Care Costs - How Much???!!!

BrassicWoman

Mickey666 said:

Mojisola said:

There was a hidden price to pay in those days - women were often expected to leave work when they got married and had to rely on their husbands for money.  They had no choice but to be homemakers, child raisers and carers for the elderly family members.

You say that as if it’s a bad thing.  Fact is, in those days a single wage could support a family whereas that seems to be something of a rarity today.  A lot of problems today seem to be precisely because women are effectively forced to work to provide for the family unit (assuming the ‘family unit’ actually consists of two parents of course) meaning that child care has now become a huge issue for many families and ‘latch key’ kids are more or less the norm these days.  Could this reduced level of parental presence be a reason for child delinquency these days?

To quote Ben Goldacre, "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that."

What's so bad about women staying home to do caring? IT'S A HORRIBLE JOB, that's what! I still don't see you volunteering for it, despite all your gurning about the price of care! Men are just as able to stay home. But generally women are expected to do the !!!!!! wiping for the kids and the parents - why is that, exactly? It's perfectly possible to express milk, so it can't be that...

Perhaps you could take your oppressive opinions back to the 1940s where... they were still outdated as women had to raise families AND do the jobs left vacant by men going to war.  

A single wage can support a family who don't want two cars, a foreign holiday, take out twice a week and all new clothes. The change in wage is only part of the overall picture. Thankfully most people have had a change in attitude about outdated, stereotypical gender roles. Otherwise we'd be thinking all the men were total failures for failing to bring in enough cash, wouldn't we?

onwards&upwards

Mickey666 said:

Mojisola said:

Mickey666 said:

Once we had multi-generational homes or at least families all living close together so care needs were more shared within the family.  I know that times change but sometimes wonder if there’s a hidden price to pay for our progress.

There was a hidden price to pay in those days - women were often expected to leave work when they got married and had to rely on their husbands for money.  They had no choice but to be homemakers, child raisers and carers for the elderly family members.

You say that as if it’s a bad thing.  

Oh wow. 

You do realise you just just dismissed every contribution a working woman ever made to the world, right?  And basically assumed there are no more they might make in the future that might be worth having

tooldle

Mickey666 said:

Mojisola said:

Mickey666 said:

Once we had multi-generational homes or at least families all living close together so care needs were more shared within the family.  I know that times change but sometimes wonder if there’s a hidden price to pay for our progress.

There was a hidden price to pay in those days - women were often expected to leave work when they got married and had to rely on their husbands for money.  They had no choice but to be homemakers, child raisers and carers for the elderly family members.

You say that as if it’s a bad thing.  Fact is, in those days a single wage could support a family whereas that seems to be something of a rarity today.  A lot of problems today seem to be precisely because women are effectively forced to work to provide for the family unit (assuming the ‘family unit’ actually consists of two parents of course) meaning that child care has now become a huge issue for many families and ‘latch key’ kids are more or less the norm these days.  Could this reduced level of parental presence be a reason for child delinquency these days?

It is a bad thing. I’m not forced to work. I love my work. Would i swop my life as a professional engineer to be a home maker? Not a chance. 

Marvel1

Deleted comment - read more posts and understand the costs, new forum won't let me delete.

Morglin

Marvel1 said:

Deleted comment - read more posts and understand the costs, new forum won't let me delete.

This new forum is a pain.

Hectors_House

Mickey666 said:

£2000 per week??!!  £100k+ per year!!!  How many care nurses could be employed for that sort of money?

I'm not suggesting Home care is easy or that their children should provide the care, that's why help is needed, I'm just questioning the economics.  I'd much rather have a live-in 'housekeeper' run the house, cook my meals, do the shopping, change my bed etc etc and I'm sure it would be a far less costly way of providing 24hour basic care. Plus, they get their meals and accomodation paid for, so it could be a win-win situation if the right combination could be found.  Perhaps there are agencies that specialise in finding such people?  A bit like finding a live-in Nanny in a way.  If additional medical care was needed then that could be on a 'drop-in' daytime basis.  I'm just really surprised there's not much discussion about the other options to a £100k/year care home!

You can’t expect someone to work 24 hours a day.

I’m a live-in carer and work alternate weeks. For someone to need to be cared for usually means whoever is doing it can be called on at all hours of the day and night.

Also, not to be too blunt there is a lot of washing that needs doing. A care homes laundry bill will be costly, plus the cost of constant heating as the very elderly cannot regulate their body temperature.

There is more to the cost of care than just the carers on minimum wage.

BrassicWoman

Mickey666 said:

Actually, I made no suggestion that women SHOULD stay at home to be ‘home makers’.  As for ‘dismissing every contribution a working woman ever made to the world’ that’s YOUR interpretation, not something I said.  Indeed, you seem to be dismissing the contribution that women have made to ‘home making’ over the years, so pots and kettles I’d say.  My point was that ‘home making’ should not be denigrated as unimportant, whether it is done by the either of the couples, and I was just observing that it was more common in decades gone by and wondering if our modern greed for all things consumerist has been one of the drivers towards many (most?) households requiring two wage earners these days and whether this really is a mark of progress.  

I’m sorry if I was not clear and I meant no offence, but I clearly cannot stop people from taking offence and/or misinterpreting things if they wish.

