Do some mums just not like working?

[Dragontooth]

I know this sounds awful, and judgey but I'm trying to understand. I am not a benefit basher and I used to be on benefits, also a single parent.
I'm on a lot of 'being skint' forums, I was on UC but now I have quite a lot of experience in various things so I like to try to help.
There are a number of mums who were previously on legacy benefits who are terrified by UC and the work search appointments. Lots who are unemployed and some who do very part time jobs, 10 hours or less.
I don't understand why they are so resistant to finding work or better paid work. Having been on benefits, it is a horrible existence. I was paid £850 per month. Clearly it would only take a MW part time job to make me so much better off. And they pay for childcare/ holiday club.
It literally changes your life. You can pay for things to have a better, easier life like driving lessons. Not only that but you are back in the work place so it's not such a shock when your children leave home.
I feel these women are so anxious, they can't see how their lives could look with more money/ options. Not only that but a lot of them have their heads in the sand about retirement, will we even get a state pension? Then there's the fact that it's so much harder getting back into employment after five or ten years out, I think that's what UC wants to avoid. I'm not saying it's a kind or person centred system but in reality is taking years out of the workplace really in these women's best interests either?
Disability/ disabled children obviously excluded.

That should say that subsiding childcare costs the tax payer less than paying for someone's entire lifestyle.

Isn’t 85% of some nursery fees a lot more though than you get in the various UC elements of you don’t work? I know they pay varying percentages though for childcare but nurseries are very expensive

I'd have thought so. When I claimed childcare costs it was back in the tax credits days so it was different. I claim UC now - as an example I was made redundant last year and received £1200 per month in total while I was job seeking (to cover my rent, JSA and element for one child). Working full time I get my salary plus £600 per month UC and I have no childcare costs at all. If I had full time childcare costs I would get another £800 or so on top. I also earn over minimum wage so if I was only on minimum wage, my UC would be higher.

This thread is very divisive. The vast majority of parents want the absolute best for their children so making ridiculous comments like @Justcommentingby about how you “value your children more than a job “ are awful.
Everyone values their children more than their jobs.
I have a good job , very interesting and actually deals a lot with adults trying to get back into the workforce. I have seen first hand how difficult it can be for women in their 40’s/50’s trying to get work again after years of nothing on the cv and they absolutely need to go back to work for various reasons that have been mentioned on this thread. It really isn’t easy….
I have 3 dcs , no family support at all but and my dh and I have to juggle everything. But I’m late 30’s now , my kids are all preteen and I’m getting there, it is absolutely exhausting but I’ve hung on to my job and I know I’ll need it down the line. Anything can happen so for me having a safety net of work is really important. I also want to support my dcs as they get older and help them through university (if they choose) or help with housing and we can’t do that without working. I actually find my job mentally stimulating although it’s v v hard balancing it with home life and the workload of 3 kids in school. I also just like being able to sort stuff quicker , my dh and I come from backgrounds with no money and watching the pennies all the time and we don’t want the same for us. It’s not purely materialist, it’s the lack of opportunity. I do understand how hard it is to face going back and the longer you are out, the harder it is . Education is key.

Also @Justcommentingby many of the poster here who are working parents are doing so because they value their kids so much. That’s what makes your statement ironic.

Seems like I have touched a few nerves here so I’ll just make it clear what I mean-
I value my time with my children more than I value working or any of the things that working brings with it. I think small children (infants in particular) NEED their parents more than they need the things that working provides. I understand that some people don’t have a choice but to work and send their kids to nursery, but I also know that a lot of people do have a choice + they go to work because they have expensive lifestyles to pay. They place value on other things and working enables them to fund those things. I am not saying that working mothers don’t love their children, I was a working mother just last year. I’m simply stating that I value my kids more than my job, and I will go without to be able to be with them until they are in school.
So if you would like to put your pitchforks away …..

I think any mother that puts their children first is a great one, I think whether you work or don’t work it doesn’t matter. Truly I do not care I’ve been on both sides, I was just stating my preference for me personally in my own experience. Not digging at working mums
we’re all entitled to our own views

@Justcommentingby no pitchforks or nerves being touched at all, I gave a very measured response to you . I don’t know a single parent who values their work more than their children so that’s not original !
I was self employed when my 3 dcs were young (so they didn’t go to nursery etc ) and then back working when they all started school , it’s a billion times harder working now they are in school, totally the opposite to what I thought and all the parents I know who work say the same thing. Also it’s such a juggle , I think also parents are tired by the time their kids start school and then the idea of having to go get a job when they can actually catch a break now they are in school is really unappealing. I can see how much Easter it is for sahp at the school drop offs but longer term I think it’s a trap.
It’s also very hard to get back into working, as a pp pointed out the primary years can span almost 14 years with for eg. 3 kids so that’s a v v long time not to work and can leave women vulnerable in the long run, completely reliant on a dh’s finance or social welfare . It isn’t as simple as wanting more things or materialism , it’s about long-term plans , health , support to children in the future. Parents are often dragging their tired selves to work FOR their children and their futures.

