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.

I do agree that 9-12 months is a tricky age for separation anxiety.

I am by no means suggesting that having the mum around full time excludes the father. My DH works part time. It was great during my mat. leave to have him around. He made a perfect bond with our children. I do not think it is ideal that the father be the primary carer in the first few months though.

Ah well, it's fine to disagree and good to discuss.

Aaargh bloody phone!
I imagine you are simply expressing your own opinion, that YOU didn't want to work for 6 or 12 months or however long. Which is fine, so long as you realise it's exactly that- your oPinion, not a fact

Yes, it's my opinion. You don't think it's a fact that it's preferable for a BF baby to be with its Mother for the first few months?

No, I do not believe its a fact that a baby needs to be with its mother exclusively for 6 months. There is absolutely no categorical evidence to prove that it's a fact.
Babies thrive perfectly happily provided their physical and emotional needs are met well. The child does not need to be with its mother 24/7 for this to happen

No, I do not believe its a fact that a baby needs to be with its mother exclusively for 6 months. There is absolutely no categorical evidence to prove that it's a fact.
Babies thrive perfectly happily provided their physical and emotional needs are met well. The child does not need to be with its mother 24/7 for this to happen

Once you start trying to claim it is a 'fact' that it's better for a baby to exclusively be with its mother for 6 months, or 12 months, or 4 years, or whatever figure you care to pluck, you're on very dodgy ground. A mother may decide that she wants to be with her child for X amount of time, but you cannot generalise from that, that this therefore means its 'best' for all babies.

As I said, my dd was exclusively fed breastmilk, despite the fact that from 3 months some of those feeds were given via a bottle by her childminder, and from 6 months some were given via cup. Plenty of ongoing skin to skin contact during early morning and evening feeding. Who can say that doing ALL the feeds via breast would have been 'better'? Show us the evidence which quantifies a certain amount of time a baby 'should' be having skin to skin contact with its mother???

Raising a physically and emotionally healthy child is far more complex than that anyway. I know some mothers who cling to their babies so possessively that dad barely gets a look in, and is working all hours to fund mum not working. Are we seriously suggesting that's 'better'?

I've also known colleagues who have had a years maternity leave and barely left their child and then the child has really struggled for weeks to settle in childcare. I don't see how anyway can say as 'a fact' that that is better for the child than having had a gradual acclimatisation to being left from an earlier age.

I think sometimes mothers get confused between what they actually prefer or enjoy, and what might actually be the smoothest and best scenario for the child - oh, and not forgetting the father too.

Well I think callmemrs has got it down to a tee, ultimately it is what suits the parents and the family set up rather than the children. When it comes down to it most children from well adjusted families will be fine whatever the set up.

Having 4 children I have had so many children round our house and in all honesty you wouldn't know which children were left at what age, in fact many many children with professional working mothers seem incredibly well adjusted to me.

I personally have done it all so can vouch for the fact that it hasn't made a huge difference in my own children and so have come to my own conclusion that I have certainly enjoyed it more with my fourth child because I took 18 months off work on extended leave and then went back 3 long mornings a week and now she is nearly 3 I am thinking of increasing my hours to eventually going full time.

When I had my boys I went back after 6 months full time and the boys were fine, in fact they had a very loving lady at nursery looking after them who nurtured them and truly loved them - they are incredibly well adjusted young boys now and you wouldn't tell the difference between them and other children (even mine other two!) who have had different starts in life.

The real difference for me was in my levels of stress and sanity especially with my second son who refused to wean and was permanently attached to my breast all night, making it a very horrible exhausting time for us all. I nearly had a nervous breakdown, but then again we did at the time have 3 children under 4 and no help from family and very very stressful demanding jobs so it was a very hard time.

I think it's better if the mother is working. I was working when they were 2 weeks. that means they have not wrench, no separation and virtually from bith they are bonded to their father, mother and whoever looks after them in the day. Mine exclusively had breastmilk and I've never personally bottle fed a baby. They had expressed milk when I was at work,. They also fed much of the night so i would say they had absolutely masses of hours of contact with me not that I think I'm God.

