To think that what's best for the children gets left out of the free childcare conversation

[Ilikepinacoladass]

The original thread reached max capacity.

It was really interesting to read all the replies and refreshing to hear than some people felt the same, as I haven't heard it discussed much in the media. All that seems to get focused on is how free childcare hours will get people back to work, save people money, help the economy.

The question of what's in the best interest of children doesn't seem to come up.

Found this article this morning interesting and one of the first I've seen bringing these issues up.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/16/the-guardian-view-on-hunts-childcare-plans-jobs-arent-all-that-matter?

'But his offer, treats childcare as a means to a single end: getting parents into work. Childcare isn’t just an economic growth issue. Early years education plays a crucial role in targeting inequalities and closing attainment gaps. For this reason, quality matters as much as availability. Mr Hunt, like his predecessors, sees childcare primarily as a labour market tool.'

It's not going to suit everyone.
Essentially if you really want to improve outcomes for all children then freeing them from poverty is the number one priority.
It's the major factor in child outcomes.
Having a SAHP is parental choice, for girls , having an educated working mother improves their life chances significantly.

I was in a position where I would have earnt lass than childcare + travel cost. My husband earnt too much for us to receive tax free childcare.
Nursery was £80pd, wrap around childcare was £30pd + more in holiday & travel was almost £10 pd.

I now earn more so I am not working at a loss.

I've not been gender specific at all, and don't think it matters if it's dad's or mum's looking after children.

The only stay at home parent I know is a Dad. And know lots of others where mum works full time and dad part time doing childcare the rest of the time.

You seem to be the one with the outdated gender stereotypes, referencing comments like 'mothers place is in the home'

And suggesting that it's not worth a woman going to work because 'all her wage' would be taken up with childcare costs, as many have said is also quite sexist in my opinion, surely half the childcare costs are the dad's responsibility? Why is it not being seen that he is frittering his wages away on childcare costs, why is it only the woman's wage that is essentially pointlessly being used for childcare.

I think the govt should focus on driving down the cost of living, so people can make their own decisions about whether to go to work and use childcare, or stay at home, when they have young children.

And to just accept the new policy as a good thing without questioning it at all seems unwise. Quality of childcare matters, and it seems like it isn't the focus at all in the media.

I spoke of all of my wage being eaten up by childcare.
We are married so all of our money is shared. It's not that childcare comes out of one wage but if I had worked then the pot of money we had would have been smaller than if I had stayed at home. That made going out to work feel like a luxury. In the end I worked evenings and weekends for years which was pretty miserable as it meant we got very little family time and very little time to ourselves.

A better way of phrasing it would be that childcare is more than the lowest earning parents wage. That is the parent that usually stays at home, and is unfortunately often the woman. I've also seen it be dad more recently but historically almost exclusively the woman.

If parent 1 takes home £25K a year, parent 2 £15K a year and childcare is £15K, as a family unit parent 2 will often decide it isn't worth them working, especially with the fact they will often be the one expected to take unpaid leave if child is sick etc as will result in an overall loss.

With the funded childcare the lower earning parent could go back even part time and bring in £10Kish, childcare costs even halved would mean as a unit the family is better off. They keep their employment history up, pension building, NI contributions adding, get promotions.

Because it wouldn't be parents, it would be mothers. There's also no concern that men only get 2 weeks of paternity leave.

It isn't always misogynistic to question the policy.

Definitely plenty of misogynistic comments though, on both this one and the previous one.

And your husband didn't see going out to work as a luxury I assume?

Yeh I guess maybe my view is a bit skewed.

As the vast majority of my female friends earn more than their partners / husbands. So I don't automatically see it as by default the woman would stay at home and do childcare/ it's her wages being spent on the childcare.

Maybe it's a generational thing.

The gender pay gap doesn't seem to start properly until after 40 years old, so on the whole after decisions have been made about who might stay at home after having children.

So it being women more often than not become SAHPs probably isn't down to the theory that they have lower paying jobs, and therefore decide to give those up as the husband is earning more.

I think it's more of a cultural thing that meant (more so in the past) that woman chose to stay at home rather than men.