Blimey I am astonished you wrote that, utterly astonished, to actually insinuate women who work value that more than time with their kids, and that they do it for materialistic reasons is one of the most offensive things I think I’ve read.

It's the fact you assume that mothers who go to work when the family could make cut backs and survive on one wage do so because they either:

1. Value their jobs more than their children, or
2. Value "expensive lifestyles" more than time with their children.

I think what you'd find if you paid attention to what others were saying is that they do value their children more than anything else in the world.

For example, we could just survive on one salary. Either of our full time salaries. But what that would mean is that my time (or DHs) with DD rather than working would come at the cost of basically everything fun. We'd have to let one car go, but that would mean that DH (for arguments sake) would have it every day because of how far away he works. There's no public transport to get him there without the commute being several hours. That would mean DD and I would be limited to wherever we could walk to, because we'd not have enough money for public transport for fun.

We'd only have very basic food. There'd be no baking, because ingredients are expensive.

There would be no paid for activities. No swimming lessons, no gymnastics, no dance class.

We can't downsize because we're only in a two bed anyway. Unless we all lived in a one bed or a studio. We could move somewhere cheaper but then we'd be further away from DHs job again, and from anything we could do within walking distance.

New clothes/toys/colouring stuff would only be from birthday or Christmas presents. From other people.

If something in the house needed fixing, we'd have to go without even more basics.

You talk about going without to be able to stay at home. I'm not entirely sure you know what that actually looks like. You sound incredibly privileged.

Jeez when in a hole stop digging.

My dd earns more than her DH,and they have a mortgage. I think they have done well and managed the childcare without any family nearby.

She has always worked hard and is quite driven.

Have you a wealthy husband or savings because if you are going on UC it is very tight financially!

She's not remotely materialistic either

I wish 😂 my mat pay has just ran out, my partner works 2 days a week and college the other 3. I have £20 to my name, my babies are happy tho so I am too

This sounds very precarious. I would not be happy with £20 to my name. What happens if you have an emergency?

the only emergencies that I can think which would cost me money would be vet bills, fire, fridge breaking, car etc in which case I’d pay the vet as and when I could, if there was a fire then we’d just have to start again, if my fridge or other appliances break it’s really not the end of the world there are ways round things. If my car broke down I’d walk or do online shopping. The way I see it, even living in a “deprived” area in Scotland, I have more than a lot of people do all over the world. I’m already at an advantage whether I have £20 or £2000 in my bank. I don’t live my life preparing for emergencies

Honestly I think this is a very foolish way to live...I hope you have a longer term plan. This might seem all fine and dandy when your DC are very young and unaware, but living in financial circumstances like these won't be much fun when they're older.

I’ll be back at full time work by the time my youngest is 5 and my partner will be too well before that so it’s a non issue for me tbh

Vets here wouldn't give treatment without payment up front. You may want to see if your plan is actually feasible in that regard.

I'm interested to know what your "ways round" a broken fridge with two small children would be? What would you do with their milk? How would you store their food for weaning?

If you car broke down and you couldn't replace it and you had a medical emergency for the kids, what's your plan there? Ambulance waiting times can be very long, and if you've no money how would you do things like use a taxi?

You aren't sounding very sensible. Your children may have time with you but they're in a precarious situation.

It reminds me of a 'sustainable' community featured on Grand Designs. It was supposedly 'self-sufficient', but in reality nobody appeared to work or paid taxes. They must have been receiving benefits because they ran a car... They also made use of schools, doctors, hospitals, etc., so it wasn't even remotely sustainable unless everybody else went out to work to provide all the essential services for those people playing at 'sustainability'.

Was this Lammas eco village? There are businesses there which do pay tax, it's also an educational centre which charges for courses, so I assume tax is paid.
Although asfaik the house built on Grand Designs burnt down.

What if you want to go to soft play with your kids etc? Being at home with kids all week is okay but sometimes you need a bit of money to make it bearable. I know a SAHM that goes everywhere with her child but she has lots of money.

Hi, I'm not a high earner but thought that my taxes contributed to welfare benefits, am I wrong?

Alot of people aren't in a position to have savings, their household and family expenses cost too much. I lived on an overdraft for most of my life as I was a single parent and paid for everything myself.
It's not uncommon.
PS, overdraft over now, hip Hip hooray