Some housewives think they alone on the planet can bring up baby and yet they only have to elevate themselves to that position because they have so little else in their lives at whichthey are any good so they deify their housewife and mother status. It's quite funny to see but totally wrong. In fact they can damage the child by being its all and the child sees mother as servant, girl children have wrose or no careers and women don't make their way in the world. Every culture on the planet from the romans with slaves to Victorian England shares the load of chidlren. Housewife at home with baby 24/7 is unnatural and wrong and damaging.

In your opinion Xenia.

For many women there is the choice of a boring unfullfilling role outside the home as a cleaner, cook, bottle washer or you can do it at home and have the pleasure of the company of those people you actually like as aposed to arseholes you often are forced to work with and for.

Heswall who is skiving from work to play with her baby and loving it !

itsonlyyearfour Do you not look back at those years with three under 4 and stressful jobs and wonder why you did that to yourself and your family ? I had very similar circumstances and no family help either and look back of think you bloody fool Heswall.

Heswall- Thats exactly why I'm encouraging my daughter - and son- to aim for interesting and fulfilling work. If you have so few skills and qualifications that you are equipped only for menial dull work alongside arse holes, then there isn't really any contest is there? Being at home is likely to be preferable! If on the other hand you have a fulfilling career with interesting people, then you have the option to choose between more than one fulfilling option

callmemrs - I was not for one second suggesting that we do actually 'need a big strong man' these days (though they can be handy)

• it's just our biological programming sends us that strong signal, just as it signals the 'need' to reproduce and makes us prefer certain physical traits in a partner. Not everyone experiences these signals as strongly, and some people decide not to have children. Some people decide on a partner with much lower earning capacity and know from early on that the lower earner will be the child's primary carer and the higher earner will return to work soon after birth. But I don't think people really consciously choose their partners on these criteria and probably don't have those conversations early in a relationship. Will post more a bit later.

callmemrs That's all very well if they are capable of qualifications etc (and I've no reason to doubt that your children are), but at the other end of the food chain are people who are capable of no more than getting out of bed in the morning. Now I can see a good argument for them not breeding more of the same but that's not allowed so if the best they can do is bring up law abiding citizens and hope for an improovement in the life chances of their offspring then I don't see the harm in them doing so, preferably at their own expense but that might be an ambitious dream.

As has been pointed out to Xenia a million times if we could all been Xenia's then being Xenia wouldn't pay very well at all, for the top 5% to do well there must be a bottom 95%

For those saying that women are only holding themselves back, lots of women don't want to work while they have small children, etc...
There should at least be a level playing field up to the moment when somebody goes on maternity leave, then it is down to the individual mother to decide what is going to best for her, her baby and the rest of the family. If someone takes 18 months to 3 years out of a 40-45 year career, should that really be such a big deal for employers/society? The whole of womankind should not be judged on what some or most women want, we should be treated as individuals.

Of course if you are self-employed as long as you are earning enough you can potentially be much more flexible about your working hours and can for example combine breastfeeding and work quite effectively.

Is it only when we are all self-employed, earning ten times our husband's salary, and would have the sense to go back to work 2 weeks after birth, that women would then have truly earned the right to a 'level playing field'? It's just not realistic!

Heswall, yes I do and I think I was so caught up in my career that I thought it was either that or nothing. It was only when I decided to have my fourth child that I realised that even if I took 2 years out of my career and then scaled back to part-time it wouldn't be the end of the world!

I think it's been nicer all round for our family to have a mum that wasn't exhausted 24/7, this doesn't mean I don't want to continue my career but it is a lot easier when you are getting a full night sleep!!

Lieins- if a woman literally takes just 18 months out of a 40 year career, and applies for every promotion opportunity in the same way that her male counterpart might, then I really doubt is is completely destroying her career prospects. Very often it's not like that though. Women frequently take a year off now for each child. They then often choose to work part time- often for many years after their children are school age. I have a number of colleagues whose children are all in school, in some cases are teenagers, and the mother still chooses to work 3 or 4 days. Now- that's entirely their choice, but I don't see how you can then complain that they don't have the earnings or promotion prospects of their full time counterparts.

