"Childcare In The UK 'Most Expensive In World'" Sky news report

[LittlePickleHead]

news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16064005

The cost of childcare is forcing women to turn down jobs or give up work because they can't afford the cost of childcare.

This is true personally, DH and I are holding off on trying for DC2 until DD is in school as putting two into childcare would cost more than I can earn. Much tougher is on those who already have children who have no lost tax credits or subsidised childcare and are now being forced into poverty.

My cycnical side thinks that taking mothers out of the workplace has many benefits for the government...

@liznay - I've sometimes wondered about the workplace creche. It used to be talked about a lot as a good idea but hardly anyone does it. I know Ford do it, and a couple of universities, but most employers don't - I think the BBC gave it up, for example. In London it's impractical as parents don't usually want to take their kids on the tube in rush hour but it would seem feasible in other places. Perhaps employers find it too expensive, simply because of all the legislation around health and safety, staff-child ratios and so on?

I agree with juule
'I did give up my career when I had children. I didn't expect that anyone would pay me any or some of the salary that I gave up. We had to tailor our life accordingly.
A friend of mine worked for next to no take-home pay for several years to maintain her place on the career ladder. She didn't expect her childcare to be subsidised. They had to tailor their life accordingly.
Our choice to have children and deal with the impact that they had on our lives.'

I think its very sad that you accept that you had to give up your career or work for nothing. Is that really what we want to tell our daughters who might aim for university? Go to university, work hard at getting an education and an interesting job (and pay a fortune for it), then perhaps work for 5 years and then you probably have to give up your job if you want a family?

Long -term a mother who might have had some help towards childcare when her children were very young, would still have cost society far less by paying taxes and paying into a pension than someone who has been a SAHM all her life. SAHMS still use public services, but do not contribute financially. Why resent working mother who actually do pay their taxes get some help from the state?

I don't think anyone expects not to have to pay for their children, and of course childcare is part of the package. But I'll say it again. Why is OK that child care here is the most expensive in the world?

The government obviously places no value of working mothers, either their current or future contributions to the economy. A shockingly short-sighted view IMO.

Fairymum, who do you really resent? and why? It's my choice if I want to be with my kids. Do the maths - if you live in London, pay for childcare for lets say two children (about £1800 a month if you have two children under school age), pay for your transport, get your clothes and whatever you need for work, if your salary is less than £30,000, you really don't bring much home. In fact, you probably end up at a loss. It's very fine if you have a career, but if you just have a run of the mill job, it's too expensive. I didn't take any moral stand when I left my 'job' (nurse and with shift work childcare is even more expensive) I just did the maths. But of course I should have considered that I don't contribute financially to society...

Blueberry, I do not resent anyone. I am just responding to the economic argument some posters are making that subsidising working parents with childcare is expensive. I do not believe this is purely an economic argument. I believe in choice, but that society has an interest in providing parents with choice whatever it is.

"Is that really what we want to tell our daughters who might aim for university? Go to university, work hard at getting an education and an interesting job (and pay a fortune for it), then perhaps work for 5 years and then you probably have to give up your job if you want a family? "

I don't think that is what we are telling our daughters.
I think that going to university and working hard to get an education can be an end in itself. An education has wider benefits than earning power.
Getting an interesting job is preferable to getting a job that you are not interested in - again a benefit to yourself aswell as society (hopefully) and your family. Giving up that job if beneficial to your family situation is a choice. I hope that what we are giving and telling our daughters (and sons) is that by educating themselves they are broadening their minds and their options.

Juuule, I did not actually mention earning power. I would think most young people who in the future will pay 30k + for their degree plan to actually use it for other things than just broadening their minds.

i agree with fairymum and was horrified by Minette Marrin's column in the Sunday Times suggesting that all subsidies should be removed for childcare and that mums should receive subsidies instead to stay home. This may be a desired outcome for some, and might make sense to throw into the mix of options, but to suggest that all women want to give up work and be at home with their children is simply not the case. She also completely misses the point of how society benefits from people having children- as future earners to pay their pensions and other state services.

'SAHMS still use public services, but do not contribute financially.'

