Bay 3 months chucked into FULL time nursery

lostinrates

Person_one wrote: »

Nothing wrong with baking, but then nobody said there was, did they?

On this thread no. On others like it on this board people have been very scathing of sham or wives.

On this one it seems people are more than normally balanced. In truth I think the majority of people realise people make different choices because they are different personalities in different situations.

j.e.j.

Lagoon wrote: »

What if you're not aiming for 'bigger and better' things, and just want the basics?

OH and I are planning to TTC, and waiting a maximum of two years in the hope that our financial situation will improve. We could only just manage now, on two salaries, and it would be a struggle. On one salary? Beyond impossible.

Why this idea that people that work whilst having children are putting material belongings ABOVE their children?

You need to bear in mind how much childcare will cost you, btw. If you can only just manage with 2 salaries, without the cost of childcare/nursery, it will be a struggle to say the least once you're having to pay out £30 a day or however much it is.

lostinrates

esmerelda98 wrote: »

The most precious things cannot be bought, bigger doesn't always mean better and not going out to work full-time doesn't necessarily mean claiming benefits. There is part-time work, working flexibly from home, or simply managing on one income, in the case of two-parent family units. I hardly think you went back to work due to a desire to continue to pay 'a significant amount of tax', I rather think it was a desire for those 'bigger and better' THINGS.

What if its not bigger and better things but morals and ideas you go out to work for? Suppose your work can change lives for the better and you are better placed than most to do it....research or a way of looking at things? Or you are a human rights lawyer, or a powerful public speaker able to make people understand....say, children's issues?

What if you just believe in aspiration for 'ideals' not stuff ?

There are a lot of reasons besides 'bigger stuff' and 'the bread line' people might choose to work rather than sahp.

Lagoon

j.e.j. wrote: »

You need to bear in mind how much childcare will cost you, btw. If you can only just manage with 2 salaries, without the cost of childcare/nursery, it will be a struggle to say the least once you're having to pay out £30 a day or however much it is.

I'm in the fortunate situation of not having to worry about childcare. I was simply pointing out that many people don't have a choice. For some people, an extra £5 a day can make all the difference to their standard of living.

On the other hand, it's clear why staying on benefits can seem such an attractive option to many parents.
Whether you go to work or don't, you could end up with the same amount of money. If you're paying for childcare, benefits might be a much higher income.

esmerelda98

lostinrates wrote: »

What if its not bigger and better things but morals and ideas you go out to work for? Suppose your work can change lives for the better and you are better placed than most to do it....research or a way of looking at things? Or you are a human rights lawyer, or a powerful public speaker able to make people understand....say, children's issues?

What if you just believe in aspiration for 'ideals' not stuff ?

There are a lot of reasons besides 'bigger stuff' and 'the bread line' people might choose to work rather than sahp.

These days the talk is of entitlement, and there is very little talk of sacrifice. People feel entitled to have children, regardless of whether it is really in the best interests of those children to be born. So if people are doing such precious work that cannot be put on the back burner for a while, perhaps they should put off having children, or not have them at all. Of course in this entitlement culture that idea is not even considered. It's their human right to have children, and what's best for this non-existent child isn't considered. Remember that no-one ever suffered from not having been born.

I actually think it is really great for sahp to have interests outside the home, whether it be part-time work, study or a hobby that is nothing to do with their parenting role. However, there are only 24 hours in a day, and even when one parent works part-time it is often a struggle to get everything done.

You are going to struggle to convince me that two parents working full-time and having a child are not forcing the child into a regime that is based on the parents' wants. That is usually the starting point. Then come all the justifications for why the children will do just fine. They probably will, children tend to be resilient, but the discussion starts completely from the wrong standpoint, IMO, and I wish people could be a bit more honest.

pesky85

esmerelda98 wrote: »

The most precious things cannot be bought, bigger doesn't always mean better and not going out to work full-time doesn't necessarily mean claiming benefits. There is part-time work, working flexibly from home, or simply managing on one income, in the case of two-parent family units. I hardly think you went back to work due to a desire to continue to pay 'a significant amount of tax', I rather think it was a desire for those 'bigger and better' THINGS.

Of course I didn't go back to work just to pay taxes.....

By bigger and better THINGS as you put it, I did not mean material objects or holidays. I actually meant the chance to be debt free, and to invest in our first property so that one day the children would have some sort of inheritance and we could have a family home that we could call our own.

