Middle Class Crisis as Middle Classes Forced into Crisis By Nannies

ruggedtoast

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's not, really.

If you don't have kids it's difficult to understand. I don't mean this in a derogatory way, I was the same.

Once you have children, for most, their whole attitude changes. What once seemed important now seems less so. You now have something far more important than you can ever have imagined it to be.

And that is why kids come before max earnings, as I say, for most.

I think most people understand, childless or not, that if you have kids you effectively have another job and that impacts your life.

I could earn a lot more by moving around, but that would mean uprooting my kid from schools and friends, separating my family from support networks, and so on, and the financial benefits would not match the qualitative costs. As it is I have to travel overseas for weeks in the year. I earn enough money and I work hard enough as it is, thats enough.

I feel a bit sorry for people who really can't understand why people would rather be there for their family than their boss and their bank manager, but they have made their life choices and it is far too late for some of them to change paths.

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

What an utterly depressing portrayal of a marriage.

Rubbish. I'm perfectly happy and not depressed at all.

Moby_Tide

Generali wrote: »

I would like my children to have as good an education as possible as I believe my primary responsibilities .

Without wishing to pick an argument I guess the difference is that the kids haven't asked for this at all. You've made a decision(as a couple) on their behalf that may or may not turn out to be what they wanted. Everyone's entitled to do so but it's not a class argument.

Generali

Moby_Tide wrote: »

Without wishing to pick an argument I guess the difference is that the kids haven't asked for this at all. You've made a decision(as a couple) on their behalf that may or may not turn out to be what they wanted.

I agree. I think the underlying principal Mrs Generali and I take is that the children didn't ask to be born, we had them for our own selfish reasons. As a result we have a duty to them to make decisions in their best interest.

I can't know what they will think would have been the best decision. I can know that I'm trying to do the best by them.

Moby_Tide wrote: »

Everyone's entitled to do so but it's not a class argument.

Poms seem to manage to turn most things into a class argument. Paying for an education is 'posh', having a nanny is 'posh'. I think it's utterly ludicrous.

Moby_Tide

Generali wrote: »

I agree. I think the underlying principal Mrs Generali and I take is that the children didn't ask to be born, we had them for our own selfish reasons. As a result we have a duty to them to make decisions in their best interest.

I can't know what they will think would have been the best decision. I can know that I'm trying to do the best by them.



Poms seem to manage to turn most things into a class argument. Paying for an education is 'posh', having a nanny is 'posh'. I think it's utterly ludicrous.

It isnt working class ultimately. Only a few in society get a chance to pay for education and nannies, it's not common, hence it will be seen as posh. Absorbing a $10k yearly cost doesn't make you poor at the end of the day, nor does it make you wrong. But you have to accept that people will judge you on your decisions as per this thread, keeping a career going does fall down a lot of people's list hence what some hav eposted. If you are somewhere education struggles then it is blatantly a good decision. If in an area that education provision was ok then it would be seen as a luxury.

Loughton_Monkey

Generali wrote: »

.....Poms seem to manage to turn most things into a class argument. Paying for an education is 'posh', having a nanny is 'posh'. I think it's utterly ludicrous.

That's easy for Ossies to say. They all came from the same criminal classes from UK which makes you all the same class.:)

Joking aside....

I see why you say that, but methinks you are giving it the wrong connotation. Pre-war, maybe class could be partly characterised by the word 'posh' but I don't think so any more.

My neck of the woods is surrounded by footballers and WAGS, who I suspect all have nannies (if with child!) and use private education, but the word 'posh' is the last word you'd use for them. By behaviour, too, some of them would be considered the lowest type of class (chavs)

You're right, I think, that we do turn most things into a class argument, but on a totally different basis these days. It's much more about money and behaviour these days. Not so much where you came from or who your grandfather was.

