Childcare - 9 Months to 2 Years

*Robin*

gayleygoo wrote: »

I think it is sad that these days many families need two incomes to pay the bills. A parent who stays at home is often criticized for being "work shy" when in reality it is usually better for children to be looked after at home for the first few years.

It is incredibly sad that Gayleygoo's post is the first one in this thread to consider what is best for the baby.

sulphate

*Robin* wrote: »

It is incredibly sad that Gayleygoo's post is the first one in this thread to consider what is best for the baby.

Or just the first one to be upfront. If a family need two incomes to survive on then of course it's best for the baby for both parents to work - if part time - if they are able to. The baby needs be fed and clothed.

Luella-14_2

*Robin* wrote: »

It is incredibly sad that Gayleygoo's post is the first one in this thread to consider what is best for the baby.

It's not just best for the baby but best for the family. If I took three years off I would not be able to return to the salary I'm currently on and my career progression would have to start from scratch. long term it's financially better for all of us if I return to work, even if it means I take home very little after childcare costs.

duchy

*Robin* wrote: »

It is incredibly sad that Gayleygoo's post is the first one in this thread to consider what is best for the baby.

Surely what would "best for the baby" is that the parents wait until they have saved enough and are earning enough to sustain the family with no need for outside childcare......but then living in the country with enough space to play out and no pollution is "best for baby" too.
Unfortunately if everyone waited til they were in such a Utopian position the human race would probably die out through under population.
The real world demands real world solutions not unrealistic dreams .

katiegizmo

I think however much you plan, the cost of having a child/childcare is always a shocker in reality. Especially if your circumstances change so your original plan is out of the window.
But honestly OP, you kind of get on with it and do what you can. I now work part time on a much lower wage than pre-baby but for me it gives us *some* more money in the pot, my lo loves her 2 days at nursery with her friends, I spend time with her, I don't have such a big career gap etc etc. Plus I use the money I earn to do some fun things with lo on my non-working days that I couldn't afford with no work.
Was this the original plan? No. Do we have less money than we expected? yes. Are we happy? absolutely. You just have to realign your goals )

caprikid1

"If a family need two incomes to survive "

Sorry but for many its a lifestyle choice, I need this house I need this car and these holidays etc. Before you know it you have built a 2 income lifestyle. I built a once income lifestyle 5 years before I had children my wife stayed home.

Why should I subsidise others mortgage, holiday and car repayments etc.

If you want a child look after it ?

FBaby

It's not just best for the baby but best for the family.

It might be for the short term, but not forcibly for the long term. If I hadn't got back to work full-time, my life and that I can offer my children would have been very different. It is because I was working full-time that i was able to buy my house which since has become an investment. It is because I worked full-time that I managed to take on a promotion (which was a full-time position) and being able to afford a better life for us, mainly one when I wasn't constantly burdened by the stress of debts or wondering how I would pay for the things they wanted (no talking about luxuries). I certainly wouldn't have been able to afford for them to do the activities they enjoy, the holidays they look forward to.

I have asked them a couple of times if they regretted that I had been working full-time when they were little. My eldest laughed and said that she would have been bored at home with me (she needed a lot of mental stimulation) and my son said that he didn't care because he couldn't remember, but that he was grateful for the life he had.

So do I have any regrets? Certainly not (even with the exhaustion that comes with it!).

Luella-14_2

FBaby wrote: »

It might be for the short term, but not forcibly for the long term. If I hadn't got back to work full-time, my life and that I can offer my children would have been very different. It is because I was working full-time that i was able to buy my house which since has become an investment. It is because I worked full-time that I managed to take on a promotion (which was a full-time position) and being able to afford a better life for us, mainly one when I wasn't constantly burdened by the stress of debts or wondering how I would pay for the things they wanted (no talking about luxuries). I certainly wouldn't have been able to afford for them to do the activities they enjoy, the holidays they look forward to.

Which is exactly my point and why I'm returning to a full time wage.
Maybe I should have written it's not just about what's best for the baby but what's best for the family.

I have twins so childcare is expensive but I'll be relying on childcare vouchers and a day's leave a week to make it worthwhile. Long term it will benefit us financially, and in the short term it will certainly benefit my sanity.