Is it a bad thing that I actually really enjoyed my job, too?!

As it turns out I am now a SAHM. But I can't stand people that judge working mothers, especially those that don't know the facts.

pesky85

Also - some people don't have the option of going back part time! Well, at least not the same pay scale - therefore making it difficult or impossible to cover the costs of childcare.

lostinrates

esmerelda98 wrote: »

These days the talk is of entitlement, and there is very little talk of sacrifice. People feel entitled to have children, regardless of whether it is really in the best interests of those children to be born. So if people are doing such precious work that cannot be put on the back burner for a while, perhaps they should put off having children, or not have them at all. Of course in this entitlement culture that idea is not even considered. It's their human right to have children, and what's best for this non-existent child isn't considered. Remember that no-one ever suffered from not having been born.

I actually think it is really great for sahp to have interests outside the home, whether it be part-time work, study or a hobby that is nothing to do with their parenting role. However, there are only 24 hours in a day, and even when one parent works part-time it is often a struggle to get everything done.

You are going to struggle to convince me that two parents working full-time and having a child are not forcing the child into a regime that is based on the parents' wants. That is usually the starting point. Then come all the justifications for why the children will do just fine. They probably will, children tend to be resilient, but the discussion starts completely from the wrong standpoint, IMO, and I wish people could be a bit more honest.

I think that's a fair standpoint. Fwiw, both my parents worked (and my mother was a single parent before that in the sixties and worked hard, sometimes having to leave the country for her career and her child with the other parent). She could have got a different career (the father was not financially provident at all) but I believe her career showed my sibling aspiration and certainly made networks and introductions still enjoyed today. Later, marrying my dad, my mother did give up her career. I fundamentally feel this was a huge, huge mistake for her and ultimately for me and my parents marriage.

Otoh, I would want to have been a sahp, because I am a different person and my relationship with my husband and my life has a different dynamic and I think the thinks I would have offered a child are different (not better, not worse) but better suited to me being at home part time at least. However, I would certainly have made use of dh's child are vouchers entitlement had we had a child, because I think I would want that time, for myself AND for other interests. Up until recently I had a friends toddler regularly for her sanity time, she needed it, but crucially I think that time, and his nursery time both really benefitted him. Different one to one attention, (such as in the past might have been given by geographically closer extended families) and play with other children with few adults (also something which might not be abnormal in our social history) I think brought different things out in him. Nursery is probably more stimulating and developing, than an excess of tv, for example.

esmerelda98

Lagoon wrote: »

What if you're not aiming for 'bigger and better' things, and just want the basics?

OH and I are planning to TTC, and waiting a maximum of two years in the hope that our financial situation will improve. We could only just manage now, on two salaries, and it would be a struggle. On one salary? Beyond impossible.

Why this idea that people that work whilst having children are putting material belongings ABOVE their children?

One way or another, money/lifestyle/social status are usually at the root of the reasons why both parents go back to work full time soon after having a child. Even other reasons like stability and wanting to continue being in control, in a round-about way come down to money, and what it means to people to have money.

As regards your situation, if there are two of you, no large debts, no unaffordable mortgage, you realise the basics don't include things like smartphones, sky, fancy holidays, then you must both be on quite low salaries. Has either of you considered training/retraining in order to get a better salary. Shoe-horning a child into this set-up where you are apparently just coping doesn't sound pleasant for any one.

lostinrates

esmerelda98 wrote: »

One way or another, money/lifestyle/social status are usually at the root of the reasons why both parents go back to work full time soon after having a child. Even other reasons like stability and wanting to continue being in control, in a round-about way come down to money, and what it means to people to have money.

As regards your situation, if there are two of you, no large debts, no unaffordable mortgage, you realise the basics don't include things like smartphones, sky, fancy holidays, then you must both be on quite low salaries. Has either of you considered training/retraining in order to get a better salary. Shoe-horning a child into this set-up where you are apparently just coping doesn't sound pleasant for any one.

It's somewhat disheartening you cannot see people would work when money/ status are not the motivator.

What about the uber rich who have more money than they know what to do with yet work? What about those who work incognito andpro bono?

Fwiw, I mentioned in another context that my fil could have retired years ago, He is wealthy and of an age. But he loves his job, with a passion. If he were not getting paid he'd be doing exactly the same thing.

Few are so lucky, but it does show its possible.