Luckily, we have had many years, now, in which true 'working class' kids could grow up, get a good education, and become quite affluent. Conversely, I notice a huge number of youngsters from 'good' homes, quite affluent, who at age 18 or so cannot get a job, don't feel up to looking for a job, cannot do simple maths, cannot speak properly [..."like I done French at, like, school, but they like wouldn't let me done the exams"...], and spend all day on their mobile phones/tablets boasting to their friends how much their dad's are going to pay on driving lessons, a car, and the insurance....

Australia is, I know, generally more 'classless' but I know 3 or 4 Chinese people who lived in Oz for some while (one a doctor) and they universally complained that discrimination towards Asians in Sydney and Melborne was rife.

Generali

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I see why you say that, but methinks you are giving it the wrong connotation. Pre-war, maybe class could be partly characterised by the word 'posh' but I don't think so any more.

My neck of the woods is surrounded by footballers and WAGS, who I suspect all have nannies (if with child!) and use private education, but the word 'posh' is the last word you'd use for them. By behaviour, too, some of them would be considered the lowest type of class (chavs)

You're right, I think, that we do turn most things into a class argument, but on a totally different basis these days. It's much more about money and behaviour these days. Not so much where you came from or who your grandfather was.

My opinion is that class has become very confused in the UK. People can't decide whether it's about money or attitude or breeding. Fundamentally it's about tribalism IMHO.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Luckily, we have had many years, now, in which true 'working class' kids could grow up, get a good education, and become quite affluent. Conversely, I notice a huge number of youngsters from 'good' homes, quite affluent, who at age 18 or so cannot get a job, don't feel up to looking for a job, cannot do simple maths, cannot speak properly [..."like I done French at, like, school, but they like wouldn't let me done the exams"...], and spend all day on their mobile phones/tablets boasting to their friends how much their dad's are going to pay on driving lessons, a car, and the insurance....

To be fair, this is a complaint that's been going on since Aristotle's time. Innit.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Australia is, I know, generally more 'classless' but I know 3 or 4 Chinese people who lived in Oz for some while (one a doctor) and they universally complained that discrimination towards Asians in Sydney and Melborne was rife.

Yup, the racism over here is shocking. This is considered pretty normal behaviour:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/racist-rant-tourists-abused-on-sydney-bus-20130401-2h2ig.html

I had one person I worked with who said, "I'm proud to be a racist" and racist jokes are considered to be normal. Thankfully things are changing though, the younger generation is very integrated in a way I see as very positive. The older guys are mostly wary of 'Wogs' (people from Italy, ex-Yugoslavia & Mediterranean) and hate Asians.

Don't get me started on the treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Tasmanians managed to kill all their Indigenous people and I think many Australians see that as a job half done if they're honest with themselves.

ruggedtoast

To be fair it's pretty difficult for an Australian to appear posh, so it's not surprising they don't have a lot of class conflict.

A country where people go to the supermarket in their pajamas in the morning because they cant be bothered to get dressed is clearly pretty at ease with it's origins.

MacMickster

Moby_Tide wrote: »

It isnt working class ultimately. Only a few in society get a chance to pay for education and nannies.......

This viewpoint surprises me, as does the fact that so few families seem to consider employing a nanny.

For a family with only 1 child, a childminder is probably the most cost-effective option. Once you have 2 or 3 children to be looked after then a nanny is probably as cost effective, if not cheaper, than sending children to a childminder.

Just like with a childminder or nursery, using a properly registered nanny can entitle less well off families to tax credits to cover up to 70% of the total costs (including NIC, pension contributions etc).

I suspect that many automatically rule out a nanny as "too posh and expensive" without rationally considering the option.

Edit:
Incidentally OP, this is actually an interesting thread that I almost didn't bother reading due to the pastiche of pictures and accompanying childish comments, which detracted from your initial post making it extremely difficult to read.

shop-to-drop

A nanny would be far more flexible than childminder or nurserys for those working unsocial hours, irregular shift patterns or long commutes.