Babies and jobs: no easy choices (tell us something we didn't know)

[winnie1]

Thought this would interest mnters....

www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,1358939,00.html

I work part time and don't need to - I mean the money I earn is a pittance after childcare. But I go out to work because I absolutely love my job and I would never meet the kind of people I meet if I was stuck at home all day with the children. I need both in my life and actually enjoy juggling it - just when I am fed up with work, I get to go home, just when the kids/routine are driving me mad, I get to go to work. It all balances out quite nicely.

Also I believe its important for my girls to see that I have a fulfilling job that i love and am interested in - a role model to them maybe?

I can fully understand that enid. Makes perfect sense.

Agree, agree with bigfatmomma too!

I work from home but if I ever have to go into the office for a meeting and dh has the day off, I feel really 'free' even while driving alone!! When I get in it's lovely as I'm not all ragged and can enjoy the kids. I couldn't do it every day though - I'd really miss them.

Sometimes I'm so busy I'll go over to my Mum's to work while dh has the kids and I feel guilty about that!

Oh Flum, come join my boat. Big rent, not downpayment for a house anywhere near big enough for our growing family. So we pay more in rent, less able to save. It's a viscous circle. Can't wait til kids are old enough that they can go to school for free childcare, and then we can work on getting out of debt and maybe buy a house before we have to pay for uni.

BUT, I would be much happier if the government would help pay for the childcare I already have (in the form of a tax break perhaps) rather than provide government run day care that probably won't suit my needs, or will only be available to people who live in area x or y.

I thinkit makes sense for government to support people who want to return to work. The idea of supporting SAHM (or SAHD) is great in theory, but how in the world would we fund that? By further raising the taxes of those who work... doesn't really seem fair to me. Why should I go to work to pay someone else to stay home?

Uwila, your argument isn't logical - you want a tax break to return to work, but then object to someone else having a tax break to stay at home - what's the difference, in terms of how much it's going to cost the tax payer?

The reason you should go to work to pay for someone else to stay at home is because you want to. Just as the reason someone else should stay at home and her DH's tax is paying for someone else to go back to work is because she wants to.

Women don't have to be at each other's throats about this - I support all mothers' choices to do what they feel is best for their families, and I believe that the government should do likewise. But the only true choice is when it's financed properly.

Calligula, your failure to recognise the logic does not constitute its absence.

The difference is that I'm going to work to struggle to pay the bills, and you have the luxury of staying home to watch your kids grow up. Staying home is a luxury, not a right.

How is staying at home a luxury? I'm confused.

Flum, like you I was surprised as I got the impression there was a bit of a backlash going on.

I put my dd into nursery full-time at five months. I would much prefer it to be two or three days but we really had no choice. Dh and I are on good full-time salaries but we are renting.We don't have a deposit. We simply could not raise a mortgage for a house without our full-time salaries. Infact we couldn't buy a box. Unfortunately, I feel that students loans are only going to compound the problem but thats' another story...

Really, I have no choice at the moment.

Bigfatmomma - I share your sentiment

With DH and I working f/t we have a decent income. If I give up work completely then we would have a pretty joyless existence.

The thing that really bugs me is that i could do my job in under 35 hours a week, would say 30 hours would be fine. This would make a big difference because I could pick DD up from school at "mummy time", something she and I crave, but wouldn't mean that we lost my salary. However there is no way my employer will consider this...They think would look bad and are worried about setting a precedent

Uwila - what??? Of course staying at home is a right!!!! How is it a luxury to bring up your own children? Isn't that how it's meant to be?!

Lots of people do make that decision to stay at home and have to cut back/downsize or whatever - they aren't asking anyone to make up for them doing it. I know people that have moved area in order to be able to afford a home on one salary and I've got a friend who has given up her career to be full-time mum and makes a bit of cash working at M&S in the evenings. Noone is subsidising her choice to be a SAHM.

I gave up my career and just do some freelance work to keep a bit of money coming in - noone subsidises my choice either.

Marialuisa, snap re being able to do one's job in under 35 hours if we are going to get real about this. My employers wibble about "precedent" too. Funny old world in academia

I think it's a lovely idea to be able to stay home. But, I don't think it's a right. There are bills to be paid. Responsibilities to fulfill. So off to work I go... and I'm sure I'm not alone. Life in greater London is just way too bloody expensive.

marialuisa and Marina, I have the luxury of taking advantage of my efficiency, because I'm self employed, and entirely see your frustration - efficiency is often not rewarded as much as showing your face. A few friends - mothers with children as usual - have got round this by persuading their employers to let them "work from home" one day a week. The employer does not really care how many hours you work as long as the job is done properly, but avoids losing face in front of less efficient employees (by letting them see that you have been given 5 hours "off") by telling them that you are working from home. However, it depends on having a phone and IT set up at home, and being "on call" at home.

Uwila - I respect a lot of your posts but must disagree on this issue.
It's my 'right' to make that choice to stay at home just as its your 'right' to choose to go to work.

When I got married umpteen years ago we lived in a house conversion flat with damp, had no car, telephone, central heating, washing machine or any such luxury - holidays didn't even figure in the conversation never mind going abroad! DH was at University (sandwich course so he did get a salary) and I was a telephonist. When dd arrived my employers offered to let me back after the birth (which was a novelty then). Poor as we were and we WERE poor - I wanted to look after my baby myself - that was my choice and my right. Okay, we had nowt - but I was happy as a pig in muck looking after my gorgeous little girl and all the 'luxuries' of life don't even come close to that feeling.
As GDG says - we know families who have made 'sacrifices' - down-sizing, getting rid of one car and such like so they CAN stay at home - calling it a 'luxury' is utter twaddle!