People can only go on what you actually write, and there seems to be a consensus that what you wrote was a bit sexist. Just looking at the numbers on either side of the interpretation.
Is there any point at which you are willing to put down the shovel?

onwards&upwards

Mickey666 said:

onwards&upwards said:

Mickey666 said:

Mojisola said:

Mickey666 said:

Once we had multi-generational homes or at least families all living close together so care needs were more shared within the family.  I know that times change but sometimes wonder if there’s a hidden price to pay for our progress.

There was a hidden price to pay in those days - women were often expected to leave work when they got married and had to rely on their husbands for money.  They had no choice but to be homemakers, child raisers and carers for the elderly family members.

You say that as if it’s a bad thing.  

Oh wow. 

You do realise you just just dismissed every contribution a working woman ever made to the world, right?  And basically assumed there are no more they might make in the future that might be worth having

Actually, I made no suggestion that women SHOULD stay at home to be ‘home makers’.  

Maybe you need to re-read what you wrote, as you seemed to be saying it wasn’t a bad thing for women to have no choice and be expected to be homemakers and carers. 

tooldle

Mickey666 said:

tooldle said:

Mickey666 said:

Mojisola said:

Mickey666 said:

Once we had multi-generational homes or at least families all living close together so care needs were more shared within the family.  I know that times change but sometimes wonder if there’s a hidden price to pay for our progress.

There was a hidden price to pay in those days - women were often expected to leave work when they got married and had to rely on their husbands for money.  They had no choice but to be homemakers, child raisers and carers for the elderly family members.

You say that as if it’s a bad thing.  Fact is, in those days a single wage could support a family whereas that seems to be something of a rarity today.  A lot of problems today seem to be precisely because women are effectively forced to work to provide for the family unit (assuming the ‘family unit’ actually consists of two parents of course) meaning that child care has now become a huge issue for many families and ‘latch key’ kids are more or less the norm these days.  Could this reduced level of parental presence be a reason for child delinquency these days?

It is a bad thing. I’m not forced to work. I love my work. Would i swop my life as a professional engineer to be a home maker? Not a chance. 

With respect, that’s only your (perfectly valid) opinion but it’s hardly proof that ‘home making’ is a bad thing.  I know a number of couples where the wife is blissfully happy being a ‘home maker’ and looking after her children all day and would probably hate to go out to work every day, even as a professional engineer.  But, of course, none of that makes your choice a ‘bad thing’ either.  That’s often the problem with these sorts of discussions, it’s very easy to project our own ideals onto others.

I’m not projecting. My mum was a stay at home parent. She enjoyed it, which was lucky as women in those days were days were sacked on marriage. Some were really lucky and were allowed to stay until they got pregnant. Any choice of education or career was also limited. I’m certain it does suit some people, but it definitely would not suit me. To be forced into that path just for being female must have been soul destroying for some people. 

Hectors_House

Mickey666 said:

tooldle said:

Mickey666 said:

tooldle said:

Mickey666 said:

Mojisola said:

Mickey666 said:

Once we had multi-generational homes or at least families all living close together so care needs were more shared within the family.  I know that times change but sometimes wonder if there’s a hidden price to pay for our progress.

There was a hidden price to pay in those days - women were often expected to leave work when they got married and had to rely on their husbands for money.  They had no choice but to be homemakers, child raisers and carers for the elderly family members.

You say that as if it’s a bad thing.  Fact is, in those days a single wage could support a family whereas that seems to be something of a rarity today.  A lot of problems today seem to be precisely because women are effectively forced to work to provide for the family unit (assuming the ‘family unit’ actually consists of two parents of course) meaning that child care has now become a huge issue for many families and ‘latch key’ kids are more or less the norm these days.  Could this reduced level of parental presence be a reason for child delinquency these days?

It is a bad thing. I’m not forced to work. I love my work. Would i swop my life as a professional engineer to be a home maker? Not a chance. 

With respect, that’s only your (perfectly valid) opinion but it’s hardly proof that ‘home making’ is a bad thing.  I know a number of couples where the wife is blissfully happy being a ‘home maker’ and looking after her children all day and would probably hate to go out to work every day, even as a professional engineer.  But, of course, none of that makes your choice a ‘bad thing’ either.  That’s often the problem with these sorts of discussions, it’s very easy to project our own ideals onto others.

I’m not projecting. My mum was a stay at home parent. She enjoyed it, which was lucky as women in those days were days were sacked on marriage. Some were really lucky and were allowed to stay until they got pregnant. Any choice of education or career was also limited. I’m certain it does suit some people, but it definitely would not suit me. To be forced into that path just for being female must have been soul destroying for some people. 

Yes, being forced into any path against their will would surely be soul destroying for anyone; whether that be a ‘housewife’, following Father down the mine, joining the family business or becoming a doctor.    Fortunately, people generally have more choices these days....... [edited for space]

That’s a bit of a flaw in the new forum. I shouldn’t be able to edit your quote surely.

Anyway, I come from this at a slightly different angle. I had an abusive upbringing where there was no live or affection in the household. As a result I didn’t start dating until I was in my thirties and had a full time career by then.

it never occurred to me not to work. I just got on with it and advanced up the greasy pole more by my being able to work full time as I had no family life to hold me back.

And yet, I’m aware that the cost of living has become so silly that both people in a relationship need to work to afford just housing.

i think it’s sad to be honest. It must be true my awful for those women who want to settle and start a family and then have to hand their children to child minders every morning.