Childcare costs are incredible, how do so many women afford to work

[Zealey]

Hi, I'm sure many people have asked this question before, but I've just seen a piece on the BBC News about how childcare costs are often thousands of pounds a month for multiple kids.
Here in London my local nursery charges £750 per child per month. Considering many return to work mums will be typically part-time and in low paid jobs, HOW does ANY make it pay? Surely not every mum in London is on £40k+ a year.
I'm sincerely curious.
Thanks.

Lies you make some very good points. I think spending a year at home on maternity leave (plus bf etc) I definitely bonded with dd more than dh. DH is a very hands on dad but was saying the other day how whether I am at home with dd (one day a week) or she is in nursery (4 days) or with grandparents (v rare but when I have had a hospital appointment) it makes no odds to him as he has been used to being apart from dd for over a year. For me, I am still getting used to leaving her (if we go out in the evening etc - which is rare!).

I also think Sara can see where I am coming from. Pre dd I was more of an "alpha" type - v career driven and ambitious, I am pleased with what I have achieved but am now happy to take more of a back seat (although still working etc) and support DH so that he can achieve what he would like to. I am very blessed in that I have achieved (career wise) all I have wanted to pre dd so do not feel I need to prove myself further (which had driven me before). Also, DH is still progressing and building his career (whereas mine is a bit more stable and open to flexi working etc. more than his). I think it would be tough on the children with two "apha" type parents as careers can be v demanding (travel, long hours etc in our lines of business).

Having said all that (sorry for long post!) if I earned more than DH and/or still felt I had room to grow career wise we would try and work something out whereby the pressure wasn't solely on me to manage nursery drop offs etc - maybe look into alternatives. He has been v supportive of my work and is happy for me to continue working or to be at home if I prefer.

It is just that mentally I would feel that if my salary (alone) did not cover and exceed the cost of childcare then it wouldn't be worth me working (even though in practice we share the costs and have a joint account etc) although DH has said even if not I should still work if I wanted to.

OMG (Angel)so get where you are coming from, that could be us. suffice to say its hard to have a perfect life. If I had a wish list it would be for my family to be nearer to step in occasionally and help out I think that is key

I hope Angel doesn't mind being used as the example. I try not to be personal to anyone but it's all interesting stuff.

I earned 10x my children's father so I suppose I would be like the Angel husband. There was no question my work would come first although on a day by day basis if one of you is in an important meeting and the other isnt' and there is a crisis at home you tend to sort out who is most busy in deciding who would be home.

Second difference I took 2 weeks off when I had each baby and went back so no patterns of sexism were established. Yes I loved breastfeeding and yes I had a lot of children but there was never erally a feeling that I was better at the babies than he was. Men can change nappies and hold screaming babies as much as women. If the Angel husband earne £20k in the opost room I suspect he'd be the one rushing home to be there for 5,.30. But and this is the interesting question would you ahve married him if he earned a tenth you did and would be the one home more with the children? Are women really mostly after more alpha men than they are and is that the real reason we never often rise to positions of power?

So taking more than two weeks off after giving birth is 'establishing a pattern of sexism'. First time I have done that face as I feel it is overused but, really?

I wonder how many couples there are where both work full-time and one earns ten times the other, regardless of gender, before children. I bet there are only a few thousand in the whole country. It is your situation and view which is unusual and quite astonishing to me!

As for looking for alpha males, well yes, I believe women are more likely to seek out someone they can be supported by while they are having babies. If you are with a hunter who is not very good at hunting, you and your baby may starve whilst you are heavily pregnant, bleeding, nursing and therefore unable to hunt/gather yourself. So there is still an element of that at work, rightly or wrongly. It will take a long time for society, people's families, etc, to unblinkingly accept women marrying men who earn way below them with the express intention of getting them to stay at home to look after the children. I find it a very weird logic and impractical in terms of what many women or men would be/are happy with and how society would actually work with all these high-powered career women looking for low-earning men to be SAHDs...

Of course it can and does work out in some cases and there is nothing wrong with it but most people will choose the more traditional route, marry/partner for 'romantic love', not practical reasons.