Marina-it's rubbish isn't it. I'm going to punch the next person who says "never mind at least you and DH get all summer off"

TAC-sadly working from home one day a week isn't an option. I gave up research for administration and lost that flexibility.

Joolstoo,

I don't think it's a luxury in the sense you shouldn't have a choice. I just think it isn'f fair that those who go to work to pay the bills should be asked to contribute to funding those who choose to stay home. If you wish to make those sarifices and stay home, then of course you have a right to make that choice.

It's not because I think there is anything worong with staying home or that it doesn't contribute to society, because of course it does. I just think from a perspective of fiscal responsibility that such a government benefit for SAHM/SAHM can't realistically be funded. Where would the money come from, if not from the parents who are working?

Snap again Marialuisa . Can't really run a an HE support service from home, boo hoo...or even carve out a day a week. So much depends on you being there, doesn't it.
It is possible in larger libraries TAC (especially if you do a predominantly backroom job like cataloguing or data-entry) but here I do everything from manage the whole premises, budget and team to chiseling bubblegum off DVD players and confiscating donuts and mobiles

Marina-I think we need a support group; your DH is an academic too, isn't he?

Am currently half way to strangling DH as after deciding we'd do as he wanted and move, he's now changing his mind again...

I am self-employed and work in an office 2 days a week while DS goes to a nearby nursery and from home 3 days a week (which means working while DS is asleep). My DP is away working during most weeks and overseas a lot so it's quite hard work but I am fortunate to have good, flexible work which I enjoy.

I support all womens' choices wholeheartedly but what makes me furious is the lack of childcare IN THE WORKPLACE. How many of us work/have worked in buildings where there is wasted space (foyers, huge meeting rooms, etc.) where childcare space could be designed in? I have worked in the past for 2 arts organisations which had on-site nurseries and the difference this made to our teams' working lives was incredible. Our children are where our hearts and minds are and I believe our society needs to become far more realistic about intergrating home lives and working lives so as to reduce the stress which most of us are living under. I am thinking of writing a paper for the Policy Studies Institute or similar about this as I feel strongly that the current ideas being thrown about demonstrate unsustainable, unrealistic thinking.

Sorry, putting soapbox away now. I think Flum's point about dual salaries helping to keep house prices inflated is an excellent one.

This is a very interesting discussion!

Uwila, I think I know where you're coming from, but...!! Earlier on you said that you think there should be govt help with childcare (poss tax breaks) for working mums. But you don't think tax payers should help to fund SAHMs. Why is the staying at home choice less valid than the working one?

As I mentioned before, I work part time, so have a foot in both camps and am not trying to make anyone mad! Greater govt support for parenting is just a topic that interests me.

Uwila - when you say "I just think it isn'f fair that those who go to work to pay the bills should be asked to contribute to funding those who choose to stay home" I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean people who give up work and then claim benefits??

It's just that the people I know that have given up 'careers' have taken on evening or weekend work to make up some extra cash or they rely solely on dp's salary.

If you are referring to those that claim benefits instead, I suppose I can see your point. The other week there was a programme on where a couple had 5 kids, neither parent worked and they were still talking about holidaying in dubai next year - well that makes me mad because I care for my children all day and work in the evenings, pay tax and I object to my taxes going on these lazy layabouts!!! OK, I'm not badly off but we've only managed 3 days in the Lake District at my Mum's house for our annual holiday this year!

Yes, Gobbldigook, I mean (primarily) people who don't work at all (but are capable of working).

Bigfatmomma, the difference is that a working parent is looking for a reduction in the taxes that they pay. Whereas a SAHM/D is looking for someone else's tax money to be given to them.

Now, I'm realising that some people who refer themselves as SAHM/Ds actually have part time jobs in the evening/weekend/part time. I qualify those people as working and they should be subject to the same tax break. Likewise, if you stay home, and your husband works, then his salary should also qualify for a tax break (as he is a working parent too).

I suppose I'm just digging my grave on this thread, just me somewhere nice, please.

Uwila, now I think I understand - thanks! Good point.

Got you now Uwila - I have to say I don't know anyone that relies on benefits to stay at home although of course there will be some single parents finding them in a position of no choice (work wouldn't pay enough to cover child care). For the most part, I think people either rely on dp salary or do something a little extra to bring some cash in.

I class myself as a SAHM because I am here 24/7 and ds2 and ds3 don't go into any kind of care (ds1 does pre-school in the mornings) - but I do freelance work for my old employer to keep my hand in and to bring in extra money and I have to fit that into evenings, weekends, dh's days off (like today!). It's so tough and I'm permanently knackered so it does p me off when I see these people on programmes who do bog all and still manage cars and holidays.

Still, I'd still rather have my lifestyle than theirs so it's all down to choice. DH and I could I suppose go unemployed and live on benefits but we wouldn't have the lifestyle we've got!

I rely on benefits to stay at home, because I work from home and at least 40% of my (after tax) income does not come from my employer, but from Child Benefit or tax credits. As from January, nearer to 50% of my income will come from central government, because of getting rid of informal childcare (au-pair) and putting my child into formal, OFSTED inspected childcare. If I were on the dole, I would actually cost the country less money!

I agree with JoolsToo here - there are many cases where women simply don't have a choice, but there are choices you can make according to your priorities and your current lifestage. I moved out of London and changed industry in order to be able to work part time. But I'm not suggesting that everyone should do that (or that everyone could - lots of people live outside London to begin with!) People make choices according to their own priorities and what they think is important, and it's no-one else's business, but I don't understand why government should only support those who work outside the home, as if bringing up your own children isn't of any social or economic benefit to the country.