Child Care is costing us the equivelent of a mortgage!

onlyroz

jenhug wrote: »

I suppose it worked for us as hubbys earning potential was much higher than mine

This is only true if you make it so.

Unfortunately it seem like a lot (if not most) women believe that all they can aspire to is to play a supporting role in the family rather than be at the head of it, or be on an equal footing with their husband.

seven-day-weekend

inspirespirit wrote: »

Why do people nowadays seem to think the Government should pay your childcare costs? My eldest is now 30 and there was no such thing as Child Tax Credits or Working Tax Credits at phenomonal amounts. We had Family Allowance. Paid to the woman every Monday. Think it was about 10 pounds and that was it.
I, like most people, worked around my husband's hours. I worked 5.30 till 10.30 in the evenings and weekends as a Receptionist in a Sports Centre to make ends meet. Then when the kids went to school I found a job to fit in with school hours, and when they got a bit older I ran my own business.

In this 24/7 society nowadays, it should be even easier to get unsocial working hours so that 2 people can fit work around each other.
Rather that than put my child in full time nursery.
The College I worked at when my kids were at school had a nursery. It was heartbreaking. Little 'uns could be there from 8am till 6pm. Stuck in one huge room with a small portioned off garden, 5 days a week.
If they had been home with mum they would have had trips to the shops, supermarkets, park, swimming, library, granny and grandads, friends with kids, the odd morning creche so mum could do aerobics, out to lunch with friends and other little 'uns, mother and baby mornings, picnics, paddling pool in the garden on hot sunny days.
Or a nursery with strangers, constant staff turnover, same old same old, day in day out 5 days a week for 5 years of their little lives.

Agree absolutely, but some people don't want to work around the main breadwinner's hours in 'a job'. They wan to keep their career and progress in it.

We thought that caring for our child while he was little was the most important thing, so I was a SAHM for five years (doing part-time Uni at the same time) and then had low-paid, part-time jobs that meant I could be there for him when he came home from school. I didn't go back to work full-time until he was 14. I will add that I received no Benefits for this, other than Child Benefit of around £10 (which I would have got whether I worked or not).

However that was our choice, not everyone makes the same one, although why people can't be a little flexible for a few years while the child is young I don't understand, I must admit. We would have hated our son to be brought up by nursery staff instead of us.

jenhug

onlyroz wrote: »

This is only true if you make it so.

Unfortunately it seem like a lot (if not most) women believe that all they can aspire to is to play a supporting role in the family rather than be at the head of it, or be on an equal footing with their husband.

Money doesn't buy equality.

seven-day-weekend

onlyroz wrote: »

This is only true if you make it so.

Unfortunately it seem like a lot (if not most) women believe that all they can aspire to is to play a supporting role in the family rather than be at the head of it, or be on an equal footing with their husband.

Just because I did not earn the same amount as my husband doesn't mean I am not an equal in our partnership!

vroombroom

my littlun will be 19 weeks when he starts nursery in September, as I'm finishing my degree off (choice of careers after it but we do a lot of work experience and there's a high chance of a job after it:D) on a Mon, Tues and Wed. We'll be getting a bit of help towards the cost of it - it will cost £90 pw and we get just over a £100 from student loans to help towards it, the rest will be funded by me and OH

His job do the childcare vouchers as do my new job. I'll be fitting my hours around his x

grey_lady

Each to their own, but there was a large study done recently which found that children who's mothers worked and who were in nurseries were less likely to have behavioural problems at age five, so there's nothing to say that kids are worse off in nurseries.

In fact that might be better than being parked in front of the tv all day whilst mum is on facebook.

DevilsAdvocate1

onlyroz wrote: »

This is only true if you make it so.

Unfortunately it seem like a lot (if not most) women believe that all they can aspire to is to play a supporting role in the family rather than be at the head of it, or be on an equal footing with their husband.

I did not aspire to be a SAHM and had a good career in IT when my oldest was born. I even returned to it after I had him. But it was completely different. I missed my son and felt that I only saw him at the worst part of the day. He was tired from his day at the childminder's and I was tired from my day at work. Weekends seemed to be filled with chores. I had little quality time with my family.

And I was so tired all the time. My husband and I started arguing a lot and I gradually realised it was because I was unhappy. When I found out I was pregnant again I knew I did not want to return to work. I truely believe we would be divorced had we both continued as we were.

I had career aspirations before I had children, but when they came along they were far more important to me that the career. Money was tight and I ended up becoming a registered childminder for a while.

I am now self employed and earn as much as I did before I gave up work. I enjoy what I do, and more importantly, it fits around the children. I am there to drop them off, pick them up and during school holidays.

Don't feel sad or sorry for me (how patronising!) I'm very happy with my life. What would a career have done for me that I haven't got now?

andrealm

onlyroz wrote: »

This is only true if you make it so.

Unfortunately it seem like a lot (if not most) women believe that all they can aspire to is to play a supporting role in the family rather than be at the head of it, or be on an equal footing with their husband.

What a very strange viewpoint. How sad that you seem to feel that a person's worth is only determined by their salary! I'm on an equal footing to my husband regardless of our working situations, being a sahm doesn't mean you are some kind of second class citizen who is subservient to your partner.

euronorris

onlyroz wrote: »

This is only true if you make it so.

Unfortunately it seem like a lot (if not most) women believe that all they can aspire to is to play a supporting role in the family rather than be at the head of it, or be on an equal footing with their husband.

It is possible to play a supporting role in the family by staying at home and looking after house and family. Equally, it is possible for the other person to play their supporting role by going to work and earning enough money to pay the bills and put food on the table.

Both are equally important and interchangeable (ie, you can have stay at home dad and mum and work and vice versa).

Doing either role doesn't make one the head of the family alone, it's a joint responsibility that should be shared in a way that works best for the family.

So, equally, if both parents wish to work, with little one in childcare and then share the chores at home, that's cool too.

I have no doubt that the dynamics of most families changes numerous times over the years. It did with my parents, it has with my siblings and probably will with OH and I when we come to it.

Of course, if we win the lottery, we can both stay at home and give the future little ones 100% of our time. What? A girl can dream!

clearingout

DevilsAdvocate1 wrote: »

At a time where more and more children attend nurseries, more and more children start school unable to speak. This is put down to bad parenting, but I personally think it is due to all the time in nursery.

Those on benefits who do not work at all will not be getting childcare paid for - they are not working, so they do not need it.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. My middle child has a major speech delay and it is NOT a result of my 'bad parenting', nor is it down to him having spent 'all the time in nursery' as I have only ever worked part- time and have been at home for the last 2 years full time, nor is it down to him still sucking a dummy or using a bottle at 4 years old (he never had either!). I was told by a SALT that this is an increasing problem, particularly amongst boys, but that there is generally no obvious cause. Certainly, my eldest child was very quick to develop speech and I have always received compliments on his very extensive vocabulary - and he spent far more time in childcare (although only ever part time) than the child who has the problem. Is is so very wrong to generalise in this way.