I took 3 months off with my first baby, 6 months with second, worked part time temporarily while they were very small and then went back up to full time and have since had a couple of promotions. I really don't feel my prospects have been hammered. True, I won't have quite a full pension (though I have covered that by AVCs and other investments).

I do think a lot of this is about choices, and how many women want to do things. If you prefer to let your career take a back seat while your husband forges ahead, then you can't complain that you aren't earning as much. There are regularly threads about how women feel that they can't work, or can only do menial low paid work because they want to fit around their husband and allow him to jet set around. You can't have it both ways! If you choose a partner where you expect him to fly high while you see yourself as the main carer and in charge of the domestic scene then that's your choice isn't it

Hi there - the simple answer to your (OP) question is I cannot.

As a single mum, with minimal support from the dad, other than the occasional help with milk and clothes...I can honestly say that having had my first child and I will suppose only child at 44 - there is very little government support for those of us that have 'paid into the system' for years, and then have children.

Spending time with my child has not just been the only an option of choice, that I am eternally grateful for, but also a necessity as I just could not afford full time child care, and sustain a mortgage in London. Between these two outgoings each month, that would have been 80% of my salary.

I would have liked to have thought, I could manage both a continued career, and eg. start a pension, while raising my son till school aged, but that was just not financially viable, with a single income, living in London, unless I was making more than 45K a year. Unfortunately, I do not fall into that salary bracket.

Now I have taken the 3 years 'off' to raise him, I am faced with the stigma of being 'out of work' for 3 years, plus my age, and the competition of so many other younger childless unemployed in the current economy. So finding a job is harder than ever before.

As he just turned 3, (Oct) he has started attending pre-school nursery, (Jan) which he needed so badly as an only child, mainly for socialization, and getting use to the routine and culture of school. My mother helps me with my half of the costs, as even with the 15 hours a week free, it is totally unfeasible on a £537 a month income.

I would like to know if any other single 'older' full time 'unemployed' mums with mortgages, have faced similar problems or have any comments.

I have DS in nursery, aged 2, paying £850 pcm and just had my second. This year, when I return to work, we will be paying £1750 pcm. Our childcare vouchers save approx £50 each per month. I am going back to work as my OH works in sales - not only do we not have guaranteed income from his work, but he has also lost his job twice in the past few years. This sounds terrible, but I don't want him to be a SAHD - I have images on them 'playing together' in the living room every day while my DH watches daytime TV out of one eye. We will be supplementing our income with our meagre savings to get by for the next year - and beyond that I have no idea. Yes, yes, my choice to have them close together, yadda yadda yadda - but it always saddens me when people used to say "we waited for suitable age gap due to nursery costs". You CHOSE when to have kids based on a temporary financial implication?! Good on them for being financially responsible, but I refused to do so! So we will suffer for it. I'll let you know in 20 years whether it was worth it.

But Jenn I hope you are earning at least 10x your dh, otherwise you have done it all WRONG!

Ukja- that is the fault of a system which allows a parent to not take financial responsibility for their child.

As long as a child has both parents alive and capable of working, there is no reason why both shouldn't contribute to childcare costs. It shouldn't make any difference whether the parents stay together or not. If your child's father had paid half the childcare, you would both have been able to work, just as couples who are together do

ukja, I am a sahm by choice and spend some of my time with other sahm's most of which are single parents. (one a dad). I can sympathise as they say similar to you, it just isn't possible for them to work. However, please believe me when I say it doesn't make you a bad person and the intelligent members of society know that most single parents aren't the stereotypical we hear about. One friend gets annoyed as she says that married parents have a choice not to work but for sp they are forced into job clubs and searching for work when child gets to 7. This does seem unfair. Yes she chose to have her dd but its not her fault her xdh left her. Many leave jobs so the csa can't take too much money from them, so it's not always possible to get them to pay for child care. This isn't just men either.

My question is how do so many people afford not to work?! Because so few people discuss their finances, it's hard to understand how other people do it.

Just out of purely nosey interest, Xenia and Quatro - what do you do for work?

I'm one of those who earns a bit more than DP, but I don't do anything glamorous (teacher) and we're definitely not talking multiples of his salary! (But that would be lovely!)