Child care Cots

[LoftyLottie]

Heard on the news this morning about concerns that parents were having to give up work because child care was costing too much and putting them into debt. One primary school teacher complained that child care for her three under 5's was costing £125.00 per day so she was having to give up work!!!

Is it only me that finds this somewhat strange? What is the problem about staying at home with children, especially if you are financially better off for doing so? Why have three children if you don't want to look after them?

[LoftyLottie]

'Costs' of course. Although cots are appropriate for child care!!!

[ummmm]

I suppose some people don't want to leave work for that amount of time. If you have 3 children and stay home until they start school, that's 8+ years at home.

(ps, Matt Cardle will be performing on loose women :-))

[ummmm]

I would have happily stayed at home with mine. No such luck.

[VHG]

Unfortunately we live in a society where house costs like mortgage and rents are so high it forces both parents to go out to work.

Anyway why should the woman give up work, in this "equal society" we live in why cannot the man give up work (I know some do).

My son and his wife have a young child but they cant live on just his salary alone so his wife has to go out to work and they put the child in a nursery for the day. They both hate it but have little choice.

They live in a rented house so pay about £650 a month rent, but they are also trying to save up to buy a house, so are in a catch 22 situation.

p.s. I could push this topic down an immigration route as I believe the flood of people who have come into this coutry in the last few decades are causing a housing shortage and so driving up rents and mortgage costs. But I dont think I will do that.

[LoftyLottie]

That is ummmm if you stay at home from day one of when the first child is born surely. What is the point of going to work if it puts you out of pocket though. Surely your time would be better spent with your kids for a few years. Especially teachers, they seem to get back into work quite easily.

As for Matt Cardle, I have my ears pinned back waiting to hear when he comes on. I can't stand Loose Women but will definitely be dashing into the other room as soon as he appears!!! Thanks ummmm x

[flip_flop]

I agree.

When our children came along we took the rather old fashioned decision that Mrs Flop would give up work and raise her as opposed to farming her out to a stranger.

This wasn't because were rolling in it and wouldn't miss Mrs Flop's money, because we did miss it and had to make a number of sacrifices - but on the whole the sacrifices were worth it.

[LoftyLottie]

VHG. I actually said 'parents' and not women. This isn't about people having to work - it's about people complaining that it's more expensive to work than stay at home. It's not logical to go to work for a loss in income.

[Mosaic]

I recall being in this position in the 1980s - returning to work with two small kids under school age, most of my wage going on childcare. We worked out that the bottom line was, with our combined wages and costs, me working paid the food bills.
But one thing I'm sure your teacher quoted in the example could look at is getting someone in, maybe not a fully fledged nanny but someone along those lines.
The thing is, taking time 'out' from working can knock you back years in terms of getting back 'in'. It's very hard for young people now as mortgages and rents are sky high.
But I agree, work out the maths and if you are better off not working - don't work!
I saved best part of 8 grand a year on petrol and car depreciation alone by choosing not to work - the wage was substantial but 40% went in tax - and by doing a bit of part time work I'm physically fitter, much happier and while not rolling in cash not hard up either. Stuff the status.

[ummmm]

I was lucky enough to work from home and the nursery was a two minute walk. I could pick them up and drop them off when I felt like it.

[LoftyLottie]

Fitflop I agree and I also think peoples life style expectations are far too high. People don't want to make material sacrifices and the best thing parents can give their kids, apart from a roof, clothing, food and heating, is their time. But this strays away from my point which is "Why would someone go to work if child care eats a whole salary or a huge proportion of it. Kids are not little for very long!!

[Gromit]

If the mothers are single, and decide not to work, are they not then labelled 'scroungers'?

[jackthehat]

I don't think too may people find themselves in 'negative' salary after paying childcare costs.
I think they find that the difference between their salary and 'salary-minus-childcare' is so small as to make it hardly worth the bother and stress of working.

[LoftyLottie]

There are a whole lot of people not working because they are better off on benefits. In a way can you blame them. But why would you go to work for no return.

Kids don't benefit from being showered with clothes, goodies and holidays. They benefit from attention from parents and stability. I am not anti child care entirely, but I think there is a happy medium.

No Matt Cardle yet......................................... !

[ummmm]

I think it's as Mosaic says....if you stay out of the game...it's hard to get back into it. So I suppose it comes down to the profession.

[LoftyLottie]

Gromit. That's a completely different issue though surely.

Would you go into debt through paying out for chidcare if staying at home kept you afloat?

[ummmm]

Some people can't afford material things even with two incomes.

I don't know how people manage. I've said before, the house next door is rented out for £800 a month. That would cover all of our outgoings and more (except food)

[LoftyLottie]

Ummmm. I remember when our mortgage was exactly my one month's salary back in the early 70's. Which isn't that much different to mortgages/rents these days. We struggled!!!! The difference back then really was that single people virtually never contemplated buying a home. There was simply to chance unless you were rich.

£800 per month compares favourably to our £70.00 per month back then.

[LoftyLottie]

I am going to have to miss Matt Cardle ummm, I have to go and get ready to go out for a 2.00pm appointment. I'll have to catch up on ITV player! ;o)

[ladybird49]

When mine were little i went out to work as my husband came in from work for a few years at least , then i did weekend work when they were a bit older , it worked out ok for us . its so hard now for working parents

[anotheoldgit]

Even today, there are plenty of couples where the wife stays at home to bring up their children, and they seem to manage.

It seems to me it depends on what one expects from life, some wish to have children but don't necessarily want the responsibility that is involved in bringing them up.

Everyone seems to want to be 'high-flyers' these days, well there is nothing wrong with that, per se, but sometimes to achieve that status one has to make certain sacrifices, one being to have Children or not.

Years ago, a couple had to make many decisions such as these:

"Can we afford to get Engaged"?

"Can we afford to get Married?"

"Can we afford for the Wife to give up work"?

"Can we afford to have a child"

"Can we afford to have any more"?

Seem to work then.