Xenia is quite extreme in being so high earning and back at her desk 2 weeks after giving birth.

HOWEVER- I find the view Liein puts forward just as bizarre. Women are not some feeble gender who need a big strong man to do all the earning while they take to their bed for a year!

Extended maternity leave is a very recent thing- for decades many women were back at work within 10 or 12 weeks of giving birth. It can be combined perfectly well with breastfeeding (my dc1 was 12 weeks when I returned and I carried on bf until she was 12 months ).

Personally I HOPE leave becomes interchangeable so that eg mum can take some time off, followed by dad taking some time off. It is a really crucial step in recognising that men are just as capable of doing the caring role, and women are just as capable of earning

Before we had dd , I had no idea how to look after a baby. Neither did dh! We both learned together and he was just as good at it as I was. What I DID know how to well was my job. I was just as good at my Job as my dh was at his. I don't think we were exceptional- I think many couples are the same. People tend to partner someone of similar intelligence, ability etc as themself so why on earth should one person assume that they are less good in the workplace ?

call I agree with everything you say about being as good in the workplace, but have to disagree with your statement "men are just as capable of doing the caring role" - IN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS/YEAR.

For many (most?) women breastfeeding and work CANNOT be perfectly combined, and certainly with a 4 or 5 month old baby I feel BF woman would struggle to equal the productivity of a non-BF person - given the same amount of hours. It can be done, of course, but I really don't think it's beneficial to try and have governments (or whoever) believe that the role of the mother and the father in caring for an infant is the same and is interchangeable. If that's what couples choose to do, fine.

Oh what twaddle.

Women can earn lots. They can do that while having small children. Choosing a husband for his earning capacity is a mistake on so many levels (1. how do you know what that is, long term 2. Would you really be able to live in the longer term with someone you married for money 3. Why do you have so little self-belief - if you want money, just earn it)

Bonkers- having been there and done that, returned to work with a 12 week old- no, it really is perfectly possible. The thing is, people tend to react to whatever the situation is at their given time. If women routinely have a year off after having a baby, they start to believe that's the only way of doing things. If you have less time off, you realise that you can manage perfectly well- in fact even better in some ways, as starting to leave a child with someone other than its primary carer at 9-12 months is probably the worst time from the separation anxiety perspective. Earlier is actually better from the child's viewpoint. And anyway, the father is the EQUAL parent. The child has the right to have just as close a bond with its Father as with it's mother. If we're actually thinking about the CHILD then let's stop sanctifying the mother as the only

Posted too soon. ....the only person capable of meeting the child's needs.

Quatrocentro - some women can earn lots. Most don't. I know lots of very intelligent, well-educated women who don't. There aren't that many well-paid jobs out there, not where I live anyway. It's far more likely that a man will earn well, given the way things are.

We live off my DH's salary. My salary almost all goes on childcare costs.

Our local nursery charges £1100 a month for full time nursery per child. My oldest child is at school now, with an after school club that costs £40 a wek, so our total childcare costs are £1,140 - staggering. When my children were both pre-school age, we hired a live-in nanny who we paid £1200 per month - but she brought her own child with her, which kept the costs 'down' (ha). An experienced nanny in London would usually cost a lot more.

Most of the professional women I know have nannies or do a combination of P/T nursery and au pairs. A couple have childminders, but this doesnt really work out cheaper in London, ime.

A lot of the women I know work part-time or flexibly, and mny more rely on grandparents for childcare.

It is tough, and I do understand why some women decide it isnt worth the stress or cost-effective, but personally, I could not give up the career I trained for and enjoy. I have faith that eventually I will be able to earn much more in the future.

That is such such nonsense.

It genuinely makes me angry when women say they can't earn as much as men. They can. They just have to believe in themselves and take their opportunities

I think there are certain things which disadvantage women, but the greatest barrier to women earning as much as men is often themself . Many woman CHOOSE to stop working or reduce their working hours after having children. If you choose to do this , how can you then seriously expect your earning to keep pace with someone who continues working full time and probably goes for promotions too.

