Why doesn’t the country support having children?

[NameChangeAsICouldBeOverReacting]

Just seen an article on The Guardian about the 15 free hours for childcare for under 2’s and how the whole system is a mess.

I’m just starting to lose hope that this country doesn’t support working families anymore?

AIBU and need to think more positively, or have we screwed up massively by not supporting families?

The Guardian article which I read.

@Justpontificating the £7k figure was for an average full-time nursery place in 2004. You were earning above average salary (by a long way) and paying above average nursery fees (also by a long way) compared to the average in 2004.

With three children in nursery at the same time, you say you were paying £2700, £200 per month more than you were earning.

I earn close to the average salary for 2023. I only have one child (affordability is a factor in that decision fyi) but if I had 2 babies and one three year old (complete with 30 hours funded), my nursery fees would be £3870 per month. Which is £1470 per month more than I earn.

Nobody is saying it wasn't hard for you, but the data clearly indicate that it is more expensive for parents today.

@FlyingSoap yep it was a hard pill to swallow as it happened the first month he started and with only a months notice.

All the other nurseries are similar costs and even if there was a cheaper one, the waiting lists are a year long and by then, he’ll be 2.5.

Are salaries four times as much as they were 20 years ago? The answer that is no. In fact I saw my old job from 20 years ago advertised last year. I earned £25k back then, the current range is £28 to £33k.

I’d also question if a falling birth rate is a bad thing anymore

But many people also manage to stay in work without it? It sounds like we’ve become reliant on yet another government plan that isn’t sustainable.

Well massively! We won’t see the effects for another 20-40 years but yeah it’s pretty bad.

The biggest issue in the UK is house prices are wild compared to the 1990s.

Up until the council house sell off, council houses were for whoever wanted one. I grew up in a street surrounded by tradesmen, teachers, and IT people.
People had a viable alternative to buying. Which probably helped keep a lid on the price of private houses as people would compare do I stay in council property or try and buy a similar sized first house

For the planet, no, the opposite. For a society built on a baby ponzi scheme, yes. It’s worth asking whether we can do something differently but I fear we haven’t got innovative enough politicians.

I think the innovation will come anyway in the form of AI

Without it I agree the Ponzi scheme is kind of vital but with it it can change

Tg because we can’t keep going up regardless of impact

Because unfortunately there is a massive disparity in legal cash work available for men vs women when times get tough, hence the number of men you see sleeping rough compared to women. In absolute desperation there are avenues for women such as sex work and online cam work to support ourselves, that aren't as widely available for men. There are plenty of posters on MN that admit to doing this to supplement their income. I wouldn't choose that work, but if it was that or be homeless, I'd still have more choices (if you can call sex work a choice) than a man in the same position.

@aim92

Uc doesn't cut it unfortunately.. We've done the calculations.
We could have another but mortgage rates will go up when we remortgage, if something suddenly broke down would have no savings to cover emergencies etc. Would have to condense hours to 12hr shifts which would be hell.
Maybe some people would be fine with that but I'd rather have a quality of life and be able to get my dc birthday presents etc.

@caringcarer
What I mean is when you are young girl on a minimum wage you are making £80-£90 a day. Having just one child will not even make sense, you will be paying majority of your wage for childcare.

@EasternStandard
When you say innovation will come in form of AI, what exactly do you mean? I use AI to write children stories or help with some emails. But AI will not fix a leaking roof or will not look after your child.

It's the ultimate in short term thinking.

Better childcare, allowing parents to work when they want to, actually would have a net positive benefit on the economy. So we don't need a magic money tree to do it, as some PPs have said. It IS IN ITSELF a magic money tree.

Because you have more economically active people, making the country more productive and driving growth, which we so desperately lack in this country.

Those who say "why should the state support people's choices" - because it's the job of the state to act in the collective interests of its citizens. See above for why this is in everyone's collective interests - and that's without the fact that a dropping birthrate / aging population is a bad thing. Add it all together and I find it truly baffling.

Nearly as baffling as the people here who don't realise how bad they have it. Talk to people in most other European countries and raise your standards!

Exactly. I can’t see my work being done by AI. ‘AI’ is something that people trot out without realising that human beings are vital for a large number of jobs. I can see it making some processes and planning more efficient and smooth, but there are jobs that a computer simply cannot do.

There’s probably loads of articles covering it but here’s one that came up in Google

The dc in childcare atm will likely be entering a fairly changed workforce. The old style Ponzi scheme might be out

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2023/03/31/goldman-sachs-predicts-300-million-jobs-will-be-lost-or-degraded-by-artificial-intelligence/?sh=e0eac6a782b4

Naff image

But headline probably apt

@Mia45 what we need is for it to be appropriately funded by tax so that staff are properly paid and nurseries can afford to be well run.

People are probably going by a bit of light touch ChatGpT

It’ll update

I agree it’s not easy. It never was and my nursery fees were high but they were from ( I hate to admit it ) 7am to 7pm.
your example however could be compared to my practices employees today

So
on the basis of my current colleagues salaries ( mid 30s, not specialised ) worked now on a pay scale (large practice several hundred architects so working on averages ) for architects their take homes are £3800 ( before pension payments) ( I know as I’m a partner ) (gross £62500 average)
based on your given nursery fees for 3 children of £3870 it’s not that dissimilar to mine in days gone by ie £70 less today £200 less in days gone by.

