomes.

I agree this particular family could have come straight out of central casting but even hedge fund managers sometimes have to tighten their belts.

If you read the comments, you'll see it caused much amusement to the readers - and I'm sure the reporter who wrote it

Own up, which one of you is this?

I bet she's a mumsnetter!

My heart bleeds 😂

I also read the Times and I'm definitely
working class!

And the Tories govern the country on behalf of the 10% of families in a similar bracket to that family featured in the article, and of course for the 10% who might typically choose to read the Times or Telegraph. And yet 40% of the electorate keep voting for them.

I am having to tighten our belts, despite being well paid. We all spend what we can afford, if my bills suddenly doubled I couldn’t afford them. Simple.

There is a difference to being wealthy and being on a good salary, we are in our 30s so haven’t being able to become wealthy as it takes time. It’s the same for most high paid earners in my age bracket, big mortgage, hardly any equity yet, I think there is going to be a lot of middle income earners who are going to be squeezed this year.

I grew up super poor, as in my parents got school uniforms etc free. There is a an albeit safety net for families like my parents, but nothing for people who have higher earning careers who are just starting out with young families. A nanny is crucial for a lot of people I know to make a living, can’t afford a nanny they can’t work.

@Woofwoofbarkbark

I bet she's a mumsnetter!

My thoughts exactly!

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

I think that's a bit unfair. You seem to be implying that if people are feeling the squeeze it's just because they don't know how to budget. That may true for some people but certainly not for everyone.

They probably got the idea for the article from

I expect this family resonates more strongly with their readership than a story about those on benefits. The economics are going to affect everyone, I'm not sure why they shouldn't acknowledge that.

It’s a newspaper, it’s twisted to fit the narrative their target demographic wants to hear.

I wouldn’t go all frothing at the mouth about it.

If one of them alone earns 6 figures (and if he's a hedge fund manager, he's well into that bracket), they are not eligible for free 30h childcare once child is 3. Therefore, any childcare - they have to pay - nursery, nanny, au pair - they have no other options.

I cant read the article, but I do wonder the type of person agrees to do an article on firing someone, I feel for the nanny

Well a nanny will be out of work 🤷‍♀️

It’s all connected

By the way she’s probably switching to au pair because her child will get free hours as he’s 3.

The boy won’t be getting any free hours as the dad will be earning over £100,000 a year. Unless they’ve fiddled their taxes?…..

Most annoying thing with that headline is that an Au-pair is NOT a substitute for a nanny.
Of all the things I would cut from my budget, good quality childcare would be the absolute last thing I would scrimp on. Better to drive a cheap runaround car (or even no car if possible) then put young kids in the full time care of an underpaid au-pair.

Nothing wrong with au pairs of course, but they are for part time care of children, not full time care of babies or pre-schoolers.
A good nursery, registered childminder, or nanny is expensive, and I know it is hard for many families to afford, but I can't imagine driving a Tesla whilst scrimping on childcare.

@Theyellowflamingo

in certain circles

😂

I cant even read the article as its behind a paywall...