AIBU to be annoyed by this headline stating that a mother only earns £2 per shift after childcare when the article mentions the childrens' father who lives with them

[ASandwichNamedKevin]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63904607

I know childcare is expensive but surely it ought to be a shared expense when parents are living together?
Is there any way to challenge this perception that it's the sole responsibility of mothers?

I'm not intending this as a criticism of this individual family but of the reporting.

If you don't want to click the link, it says the mum earns £73 and pays out £71 so only 'makes' £2. AIBU to think she 'makes' £37.50 (please let my maths be right!)

Of course it is worth building experience and not being out of work!

Do you honestly believe a child is better brought up hy a nursery than its own parents?

Since time immemorial, young children have been cared for collectively! If you go to developing countries, you will see young children passed around many family adults/friends. Older relatives in particular will often care for children while younger people work, young adults are more productive labourers and can earn more. In many societies children not much older themselves will be caring for toddlers while parents work.

Its almost never been possible for women to do no other work & solely care for children. In the past children were either simply taken with parents while they worked both in or out of the home, or left with (not much!) older children.

The nursery model really isn't that bad, although i don't like nursery's for under 2s, i think they are better off with childminders in a home environment with a single familiar caregiver.

Oh and those calculations where the family are left apparently barelu better off always do not include: pension, tax free childcare, other benefits employers might offer such as discounts etc, bonuses, but of course most importantly the fact that its only a short period then the pay off is SO worth it when children are eligible for 30h funding.

So what you wanted was for the article to say if X went back to work she would be working for £2 an hour after her share of household bills had been paid.

Completely agree with you OP. I get so cross at the attitude that childcare is seen as the responsibility of the mother rather than a shared family expense.

I didn’t go back to work after children because my then DH pointed out I didn’t earn enough. It was obvious from the moment we had DCs that he saw them as entirely my responsibility. And he wanted a housekeeper to do all the household drudgery. When my DCs went to school I went to college to up my qualifications and he was very unsupportive and positively obstructive when I got my degree and a full time (well paid) job. There’s a reason why he became an ExH 😂

Frankly I think this reason is trotted out by many women who don't want to go back to work. Women who have careers and are well paid are more likely to go back as they can see the longer term oops pls pension etc.

I also think this suits many men. Typically a woman who is at home ends up doing everything so men get off scot free. This starts when a woman is on maternity leave and is at home so does it all. Many men don't want to go 'back' to having pull their weight in the home. When the children go to school it gets more difficult.

Lastly I think there is still the general attitude that sorting children and the home are women's jobs. Child is sick, mother takes time off etc. I KNOW this isn't all relationship but generally this is societies attitude, still.

This!! Women make 50% of the work force, it’s simply a huge contribution to economy to keep them home. It doesn’t make any sense. No idea what the UK government is thinking

I worked for the equivalent of nothing for over two years when DC went to nursery pt from a few months. But it came out the joint pot of course. DH didn't want to stay at home any more than I did.
Twenty years on, my God it was worth it. It maintained the power balance in our relationship, my mental health and now my pension looks great.
DC are smart independent teens off at uni. Can't think of one downside.

It’s talking about the marginal gains of additional income gained from the mother in this story working extra hours vs the cost of childcare. It is not saying the money for the childcare is to be taken only from the mothers salary

Why all the faux/poorly interpreted outrage?

Yes it’s a shame the article reinforces the idea that only women are responsible for their children, but the maths doesn’t change-and if her partner is paying all the other bills then fair. Shame it doesn’t mention the benefits of her continuing to work regardless of pay - like pension contributions and being on a career trajectory

@cptartapp Did you ever feel resentful or that you might aswell stay at home? My sister really struggled with this and she was working at a loss when all the books were balanced.

I read the article as in the 'household'. I can't imagine he's sitting pretty when there's other bills and possibly a mortgage to be paid. But her story is one shared by many women. That said the BBC has been posting a few stories of late which raise an eyebrow - yesterday the one about the man who wouldn't be able to see his son over Christmas because of the train strikes but has ostensibly never heard of a bus.

