To be sick of reading on MN that you are a "good role model" to your dd if you go back to work??

[ssd]

have read this over various posts on MN over the years

usually posters give various reasons to return to work, all viable and good, but then the poster throws in the "good role model" shite

why always harp back to this?

if you love your kids, teach them to respect and care for others, learn manners and discipline THEN you are a good role model

most of us eventually will return to work at some stage and if we don't we will still be good role models unless we are lying about the house taking drugs and leaving the kids to go feral, which I;m sure not too many of us do!

I know I'll get slated on here as the going back to work to be a good role model line seems to be very poplular round here and I'm not trying to wind up posters who use it, it just seems to me people work out of necessity, not to be a role model

And BTW where's all the role models for ds's??? or is just loving them enough?

Bloody hell this again

Childcare comes from both salaries, NOT just from the woman's.

My childcare is £2k per month.
Fairly bad from one salary but not so bad split between two.

This idea that the whole amount is judged against the woman's salary to decide whether it is worth her while to work is immensely damaging

I am delighted that my girls want to have lots of kids. I'm really pleased they see staying at home and caring for the family as something worth doing.

I would also be very pleased if they chose careers.

"Childcare comes from both salaries, NOT just from the woman's.

My childcare is £2k per month.
Fairly bad from one salary but not so bad split between two.

This idea that the whole amount is judged against the woman's salary to decide whether it is worth her while to work is immensely damaging"

I couldn't agree more, but your assumption that it is the woman's salary that I am referring to is more damaging. The fact is that if you don't get better off by going to work then there isn't any point, whether you are male or female. If either net salary was less than 2k then it would be costing money to go to work!!!

I agree that you can be caught in the childcare costs 'trap' if your household is bringing in more than the threshold so you don't qualify for help.

But isn't that where the issue of work being far more than just money comes in? If you are in some dead end grind of a job, slogging away just for the money then sure, you are going to give up rather than pay childcare and just break even or be worse off. But that's a no choice situation isn't it? - you aren't giving up work because you're making a considered decision that staying home is better, you're giving up because you won't be any better off by working and it's a boring dead end job.

Conversely, if you are in an interesting job with prospects, you are far more likely to consider all the other aspects - career progression, job satisfaction, pension - and continue to work even if your childcare is taking all or nearly all your earnings for a while. I know plenty of people who have done that, and we were in that position too for the years we had two preschoolers at day nursery. My take home pay was about the same as what we paid in nursery fees. However, the longer term pay back has been enormous - no way would I be in the position I am now if I'd given up work completely. And no way would we have been able to afford the excellent nursery for our kids which was a fantastic start for them!
And I think the whole experience has reinforced for me the importance of encouraging children to gain qualifications, and get themselves into an interesting and worthwhile career if they can - because as someone said, there are jobs around which are just shitty, low paid low status jobs, and when you talk to parents, 100% of them don't want their children to end up in jobs like that!

As I said before, it's not a gender issue anyway - I don't understand it when people say things (I think it was riven) like 'equality isn't about women being like men and working all hours'. Why the hell should fathers be seen as expected to do this? And why the hell should women be expected to be the polar opposite and give everything up and take entire responsibility for everything to do with the home?
DH and I are both equally qualified, equally capable and had an equal desire to be parents! Surely it makes sense that we both do both?! It doesn't have to be a big contentious issue!

It's not true that if you don't become better off financially that there is no gain from working.
It can keep your skills relevant, pay your stamp, contibute to your mental health in some cases and advance your career options.

It cost us money to work back in 1984 when we had our first child but I knew if I earned X then (it was £6250 pa at the start) it could well be a multiple of many times that in a few years (as indeed transpired) so it was worth it. There was a short period before teachers got a 20% pay rise in the late 80s I think it was when my chidlren's father nearly gave up work because it wasn't worth it once the cost of a daily nanny was taken off so I certainly appreciate that argument but look at what that might have caused - when I chose to divorce him had he given up work he would have been so much more exposed. In other words as you cannot predict what will happen particularly in a receissino for both to give up work is quite risky particularly if it;'s hard to get back into any kind of job at all at the moment. it is very very hard for people made redundant to get any job at present. Jobs are like gold dust. Given them up is a massive risk, risk to the well being of chidlren in future too.

I'm sorry but working if it is costing you money is insanity.

It only actually costs £11.50 a month to keep your stamp up to date anyway.

There are also additional costs to going to work that would have to be covered - on one salary the spare cash is not available.

But what if you enjoy or even, gasp, love your job? Some mums I know work (generally p/t) for very little more than the childcare costs the family, because they want to work.

I think a mum who clearly enjoys what she does - whether it is working outside the home, or being a SAHM is a better role-model for her daughters and sons than someone who is miserable because they are "stuck at home" or "have to work".

Working or SAH is not just about money , it's about fulfilment and a sense of worth, etc.

nah it does happen brettgirl (what xenia was saying about it costing more than salary to work). Sometimes you have to pay to work knowing/hoping that the pay off will come later. That happened to me when I first went back.

Luckily I stuck at it as dh's job is quite insecure in this economic environment and his employers are trying to do him out of his pay at every opportunity.

You don't need to pay national insurance when you are at home.

