Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

50,000 Stay-At-Home Mothers Are Forced Back To Work In The Past 12 Months

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320230/50-000-stay-home-mothers-forced-work-past-12-months.html

Around 50,000 stay-at-home mothers have been forced back to work over the past year, official figures revealed today.

The statistics highlight the financial nightmare facing women who are being crippled by a toxic combination of super-size mortgages and rising household bills.

The number of stay-at-home mothers has plunged to just 2.07million, the smallest number since records began in 1994.

On a positive note, the figures, from the Office for National Statistics, show unemployment fell 20,000 over the last three months to 2.44million.

But economists warned the rise in total employment and the drop in unemployment is likely to be the calm before the storm.

Dr John Philpott, chief economic adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, predicts ‘a twin peaks job recession.’

Unemployment hit nearly 2.5million during the recession, but he fears the next peak will be even higher at 2.9million in the summer of 2012.

Vicky Redwood, senior UK economist at the consultancy Capital Economics, echoed this warning, saying: ‘Unemployment will eventually rise all the way to three million, possibly by 2012.’

The number of mothers who have to find a job is likely to keep on rising as a result of the controversial changes to child benefit.

From 2013, no higher-rate taxpayer will get the crucial handout, currently worth £1,752 a year for a couple with two children.

Strange that the article fails to mention the reason why people are crippled with toxic supersized mortgages.

I wonder what's caused that to happen... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if they found jobs then why can't the lazy b*stards on the dole?

God knows. I am horrified by this news, it's all so wrong. Mother's who would probably prefer to stay home, most likely spending over half the income on childcare costs, keeping other people out of jobs. Great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect this will be low/average-paid work, made worthwhile by foisting the kids onto relatives, usually grandparents

Sadly this isn't an option for people like me who moved from their home towns to get work, grrr

Do da math:

my childcare is £48 a day, times by say 21.5 weekdays in a month on average and that's £1032 a month

to pay just that after tax/ni, you'd need £1250 gross a month to start with. That's with no pension, no travel costs, making your own lunch, and most importantly making feck all extra money

If the motivation is to bring extra income in, i.e. say £300 a month after tax and expenses (say £150 a month = £5 a day subsistence, £50 a month bus pass) and a 6% pension contribution, you'd be looking at needing... err... consults http://listentotaxman.com/index.php ... £2,050 gross a month -

child care vouchers would save you about £50 a month in tax, so call it £2,000 gross, that's a £24K a year job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell my missus that - she just went for voluntary redundancy. I accidentally earned too much to get the childcare subsidised so it turned out she was working for peanuts. Brilliant!

Think it might be time to remortgage, buy a Range Rover and wind the company down/ Think we could scrape through on £26k plus mortgage subs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if they found jobs then why can't the lazy b*stards on the dole?

:angry:

I cant answer for unemployed women, but I can say its tough to find work if you are an older male, I would say its next to impossible for quite a lot of unemployed men now that manufacturing has lessenned and building is in recession.

Well for instance if you are an unemployed scaffolder in your 40's or 50's and you go for some of the low skill jobs these young women go for receptionist, retail, admin, call centres, though you may be competent, though you may be smart, though you may be a grafter, you are wasting your time filling out the form. Im beginning to think being female is almost a sort of qualification..

If you look for work in the more traditional male market, well theres nothing going, and age totally counts against you ( ever seen anyone over 40 selling mobile phones ? )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most children will be in the age group 4-18 and therefore will not need childcare spent on them as they can by easily packed off to school.

Going back to work for these mothers will be more useful and stimulating than sitting in an empty house all day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God knows. I am horrified by this news, it's all so wrong. Mother's who would probably prefer to stay home, most likely spending over half the income on childcare costs, keeping other people out of jobs. Great.

Childcare is jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most children will be in the age group 4-18 and therefore will not need childcare spent on them as they can by easily packed off to school.

Going back to work for these mothers will be more useful and stimulating than sitting in an empty house all day.

Problem is school finishes at 3 o'clock and the holidays are huge. Not really compatible with most jobs - so, childcare is still probably going to make it not worth it financially

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink:

One surprising thing is decades ago we didn't need women in the workforce. But after decades of rapid productivity improvements across the economy.. now according to landowners, HM treasury, and businessmen.. we need women to forget about the kids and join the workforce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is school finishes at 3 o'clock and the holidays are huge. Not really compatible with most jobs - so, childcare is still probably going to make it not worth it financially

Holidays are around 25% of the time, though some of that you will be on holiday too - eg christmas and can take your own vacation.

Childcare from 15:30 till 17:00 is less expensive than full time care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most children will be in the age group 4-18 and therefore will not need childcare spent on them as they can by easily packed off to school.

Going back to work for these mothers will be more useful and stimulating than sitting in an empty house all day.

Why must one be defined by their paid employment?

What about letting stay at home mums do other things? The work that makes family life run smoothly, preparing fresh food, pursuing genuine interests and hobbies, engaging in the community, helping neighbours. All the things that we used to take for granted.

Or are they frowned upon because they add nothing to the bottom line of GDP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh, and the biggest assumption in my argument is that we're only talking 1 kid

2 pre-school kids in childcare and you'd need £3600 a month (42K a year) to clear £300 a month

add on a kid at school with afterschool care etc hell maybe only the extra 4K after tax needed - £4100 a month (49K a year)

there's jobs like that for mums on trees I reckon

Edited by noodle doodle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why must one be defined by their paid employment?

What about letting stay at home mums do other things? The work that makes family life run smoothly, preparing fresh food, pursuing genuine interests and hobbies, engaging in the community, helping neighbours. All the things that we used to take for granted.

