Childcare is bloody expensive!

thriftylass

Comms69 wrote: »

My opinion is that a woman who has a child shouldn't have to work until child is school age. That's a personal opinion. I wouldn't stop anyone from doing so.

I agree actually in principle, but unfortunately the job market doesn't work like that in many careers. I got a PhD in biology and could not have taken 3-5 years out without loosing the value of that qualification. It's a shame. It's more the systems fault I think. As I said before just because a mother spends 24/7 with her kids doesn't make her a better/worse mother. It's not just the amount of time I spend with my kids it's also about how I spend that time.

The "this was rude and judgemental" was more aimed at the way the opinion was expressed, calling her choices in life real messed up. Just because he/she didn't agree with the OP.

Golfcat

"My opinion is that a woman who has a child shouldn't have to work until child is school age"


Why "woman" - its already been stated in the original post the woman is the higher earner in this case?

Comms69

Golfcat wrote: »

"My opinion is that a woman who has a child shouldn't have to work until child is school age"


Why "woman" - its already been stated in the original post the woman is the higher earner in this case?

Because I'm fairly conservative in my views. Whilst I have no issue with stay at home dads or working mums, as a personal choice I feel that mums do make better parents during the early years - as a general rule, obviously there are exception.

happyandcontented

thriftylass wrote: »

This is very judgemental and rude.

It has been discussed extensively here why some women, me included, want to work, need to work etc. Again refer to my post 61 for instance. So any women with an education/further education shouldn't have kids in your opinion as she'll have to work full-time in order to not waste her education.

Could it be that your perception is a bit skewed? I know a couple of women with Post Grad quals to your level who work part-time. It doesn't seem to have slowed their career progression down. It is possible but obviously, it means earning less for a time. It is a viable choice though.

thriftylass

happyandcontented wrote: »

Could it be that your perception is a bit skewed? I know a couple of women with Post Grad quals to your level who work part-time. It doesn't seem to have slowed their career progression down. It is possible but obviously, it means earning less for a time. It is a viable choice though.

Good for them, but in my case there wasn't that option. There are no part-time post docs in my field as the lab experiments just can't get done. Plus I'd lack seriously in publications which then affect my future job prospects (mainly 3-4 year contracts) and employability. Sorry if it sounded like I generalise too much but often not always in some careers breaks/part time aren't an option.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that as I shouldn't judge stay at home mum's just because couldn't/wouldn't and vice versa my choice or the OP's shouldn't be judged. Her first post came across as very money driven but I think she just used the numbers to illustrate a point (i.e. early childcare being expensive).

I think were talking in circles now, judging the OP's choices rather than accepting them and answering the OP's actual question.

I'd say your partner should try and get better paid work, try swapping the childminder for a council nursery. Maybe sacrifice your summer holidays and take alternating weeks and be home with the kids some of those 8 weeks. My husband takes one, I take one and we take one all together saving 3 weeks childcare.

svain

It basically comes down to priorities ... Once upon a time children would be the number one priority , over and above careers, nice cars, holidays etc. This is just not the case these days (no matter how its justified)
I dont think matters so much which parent is primary carer, i think it matters more that it is a parent that is primary carer and not hired help. (single parents being the exception)

thriftylass

svain wrote: »

It basically comes down to priorities ... Once upon a time children would be the number one priority , over and above careers, nice cars, holidays etc. This is just not the case these days (no matter how its justified)
I dont think matters so much which parent is primary carer, i think it matters more that it is a parent that is primary carer and not hired help. (single parents being the exception)

In I grew up in eastern Germany where most families had two parents working. You can hardly say their priorities were shiny cars holidays and fancy houses as they didn't exist.

I think the system needs to change. For instance in Germany you get 3 years maternity leave (mainly unpaid) but without loosing your job.

kelpie35

svain wrote: »

It basically comes down to priorities ... Once upon a time children would be the number one priority , over and above careers, nice cars, holidays etc. This is just not the case these days (no matter how its justified)
I dont think matters so much which parent is primary carer, i think it matters more that it is a parent that is primary carer and not hired help. (single parents being the exception)

Have to agree with this 100%

From the OP's first post she would be lucky to see her children for a couple of hours each day.

She does say that she would be happier working than caring for her children. I do wonder why she had them in the fist place.

thriftylass

kelpie35 wrote: »

Have to agree with this 100%

From the OP's first post she would be lucky to see her children for a couple of hours each day.

She does say that she would be happier working than caring for her children. I do wonder why she had them in the fist place.

There was a survey were they found that working mums spend more quality time with their kids. Stay at home mums were busy with the chores, shopping etc. (just mentioning one study not saying it's necessarily true for all. Again, I don't think the actual time matters but how it's spend. I see my kids for two hours in the morning, 4 hours at night and all weekend, we eat together apart form lunch, we read, play outside etc. In between the socialise with their friends in nursery, craft, learn songs, go out. How many stay at home mum's spend 8 hours crafting, singing and playing with their kids? I couldn't, I need adult interaction to stay sane. Sorry not everybody is a born supermum. For some a balance of time with/without their kids is needed actually for the benefit of their kids.

happyandcontented

thriftylass wrote: »

Good for them, but in my case there wasn't that option. There are no part-time post docs in my field as the lab experiments just can't get done. Plus I'd lack seriously in publications which then affect my future job prospects (mainly 3-4 year contracts) and employability. Sorry if it sounded like I generalise too much but often not always in some careers breaks/part time aren't an option.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that as I shouldn't judge stay at home mum's just because couldn't/wouldn't and vice versa my choice or the OP's shouldn't be judged. Her first post came across as very money driven but I think she just used the numbers to illustrate a point (i.e. early childcare being expensive).

I think were talking in circles now, judging the OP's choices rather than accepting them and answering the OP's actual question.

I'd say your partner should try and get better paid work, try swapping the childminder for a council nursery. Maybe sacrifice your summer holidays and take alternating weeks and be home with the kids some of those 8 weeks. My husband takes one, I take one and we take one all together saving 3 weeks childcare.

My point was that we all make choices and sometimes it suits us not to see that/explore that. Those choices all have consequences either to us or to others. We make those choices according to our personal priorities and some of us have different priorities to others.

It seems hard to imagine in this age of equality that longer days but fewer days/part time/job share is not an option for highly qualified staff.