If you are in receipt of child benefit you get HRP and from 2010 you will get a national insurance credit.

Exactly bigtilly and foxinsocks.

cant believe this is still going round and round. i was saying to DH imagine if all these women but as much effort into actually changing things for sahm AND wm as they did arguing on mumsnet we could change the world..

If you have a secure occupational pension it's worth a hell of a lot!!

It certainly wasn't the driving factor in keeping me in work (fulfilment, job satisfaction came above that) but it's certainly not something to sniff at.

I'm not a particularly materialistic person, but I just know that a retirement spent scrimping and worrying is not for me. People can expect to live 20 or more years after retirement these days - that's a big chunk of your life, and I for one won't want to rely on a state pension. I'm hoping to do lots more interesting things at that point in my life - and we certainly won't be able to afford that if DH and I rely on the state!

Once again it's turned around so my point is about WOMEN or ME!!!

This is not a gender issue and you are making it into one. I think this whole role model thing is about equality and both partners having equal opportunities. Paying to go out to work and having a lower standard of living as a result is not an opportunity! To bang on about the future uless you are training for something isn't really measurable, because you will never know if the person would have found another job having taken the time out

The stereotypical views on this thread are just terrifying though.

Violethill, I do agree with most of your post, although, for many years we have done the typical him at work/me at home thing...it was partly due to circumstances and also what we wanted. It suited both of us and my dh never saw me as a sponger...because he knows that looking after children is not so easy. He loved his Job anyway, whereas I didn't love my job before having children (nurse) by that time.

Now the children are all at school, and with my youngest starting school last September I embarked on a new career....I am now Student at University, studying towards an Occuaptional Therapy degree. It will be a few years yet for me to earn money, but we decided that it will be the best for us in the long run...as we hadn't gotten used to an income from me, we are not missing an income from me, iykwim....

Anyway, there is more to being a good role model than staying at home/going to work out of the home....

Sure, it's not an exact science brettgirl, but there is plenty of evidence to show that if you are out of certain careers for a number of years, it can be really difficult to climb your way back up the ladder.

I have a number of friends who have reached the point where they are really desperate to get back into work and have struggled to get back into interesting jobs. Of course people can always have an unexpected lucky break, but generally, if you are out of the loop skill wise then you are disadvantaged. Not to mention the lack of confidence that hits some women after years out - just read some of the threads on the going back to work section if you don't believe that.

thing is brettgirl, it does happen. Happened to me, happened to xenia's family, happened to people big tilly knew.

Sometimes you have to take a chance in life and say 'ok, this may cost me for a bit, but I'm going to do it because I love my job/need my job/need the financial security'.

You may not call it an opportunity but for many, it's a necessity!

fox - the irony is that in many other contexts, this 'deferred payback' would be seen as something admirable. We encourage our children to work hard at school, to stay on into 6th form and higher education rather than go for the immediate gratification of an income, precisely because we want them to think long term, and realise the benefits to working hard and committing to something. How strange that some people then turn the argument on it's head and say 'Oh, no point in sticking with something if it's not providing instant payback!!'.

If the person is qualified and skilled in a role that they enjoy it is imo important that they have the opportunity to remain in that role. If tht means that for a few years as a family there is a negative or neglible financial contribution whilst they work it can be very worthwhile to shoulder that burden for the future.
For many leaving work to commit to staying at home is a complete death knell to their opportunities in a career that they have worked hard for.

had never thought of if that way violet, but it's a very good analogy!

All I can say is that if you have managed it you are very lucky to have been able to afford it. You are also lucky to have a job you love so much. I dispute all this 'career over' doom though, I think that too many people cannot cope with any uncertainty what so ever which I don't personally think is healthy.

I also think it depends on the career - some people (like my HUSBAND or ME) for example, would be able to do freelance work to keep their hand in rather than having a complete all or nothing situation.

The fact is if your net salary is 1700 and you are paying 2000 per month for child care, you have to clothe yourself, travel to work, pay for socialising/social contributions it will cost you £600 a month to go to work. I really think that is madness - yes, the future is more uncertain (not bleak, as painted here) but you are certain that over a year you will be £7000 worse off.

Of course it depends on the career brettgirl, and if you only net 1700 per month and are paying 2000 plus all the other extras associated with work, then yes, maybe you'll decide to jack it in. But for many people the differential isn't that great, and we're also talking relatively short term, as children have a tendency to grow up and go to school by age 4, which is when childcare costs become cheaper. (Not easier, imo, but definitely cheaper, as you have a good 6 + hours per day when you're not paying anything!). For example, there was an overlap of only about two years that we had two preschoolers at nursery - then the elder one moved up to school.

Don't agree that people are being all 'career doom and gloom' - just realistic.

Not everyone can freelance of course to keep their hands in.

I have strong experience of people being treated very unfairly when trying to return to work. Skills, abilities and understanding deemed to be useless as it has been unused in an office capacity for a few years.

It's unfair to suggest that people work as they have a fear of the unknown. Many work simply becasue they are aware that in their career it is the only option.

No one has suggested that it is only the difference in childcare cost against incoming salary as the total cost deficit. But for further and future career development, for lots of people, it's a burden that is very necessary .