forced to stay home! I never thought NOT working would be the economical solution..

[queenballerina]

I always thought that I would choose whether or not I would work or not...

now it seems the economical choice is for me to stay home with my baby... as I make significantly less than my husband and have now realised that in central London there is no such thing as 'cheap' childcare that would allow me to take home some money from my paycheck.

If I go back to my job I will barely break even. This is such a shock to me. I want to work, but not if I still will not be able to contribute to the 'pot' of money.

Is anyone else in this dilemma? what are your thoughts

If I couldn't find a job that fitted around dh's hours I too wouldn't be able to work.

We live in the South East.

I never thought staying at home would be cheaper than working either.

Quit your job and find one where the hours are opposite to the child's father. You look after DC while he works, he looks after dc when you work. No need for childcare.

Or work from home; set up your own business, become a childminder.

Think about the consequences of quitting your job, though. 4 years of barely breaking even might be painful, but if it means that you've got a continuous employment history and possible chance of career progression that might be worth the price, and once the child starts school the childcare costs will fall. Quitting work now probably will mean that you won't be able to reenter the job market at the same level you left.

At least that's what I'm telling myself.

I'm in a similar situation after several years at home with the DCs, helping run dh's business part-time.

I would have preferred a part-time job but couldn't find one which would pay me enough to cover childcare and travelling, let alone leave me any better off!

Youngest at nursery now, so I'm trying to get a job BUT the job situation is dire at the moment. Few jobs come up, I've applied for loads, have had only one interview in the past year (not as much experience as another applicant :().

I've had a great few years at home (love being a SAHM ) but in retrospect it would have been good to keep my own career going on the side, even for zero money, partly so I wouldn't have to go through all this rejection now! Plus, by now I could have got a pay rise.
I guess you need to weigh up how much you want to go back to work...

You could view your childcare costs as a joint cost, rather than just eating up all your paypacket.

What widow says. I worked for zero financial gain for a while- you need to think long term. And things really aren't as bad as they used to be, because you get quite a few hours free once your child turns three. If you combine that with taking a lengthy maternity leave to put off having to use childcare until the child is , say, 9 or 10 months, then you're only talking a couple of years that you're paying the full rate. Back in the day there were no subsidies so it would be almost 5 years of paying the full costs until the child started school. I would think again.

Surely the money for childcare comes out of your and your husband's joint earnings, not just yours?

So you go back to work, your earnings are put in the family "pot" along with his, and money from the joint "pot" pays for childcare.

Each parent's contribution towards childcare should be proportional to the amount they earn, so of course your husband's contribution will be far greater than yours.

That seems fair to me - you both work, you both earn, you both pay for childcare.

Why should your wage be "eaten up" by childcare costs when your husband needs childcare just as much as you?

wildspinning - the argument is that the amount of what is in the pot total is the same, no matter whether she works or not - it's not about how much each partner should pay towards childcare - you're absolutely right, childcare, should as all household expenses be pro-rated according to earnings. However realising that the cost of childcare and travel amount to the same as you would earn is depressing non-the-less.

exactly WIDOW!

whether my husband and I split it is irrelevant... the point is there would be no net profit.

its just a surprise/shock... am not sure what I will do

I think we disagree a little on the point here.

Say before kids you put £1,000 in the pot and your husband put £3,000 in the pot each month. Total in pot = £4,000. Your contribution is 1/4 of the this total.

Now you have a baby, and childcare costs £1,000 per month.

You have two options:

(1) You work and pay £250 in childcare each month. Your husband works and pays £750 in childcare each month.

After childcare costs, you put £750 in the pot every month, and he puts in £2,250. As before, your contribution to the pot is 1/4 of the total. So you are "taking home some money from [your] paycheck" and you are "able to contribute to the 'pot' of money".

Overall of course you "lose" £1,000 from the £4,000 joint pot each month. Net income is now £3,000.

(2) You give up work and have no childcare costs.

As you are no longer earning, your household "loses" £1,000 from the joint pot each month. Your husband's contribution to the pot remains unchanged. As with option (1), net income is now £3,000.

Either way, you lose £1,000 from the joint pot each month. But the first option means you get to keep your job - something you really want to do, and, IMHO, you should get to do.

The scandal of course is that childcare costs are so high that a couple with a joint net income of £4,000 per month pre-kids instantly "loses" a quarter of that post-kids. It is shocking!

But it's not just abut take-home "profit" is it? There's pension, NI contributions and so one too. Long term investments. Then there is the invaluable unbroken work record.

Exactly. With option (1) in my post above, you get to keep everything BikeRunSki mentions, along with your independence, self-esteem, time out from childcare (toddlers are a nightmare challenge and you will relish your work days when that time comes!), adult conversation and promotion prospects.

Best of luck with whatever you decide!

I completely agree that it is a good idea to have no gaps in my CV, and yes I would like the "adult" time.

But I disagree that it gives me independence... using your analogy... before kids I got 1,000 a month from my salary. After kids we dont have that 1,000 for me, it goes to the nanny.

I do want to work, and I am worried that I might regret my decision to stay home... but I do not like my job, I took it just because it was better than nothing and an ok salary. There is absolutely no chance for a promotion and it is not really furthering my career. Its a 'front of house' type job and not in my field at all.

oh my I am two minds about this!

If you do not enjoy your work and it gains you nothing financially I say stay with your dc...much more rewarding than a gapless C.V!! Besides you will be gaining new skills...time management,personal development and no doubt money management! Enjoy the first few years with your dc, they don't last long, and if there is no real career development in your job you have little to lose! Enjoy your child...they will be a teenager before you blink..just my opinion

I'm glad I found this thread as I'm facing exactly the same dilemma - but unfortunately I was made redundant 6 months after going back to work after DD1 and I'm starting from scratch with job interviews etc.

So for me, childcare costs (I'm in the south east as well!), are an investment in me getting a new job and will eat significantly into my redundancy payout. I'm still not sure what to do although I know that being a full time SAHM is leaving me stressed and frustrated right now - probably because I don't feel it was my choice!

I loved my job by the way but not sure I'll be able to find anything similar in the current market.

Have you considered a change of direction? If you start your own business at home you can work around your children, make extra money without childcare costs and keep an unbroken work record on your CV.

I'm an Usborne organiser and I've found it an excellent way to make money while looking after my children - I can take them with me to events at toddler groups etc, do parties in the evenings when my OH is at home to babysit and generally get some independence without the hassle of commuting or paying for nursery/childminder.

If you're interested have a look at my website or email me on [email protected]

For a while after I returned to work my salary only covered my childcare expenses and a bit of the mortgage (DH had to cover everything else). But after a year in I got promoted and earned more so was very happy to have stayed on in my job (actually I considered it less a job but a career - I took the longterm view). If you see your job as a career then stick with it and try to get promoted quickly.

Try not to think to much about breaking even over the next few years. I am currently costing the household more than I bring in by choosing to work; but we know that we have savings that we can use to support us with childcare, which we can build back up once they are in school.
I tried being a SAHM, but I just spent my life feeling frustrated and resentfull that I had spent so long in higher education and building my career, that I thought I'd go mad...
Also, you may get help from tax credits.