Admittedly bills, housing etc are much more expensive now but then £200 was worth a lot more then.
Horses for courses as they say.

( Ps If, you’re a fully qualified and experienced architect you should be earning a lot more than my salary 20years ago! )

Past or present it’s not a competition but there is a lot more support now.

men can always sell their labour and have easier ways to do it legally. Labourers on build sites, fruit picker, taxi drivers, delivery drivers, odd jobs, barrow boys. Jobs that are less safe and easy for women to do. Women have prostitution to fall back on though? I’m pretty sure sex work isn’t that legal? And you need to have the right body etc to make anything like decent money and there’s always the constant risk of violence, death and disease. But sure women can support themselves more easily than men? I’ve never seen one poster in the ten plus years I’ve been here “admit to sex work to supplement their income”. What nonsense. And a lot of homelessness is due to mental health issues and men falling through the gaps. And perhaps you don’t see as many women sleeping rough as much more dangerous for women as they’re at a greater risk of sexual abuse, kidnap and trafficking.

A big part of the problem is that the 30 “free” hours are not really free.

Our eldest was first to get 30 free hours and those started just as I returned from maternity leave. We’d arranged to each work a 4 day week and for my parents to continue to cover a day as they had did our eldest. The nursery had agreed we could use our funded hours over the full year to cover 2 full days and we knew there would be a food charge those days. Our expectation when planning was we’d be paying a little over half what we had been paying previously for eldest to attend for 4 days (1 year old would be a little more expensive than a 2 year old and there was the food charge). What actually happened was that because the government scheme were paying less for the funded hours than the usual nursery charges the nursery put their fees up to keep overall income the same. The rise was massive and then the food costs were more significant than we had anticipated (they included a charge for materials as well). Between the two our overall cost went down by under 25% rather than the close to 50% we envisaged. If we’d stayed full time our cost for both kids would have been double that of one inspite of the free hours. Nursery were very clear that the increases were down to the funding levels. Their biggest issue was they had always had a lot of kids starting at 3 who did half their school day at a local school nursery and then came to them for at least some afternoons as privately funded. All of a sudden all those kids were still coming but were now only paying for food/materials. By comparison the number of children paying was smaller than those that were funded so to balance the books the pricing on younger kids and those with full time 3 year olds went up a lot. Some areas this was better managed than others and the funding is increasing a bit but understand it’s still a big issue now.

@JenniferBooth that sounds like a different issue that needs addressing on its own.

A big part of the problem is that the 30 “free” hours are not really free.

Our eldest was first to get 30 free hours and those started just as I returned from maternity leave. We’d arranged to each work a 4 day week and for my parents to continue to cover a day as they had did our eldest. The nursery had agreed we could use our funded hours over the full year to cover 2 full days and we knew there would be a food charge those days. Our expectation when planning was we’d be paying a little over half what we had been paying previously for eldest to attend for 4 days (1 year old would be a little more expensive than a 2 year old and there was the food charge). What actually happened was that because the government scheme were paying less for the funded hours than the usual nursery charges the nursery put their fees up to keep overall income the same. The rise was massive and then the food costs were more significant than we had anticipated (they included a charge for materials as well). Between the two our overall cost went down by under 25% rather than the close to 50% we envisaged. If we’d stayed full time our cost for both kids would have been double that of one inspite of the free hours. Nursery were very clear that the increases were down to the funding levels. Their biggest issue was they had always had a lot of kids starting at 3 who did half their school day at a local school nursery and then came to them for at least some afternoons as privately funded. All of a sudden all those kids were still coming but were now only paying for food/materials. By comparison the number of children paying was smaller than those that were funded so to balance the books the pricing on younger kids and those with full time 3 year olds went up a lot. Some areas this was better managed than others and the funding is increasing a bit but understand it’s still a big issue now.

It doesn't always work like that. If you want two but you start TTC at say 27 (the age I and many of my peers got married, which is why I pulled that figure out of the air), but on average it takes 12 months to fall, you are pregnant at 28 with first baby at 29.

It's not age 4 they go to school, it's the September before the turn 5. So let's add 5 years on, to be safe. We're now 34. And likely paying for wraparound care and holiday clubs. So you start TTC again because you want 2 kids. Another year, fall at 36, baby at 36 (if it happens because after 30 your egg count drops off signifcantly; and yes I know its possible, had a post 30s baby myself and many people I know have, but its still a factor).

2nd baby not at school til you're 41. And you've spent the last 5 years paying nursery fees AND wraparound/holiday. And are facing several more years of wraparound/holiday. Say til they're both in secondary school, so another 11 years. At 52 you might start getting your life and salary back. And maybe a career if you paused it to be around more for the kids. Not ideal though, when you think about it in those terms.

Put the kids closer together and you could be done with childcare costs at 40-45. If you can afford two lots. Also takes away some of the risk of secondary infertility. And we won't even go into those who start trying in their 20s and still haven't conceived their first in their early 30s and then start ivf etc.

Long way of saying it's more complex than just "time it right for childcare costs". And, why should we have to choose to stretch out that much of our lives paying childcare fees, purely so we can work and pay into the system that keeps failing us? It's broken.