And then obviously the pay gap starts when their career's suffer due to that decision.

"For groups aged under 40 years, the gender pay gap for full-time employees (which is a more homogenous basis than all employees for measuring differences in hourly pay) is low, at 3.2% or below. This has been the case since 2017"

Gender pay gap in the UK: 2022

Well as him going out to work meant that our pot of money increased, then no not really. Just as I didn't see working evenings and weekends a luxury as I was contributing to the family pot.

But you working normal hours would have felt like a luxury? But your husband working normal hours wouldn't?

I think nowadays seeing being able to go out and work as a luxury is quite rare, most people can't afford not to go out a work and the luxury would be having the option to choose.

Minimum wage annual salary for full time employment is around £20,800 (take home nearly £18,000).

So if someone was only bringing in £15k it would either be a below minimum wage job (not legal?), or not full time (in which case they wouldn't need full time childcare, unless the hours were very irratic).

Even if you're only just breaking even or just above, it's nearly always financially better to carry on working.

There are a not small group of SAHPs that claim 'it's not worth me going back to work'. When what they actually mean is they have the luxury to be able to not work, and they've chosen that option because they want to. And then to not own the decision, but to say oh I'd love to work aren't you lucky that you can, just grates on me. I know not everyone is in this group but it's definitely not uncommon.

It was simply an example. However NMW is £9.50. £9.50 x 37 hours x 52 weeks is just over £18K, take home approx £16K. In some areas of the UK childcare can be over £20K a year. Some people do end up making a short term loss when paying for chilcare that they can't absorb.

A full time childminder (£60 per day, 5 unpaid weeks holiday per year, plus max tax free childcare taken off) is around £13k per year. Obviously will go up if you have more than one child.

If you're on minimum wage and have childcare costs you are more than likely also able to claim UC to help with them.

So in the vast majority of cases you are not going to be actively making a loss by working. And if you're only just making a bit more than breaking even it's unlikely to be for long (as children start school etc) and nearly always a better idea financially to carry on working in the long run.

And by seeing it as you're wage 100% paying for the childcare (ie not your partner's at all) and therefore saying it's not 'justifiable' work, but somehow it is justifiable for them to work, means you're shouldering all the risk financially, if you break up.

So unless you actually want to be a SAHP it's pretty much never a good idea to stop working! So many people do though and them claim it wasn't worth them working etc, when actually they just didn't want to go back to work..

@Ilikepinacoladass because we can't afford too 🤷‍♀️

So if someone was only bringing in £15k it would either be a below minimum wage job (not legal?), or not full time (in which case they wouldn't need full time childcare, unless the hours were very irratic).

I do get sick of the magic 30 hours being called full time childcare.

I work 21 hours a week over 3 days. The funding covers 22 hours a week because nobody not in education or a magic govt job works termtimes. However, commuting means I need an hour of nursery either side of that, so 27 hours. We therefore pay for 5 hours per week, plus £20 a week top up.

If I wanted to work "full time" I would need 50 hours of nursery a week. This "full time" 30 hours childcare people keep quoting covers less than half a working week.

It is not going to allow women to go from 0 hours to a full time job without still having a massive childcare bill.

Oh yeh 30 hours is nothing like enough for a full time working week. Most children are in childcare for 10hrs a day to allow a parent to work a 9-5.30 job. I think the term full time came about as it's a full school day (9-3) 6hrs a day. Again, from a time when the free hours were actually linked with early education/ what's good for the child, rather than being about childcare to get parents to go back to work.

Hunt’s jobs drive will push mothers on benefits to work 30-hour week

"“It’s a complete disregard of children’s needs and will have drastic effects on lone parents.”

“It is out of sync with what low income mums and parents want, it devalues unpaid care and says that your primary societal contribution is paid work,”

I've been muttering about Hunt this morning. I've been a working lone parent since my youngest was 1 and it's been miserable. Hunt and his team have clearly never parented.

Oh look at that op.

Someone is thinking of the children

🙄

I'm not sure why mothers, single or otherwise, of 3 yo shouldn't be working?

Why should the state fund a lifestyle choice of being unemployed?