I feel that i do because without me being at home, DH would be unable to work. Firstly, he would have to find childcare for 5 children. Additionally, he would have to find someone to have them while he worked away, worked changing shifts, 14 hour days etc etc. I don't know such a childcarer.

We both used to work full time and then me part time at weekends (2 x 13 hour shifts) but this job that he took, he earns more than we both did. So society has benefitted from it since he now pays more taxes-me doing the childcare enables him to do this so in a way what i do is financially contributing. many SAHP enable their partners to earn. They save the family money in childcare, money that can instead be spent into the economy.

Folks, let's not start the SAHM vs WOHM debate, please. Fairy didn't word it perfectly, so I can see why some of you might be taking offence. But I think she just meant that there is long-term economic benefit to the State to subsidise childcare and keep women in work.

if you dont pay tax and ni you dont financially contribute, cant stretch your partner contributions as a catch all

Family pot of money - dh puts into it. As much tax/ni comes out of it and into the economy as did when jellybeans and her dh both woh. Therefore, both contributing as much financially now as when both working. Just don't have jellybeans income (not needed as her dh earns as much as both did) and they don't have the childcare costs they had previously. Jellybean's dh would not have been able to do this job if jellybean wasn't doing the childcare. A better option for their family. So in this case jellybean's financial contribution is covered by her dh tax/ni although this wouldn't be recognised by the state in any pension.
Or at least that's how I read jellybean's post.

If a women just stays at home for years on end and concerns herself with a couple of kids and the house and little more, her broader skills are not really being used for the benefit of wider society. To confine oneself to the domestic domain could be seen as introspective and comparatively self-interested as a life choice. That is effectively what a lot of us are saying. The economy suffers indirectly and in many ways it represents a very limited view of the role of women of childbearing age, one that potentially unintended consequences well beyond the situation of particular individuals and their families. Policy needs to be broader and more inclusive than this.

Don't you think that raising children as well as possible benefits society?

"her broader skills are not really being used for the benefit of wider society"

Does anyone else find it depressing when people say it's OK that a woman's education isn't being used for it's intended purpose of having a career, because her children will somehow benefit from it instead?

Why are we not all completely enraged that intelligent, well-qualified women are being priced out of the job market by exorbitant childcare costs?

Please bear in mind we're not debating about women who choose to stay home, we're talking about women forced to stay home because they can't afford childcare. Should they be happy that their PhD in civil engineering is now being used to help Little Johnny build better Duplo models while their male classmates are rebuilding the world?

That's exactly right juule :)

Completely with Annie here, what kind of a signal is this sending out to our daughters? I've absolutely nothing against anyone who chooses to stay at home, but it seems crazy to expect young women to spend an absolutely ridiculous amount on becoming qualified and gaining a degree so they can get interesting careers that benefit society as a whole, so that they will then be forced to either give up said career for a (potentially career damaging) few years or more if they want to have children.

It also seems crazy as in that situation, they won't be paying back their student loans so the cost of their education will be footed by everyone else.

If you want to stay at home, then great. If you don't, then surely a bit of help and subsidy to make it possible to continue your career is of far greater benefit to everyone then to price one parent (usually the woman) out of the workplace and to lose not only they contribution to the economy, but also the repayment of their education?

I find it somewhat disheartening when people continue to say that it's intelligent, well-qualified women who are forced out of the workplace because of childcare costs. Why the women? I think the assumption that the mother will provide the childcare should be challenged and not automatically assumed. It should be a consideration by both parents and something worked out between them. If both parents have an equal desire to continue with careers that can't support a break for either of them then they would have to consider not having children or biting the bullet and downsizing/taking a loss for a while.

Regarding graduates not in a position to pay back their loans for whatever reason (not just women/childcare). Isn't there a benefit to society that these people are better educated and out of the unemployment statistics for 3+ years (yes, a bit of cynicism there).

"then surely a bit of help and subsidy to make it possible to continue your career is of far greater benefit to everyone"

I think this is the nub of the issue. Is it of greater benefit to everyone if we subsidise other people's childcare?

Where I am from originally (Province of Quebec, Canada) childcare is heavily subsidised and most women go back to work after the generous maternity leave. The province has also just launched a province-wide initiative and very generous guidelines for home/work balance which is quite unique. This affect all small and large businesses and government workers, men and women.

