Childcare is bloody expensive!

ViolaLass

piano_tuna wrote: »

So you think men and women are exactly the same? :think:

Again, when it comes to childcare and jobs (once you're past the physical necessities in the early days/months), yes. Why not?

What can I do for our daughter now that my husband can't?
And vice versa?

Why shouldn't I want to work/stay at home just as much/little as my husband wants to?

Tabbytabitha

svain wrote: »

If they do, then for "most" it's to provide a better life for their family

But women only do it to spend a lot on shoes, I suppose?

Do you really think that the men who spend a fortune on gadgets, sports and cars are spending that money on improving their family's lives?

Tabbytabitha

FrugalAndFabulous wrote: »

I see your point but surely working mothers/parents still need to do chores/shopping etc?

There are far fewer chores to do when the house is empty for most of the day.

svain

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

But women only do it to spend a lot on shoes, I suppose?

Do you really think that the men who spend a fortune on gadgets, sports and cars are spending that money on improving their family's lives?

No .... of course there is an element of men that are selfish .... no different to some women who can be selfish ..... It was the comment that "most men" made by an earlier poster that raised my interest.

I never raised gender, merely responded to others who raised it (as far as im concerned mum or dad are equally capable to be at home) .... my point was that kids are not seem to be the priority they once were and that they benefit more for a parent to be home with them most of the time against sub-contracting their care

sulphate

piano_tuna wrote: »

Yup, and by about 1989, when it all came tumbling down, the state was virtually bankrupt.

People need to face reality: if you want to 1) have children and 2) leave your child/ren with a babysitter in order to go out to do things that are more important to you, you're going to need to PAY that babysitter. Why should they do it for free?

Sorry, who is suggesting that child carers shouldn’t be paid?

I think a lot of you are missing the point tbh. I think the idea of the thread was for the OP to get ideas on if there were any ways of reducing her childcare bill. No one has suggested that childminders and nursery workers should work for pennies or that childcare should be provided free of charge.

Spendless

sulphate wrote: »

I think a lot of you are missing the point tbh. I think the idea of the thread was for the OP to get ideas on if there were any ways of reducing her childcare bill. No one has suggested that childminders and nursery workers should work for pennies or that childcare should be provided free of charge.

Totally agree. Those that are able to work when childcare equates to most or all of their income, in order to 'keep' their job , are either getting into debt in order to do this or have circumstances that enables them to do it.

If you need 2 incomes to meet the household bills then you need to be making at least that between you and enough to cover the cost of childcare.

katiegizmo

onlyroz wrote: »

Please be aware that reciprocal childcare arrangements might be illegal unless you are OFSTED registered and have had the relevant police checks. The law is hazy but people have been prosecuted in the past.

Surely not for playdates?
Even if I looked after other children/had my child looked after regularly rather than the ad hoc nature it is then surely you can't be prosecuted on something with no financial gain to anyone can you?

Also OP, you may find once your child is older the school will run some after school classes - sport, homework clubs etc so that might add some flexibility somehow

katiegizmo

Actually reading that mumsnet link earlier in the thread, wow!
Good to know though

Comms69

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Sorry, but that's a load of rubbish. Its not that long ago that women didn't have a lot of choice about children coming along and they were mouths to feed for a few years and then bodies to send out to work when they were old enough!

This thread is so sexist, I might save it for when people say "Oh but women have equality now".

Sorry how is it sexist?


one or two comments may be touching the line, but the overall theme is far from it.


Claiming something is sexist, without providing any reference is just a lazy stand.


Women do have equality. The fact you claim they don't, again with no evidence, is lazy.

Kynthia

Comms69 wrote: »

Sorry how is it sexist?


one or two comments may be touching the line, but the overall theme is far from it.


Claiming something is sexist, without providing any reference is just a lazy stand.


Women do have equality. The fact you claim they don't, again with no evidence, is lazy.

It's sexist to claim that mother's should stay home but not fathers, that mothers are selfish for working but fathers are selfless as they are providing for their families.

There isn't equality when women are less likely to be hired for jobs due to being of child-bearing age, if numerous women lose their job due to having a baby, when women are paid less for doing the same job, when women are attacked and then blamed for it and the men aren rarely convicted for it, etc. There isnt equality when women's voices carry less weight than a mans; for example when womens pain is taken less seriously by health professionals, when women are less likely to be granted a payrise when they ask for one, when women are more likely to be interrupted when speaking in meetings, when women starting businesses are less likely to receive funding, etc. We've come a long way but there's still a way to go.