The problem with the phrase is that it perpetuates that the default is 'Mum stays at home or works for pin money' ie whatever is economically or socially in the family's interest. While Dad is prioritised in career opportunity. Perpetuating the pay gap.
Needs challenging just like Dad's saying 'I'm babysitting my kids'.
Mum is not default childcarer when there are two parents.

This.

Yes it's expensive but why did they have two children if they couldn't afford them. They didn't have twins. It's not as if childcare costs are a surprise. Budgeting for childcare between end of maternity leave and start of school is normal.

I do think it should be presented as 'with both parents in work, their household income only rose by x week due to childcare costs'

For some families is would be 'with both parents in full time work, the household income was less than if the lowest earning parent stayed home' . Not everyone can afford the luxury of a current loss for a future gain. Just as not everyone can afford to dismiss £2 an hour more coming in and future prospects.

No. I thought long term.
And nursery was the only break we ever got from the DC, we had next to no family help so my work days were a nice break tbh. And I found mat leave extremely boring.
I think I'd have been more resentful if DH had got to swan off out everyday leaving me with sole care of two young DC.

With nurseryx2 and one in wrap around I would be working at a loss. Yes technically the cost should be shared between me and DH, but we'd still be worse off.
Any benefits of me working are negated by the cost and extra juggling we'd need to do.
But then I had my kids young, perhaps I'd feel differently if I were older and more established.

I think the difference it makes is reducing as we currently live in an employee's market. I'm sure it depends on sector, but in my field it's becoming harder to recruit and 3 years out would not be a barrier to getting a role at the level you left at. As for progression, I'm not convinced 3 or 4 years would make that much difference in most careers. I'm considering giving up work when I have my 2nd for these reasons.

I think households where both parents/carers work full time (and single parents if they have the child pretty much full time) should have a certain number of free childcare hours for children aged 1-3! Even if it’s only 15 hours free childcare, the parents only have to pay for part-time hours. I’m pregnant and I don’t want to give up my career (we can’t afford for one of us to go part-time).

Explain again how having fellow-citizens rather than parents pay for childcare makes the production of future citizens cheaper? I didn't quite get it the first time.

Also, there's nothing wrong with importing people, if you have a shortage, which we don't. In fact if we want to rationally optimise the "pyramid scheme", we should actively discourage people from having children, perhaps by charging the parents via tax for all the costs of education and healthcare, as it would be much cheaper to import people, and the quality would be better because we could choose only educated healthy adults.

@MoreTeaLessCoffee I imagine it’s very hard for most mothers to get back to the role they did after taking 3-4 years out of work. Even if they did, they won’t have progressed in their career had they continued to work. You’re very lucky if you’re in the position to give up work for many years.

I agree, but how do you quantify that? How do you make people see it in the short term?

I understand the point you make about shared resources. But women have the kids and should be allowed to breastfeed, and I think it needs stating how difficult it is for women specifically to go back to work. It is a very good way of highlighting the impossible economics and broken systems.

Back in the 90s the idea was that men would take responsibility too and both partners could work part time. Instead the cost of living exploded thanks to housing, part time work was vilified, and suddenly work culture regressed massively - everyone had to be working 25 hours out of 24 or they were not committed enough and all the rest of that mentality. It needs a kickback. Work and economic life is supposed to enable people to live and eat, not force us into an imperialistic neoslavery to allow a wealthy elite to extract the maximum resource for themselves.

Surely it depends how finances are shared within the household.

My BF will complain to anyone who'll listen that she only has x amount after paying childcare. Her husband however, pays for absolutely everything else - mortgage, bills, food. The nursery fees are literally all she contributes, and if they split everything evenly, or depending on their salary, she would have nothing left.

How many other households do this. Sometimes it is the woman paying for the childcare, but the partner is picking up everything else.

Surely it must be very dependent on what you do. My friend is a cleaner at a prestigious boarding school. She did that before children, took a break and then went back and they adjusted her hours to fit with school runs. She had the experience buikt up before children and it didnt go out of date whilst she was at home.

Is there any money going into your pension?

If you are young you need to be paying into a pension as this is the best time to invest, that money will multiply.

I can't remember the exact figures but it is something like at age 20 you can start paying in 5% of salary but if you wait until you are 30 you need something like 15% to get the same value in your pension pot.

You might be working for a loss in day to day money but you should also be thinking to your future.