I think people need to be realistic here. You cant choose to take a back seat with your career yet at the same time expect to retain the same earning power as someone who is driving their career forward

So because you earn lots, that means any woman can. To coin a phrase - oh what twaddle. We can't all be high earners. Most employers want to pay people (particuarly women) as little as possible. They want more and more for less and less. Maybe you live somewhere where there are great opportunities springing up all the time, I don't.

It's true that lots of women have little belief in themselves, it often comes from a realisation that no matter how hard you work, nothing you ever do is going to be rewarded.

Some people are lucky to have a good income and have landed on their feet, but lots (particuarly women) aren't. Men are statistically much more likely to have landed on their feet.

If most employers want more and more for less and less- than that surely applies equally to men!
Yes, times are tough right now- but it doesn't mean there aren't opportunities for women.

If most employers want more and more for less and less- than that surely applies equally to men!
Yes, times are tough right now- but it doesn't mean there aren't opportunities for women.

There is no even playing field. Don't kid yourself.

Many women don't want an even playing field. They WANT to cut back their hours, work part time, take less stressful jobs and avoid jobs with travel etc

Don't kid yourself all women WANT to be high fliers in the workplace

I think it depends who you mary, if you marry a man who is very into his job then he probably wont be as bothered about the kids in the same way as the um. However if you marry a man who wants to share its different DH will take as many days of as me for sickness for dd, he has always been there for nearly everything, as I work we can work round it, so both of us are with DD lots. He wouldnt do a job where he worked away or had to long hours and be away from her, and I wouldnt want him to. He drops her off, picks her up from school on certain days, his work know there are lots of times he will go off sick with her, he has been to every appointment, weigh in, doctors etc.

I agree with callmemrs many women agree with her last comment, and many men do do such as DH and lots of men I know. Some people just arent kid/family orientated and they are moreabout working, which is up to them but it isnt what everyone wants.

I disagree call. In the early months especially if you are BF the baby needs the mother more than the father. That's a biological fact. There are so, so many advantages to exclusive BF in the first few months - not expressing, but skin to skin bonding with the Mother. The father can do everything else, but I believe it is in the best interests of the child and the mother that she spend as much time as possible with the baby in the first few months or longer if possible.

I am not saying it is not impossible to do as you did, but I don't think it's ideal.

Exactly. I remember almost 18 years ago when our dd was about six months old and poorly. I took a day off work as she couldn't go to the childminder. The next day she still wasn't well enough to go so dh took a day off. Apparently some of his colleagues were gobsmacked. They just couldn't get their heads round it. In their view, it was always the mum who was either not employed in the first place, or would take her work so much less seriously that she would automatically be the one to take all the time off. So presumably, these guys had wives who were happy to m

I do agree that the issue is that many women, post-childbirth, do not actually want to work

And that's fine, absolutely fine, of course. But I do hate to see excuses about how there isn't a level playing field, and childcare's so expensive, and wouldn't skin-to-skin contact with the breastfeeding mother be ideal for 12 hours a day of the first 5 years of the baby's life ...

If you don't want to work, just say so FFS

My take is that you can have it all, and there is no reason to be insecure or scared of going back to work.

Oops. Happy to play that role.
I wasn't . Not was dh. We saw it as a joint responsibility. Also, dh was just as capable as me of looking after an ill 6 month old.

It's down to women to a) decide that they want equality and b) partner the type of man who believes in an equal relationship.

It's no good complaining if when it comes to the crunch you don't actually want to be treated the same

I personally have to disagree bonkers and agree totally with callmemrs - 9 - 12 months is the worse possible time you can leave a child at a setting, and I do believe a man is an equal parent. I think it is worse for a child having a mum who is always with the child but hardly ever seeing the dad as he works away/works long hours. I think it detrimental to the bond between dad and baby and lot of men that do that never have the same kind of bond as the baby does with the mum as they hardly ever see them.

Bonkers - my dd was exclusively fed breastmilk until she was weaned. Some of it was expressed- she was a very clever baby who could drink from a bottle as well as a breast

She had masses of skin to skin contact during early morning, evening and night feeds. If you can find me some evidence that shows babies with, say, 12 hours skin to skin contact per day versus , 6 hours , are hugely advantaged, then please share. I imagine though, that you are sim