Since it was launched over 15 years ago, the government program managing childcare ensures that the cost is relative to the income of the parents. The lowest you pay for childcare is $7 can dollars per day (with current exchange rate, that means about £4.50 - yes, £4.50) and goes up depending on your tax bracket, general revenue, if you are a single parent etc. I am confident in saying that most women go back to work, even those on low income. When I go back home and say to people that I don't work, they really don't get it and I have to explain the childcare costs.

It is a system that has revolutionised the workplace and it is quite unique. But Quebec is a province where syndicates are very powerful, and where taxes are high. There is a price to pay.

I don't think this is the case, because they will still have many, many years in the workplace to contribute.

"It also seems crazy as in that situation, they won't be paying back their student loans so the cost of their education will be footed by everyone else."

atm DD 2yo goes to full time nursery as I'm a student. Because of DH's wages we get 85% of it paid from the child care grant and pay roughly £20pw ourselves. I am very glad of this as otherwise i could not go to university, but when i finish my degree in 2013 to do the job i want to do i will need to train/study for 18 months during which time i will receive zero income plus have to find 8 grand for fees. no government loan/grant system so I have no idea what to do as DD will be 4 and not school age so there will a need for childcare but i have no idea where to get the money from. DH's wages cover the bills and thats about it. I can't even get a part time job as its actually a condition of training that you do not have any other employment! i just don't like to think about it.

But cereal that assumes that a) they will return relatively quickly and b) that they will return at the level at which they left so will have the salary to pay it back.

If you take an extended career break to have your children, not only do you run the risk of damaging your career and not being able to achieve the salary or level that you would do otherwise, but you also reduce your overall years of repayments (there is controversy at the moment that many many graduates will never earn enough to repay the full loan amount, this is even without taking into account a career break)

And juuule you are right that is is disheartening that this debate still focusses on the woman being the main childcare provider and having their career interupted, but until there is total equality in the workplace and in salaries, unfortunately the financial decision will usually be for the lower earner to quit, and generally that is the woman (although I do understand that SAHDs are increasing).

My worry is that the more unaffordable it becomes to have both parents working, the wider the gender inequality gap will become as employers begin to see more of a risk if it becomes more common for women to take extended career breaks.

What we neally need is the choice. It would be interesting to see if there is any research on whether it actually is better for the economy to subsidise and have both parents working, rather than lose a qualified, skilled worker from the workplace for 5 years

"I think the assumption that the mother will provide the childcare should be challenged and not automatically assumed."

Juuule, imho it is because there is still a not insignificant gender pay gap -- men - not always, but often - tend to take home more money, and so it stands to reason they should continue to work. That and they can't breast feed :o
(www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14721839 a recent example)

"Juuule, imho it is because there is still a not insignificant gender pay gap -- men - not always, but often - tend to take home more money, and so it stands to reason they should continue to work."

The same article also says that female Junior Managers now earn more than their male equivalents, and it's probably more that younger pool of workers who are the ones who will be taking time off to have a family. So it's really not just about who earns more and if you focus on that you're missing the things that we really could do to level the playing field.

I've seen this several times in my circle of friends, couples will be doing similar jobs and earning similar amounts. The decision isn't about which salary is easiest to loose but which person has the best options for taking leave. And on that front the system is totally sexist and presumes that the woman will do it.

Even now a man is only allowed to take 26 weeks and have the ability to return to their position, a woman gets 52 weeks. So faced with the decision as to whether to have one parent at home for 6 months or one at home for a year which way do you think most couples will go?

And for children born before those changes when the man could only take two weeks is it any wonder that it's the woman who takes the break. She was, and still is, the only one really given the chance to do so.

Stop the system presuming that women will be the carers, stop assigning parental rights based upon a persons gender and allow parents to choose what is right for them (most of us aren't stupid you know).

Once men and women have equal rights about taking a career break then you'll see more men take the leave, especially as those figures point out that younger women are now often earning more than younger men.

And then once men and women begin to take career breaks pretty evenly you'll probably also see the gender pay gap at older ages decline as it stops pretty much always being the woman who will be affected by that career gap.