Or are they frowned upon because they add nothing to the bottom line of GDP?

Can I point out working mums and dads can do ALL of that.

You do not need someone to run a house wiht all the modern conveniences.

In the old days when washing was virtually by hand then yes, maybe you did, and when cleaning the carpets meant beating the shit out of them with some push along machine...

but these days you should try doing the housework AND being a parent AND having a job. It's not that hard and an awful lot of people manage it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can never understand why a couple would have children,then both go out to work and pay for childcare or dump them on relatives, surely the best option for the child is for one parent to stay home whilst the other works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh, and the biggest assumption in my argument is that we're only talking 1 kid

2 pre-school kids in childcare and you'd need £3600 a month (42K a year) to clear £300 a month

add on a kid at school with afterschool care etc hell maybe only the extra 4K after tax needed - £4100 a month (49K a year)

there's jobs like that for mums on trees I reckon

If it is so expensive to have other people to look after your kids, then an obvious lucrative job springs to mind - looking after other people's children. If you look after just 5 kids on week days only then you can make 60k per year! That is more than most workaholic businessmen make! Then you can branch out and take more kids, while paying other women 20k to look after them, repeat this 10 times and it will take only a couple of years to become a millionaire.

In fact I might start a childcare company myself now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why must one be defined by their paid employment?

What about letting stay at home mums do other things? The work that makes family life run smoothly, preparing fresh food, pursuing genuine interests and hobbies, engaging in the community, helping neighbours. All the things that we used to take for granted.

Or are they frowned upon because they add nothing to the bottom line of GDP?

+1

To my knowledge I have only sat watching the TV most of the day twice during my spells of being the stop-at-home. September 11th 2001 and yesterday.

I've lost count of the days I've spent campaigning, fundraising, helping...

By not working a job became available for somebody who NEEDED one, it was a fairly well paid job I freed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't give a monkey's either way what a mother chooses to do to fill her days - but it does grate somewhat when they whine "being a mum is a full-time job" - get a bloody grip. It's not rocket science!

(Mum, full-time worker, no cleaner, no Ocado deliveries - still have bags of time)

I'd rather go out to work - it's easier than looking after 2 under 4s. It's not rocket science but unless you want regular trips up to casualty it's fookin hard work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can never understand why a couple would have children,then both go out to work and pay for childcare or dump them on relatives, surely the best option for the child is for one parent to stay home whilst the other works.

But after 13 years of 'Socialism' it now needs two salaries to afford to buy a home.

This is why mortgages should have been restricted to a proportion of the dual salaries as the whole thing gets ridiculous once there are children to look after. That would have made everyone better off, familes with children could have got by with just one salary - with the second earner chosing to work if they wanted too and childless couples and singles could have used the spare cash to spend in the wider economy rather than servicing massive mortgage debt.

The more I think about it the more angry I get about Labour's management of our economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if they found jobs then why can't the lazy b*stards on the dole?

Much easier for women to find casual work than guys, just think of all those clothes retail stores which unofficially much prefer hiring women over men. I don't think there is any excuse for low skillled women in most of the big cities to be on benefits long term, yet I have some sympathy for young men. Obviously there are exceptions like Liverpool where it's probably much harder.

I never saw a man serving in a department store like Debenhams, and even the more unisex stores like JJB sports you'll get more women than men as staff. Women generally buy much more clothes and shoes so there are more of these women's stores catered for women, by women.

I've also never had a male bank teller serve me in my whole life of being in the UK, what's that about? Yet I've been served by an Eastern European bank teller, perhaps the bank managers prefer a pretty face. Women maybe are less threatening to the customers?

I'd hate to be a non-graduate male looking for a job in the UK right now. I think the only oppurtunity for guys job wise is going to university and getting into a skilled career or doing a trade.

Ofcourse there is the lawn mowing route, bogbrush should do courses around the UK teaching unemployed men how to market their lawn mowing services. He could make them work under his own brand name and pick up a huge profit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add my own tuppence worth.....

I am a stay-at-home mum. Daughter is four and is at school full-time, son will be two next week. Hubby works full-time and earns just a little over the average salary.

I would like to get a job, as extra money coming in would be great, but anything I could earn would be wiped out by childcare costs. Bear in mind that there are 11 weeks school holiday per year. I can't imagine any job allowing that amount of time off.

People have commented on this thread that looking after kids and doing the housework, 'is not rocket-science'. That's true. It isn't difficult, but it is tiring. A two-year old needs constant attention. You can't just stick him in front of the telly all day. You are on call 24/7 too. I can't remember the last time I had a proper night's sleep.

Anyway, the point I really want to make is that we waited until we knew we could afford kids before we had them. We accepted that we would be on one salary and we knew that it would be hard, but that's life. I can't imagine turfing my kids off to some stranger, or getting family to look after them. It was our choice to have kids, we can't expect other people to take responsibility. I hate it when women give birth, then go back to full-time work just six weeks later. Poor kid doesn't know who 'Mummy' is. Okay, sometimes this is unavoidable. Some people have to work, but sometimes these people put themselves in that situation, through overspending and loading themselves up with debt.

I'm angry that we cannot buy a house and are having to rent, but it does mean that we have no debts, have a good deposit (we hope to buy a house next year), and I get to stay at home and bring my kids up myself. Hubby comes home from work and his freshly cooked dinner is ready for him.

Yes, I know it's all very old-fashioned and I'm not going to get any brownie points from any feminists out there, but it works. There's nothing wrong with it being the other way around either, with dad at home and mum out at work.

I just wonder, out of all those 50,000 stay-at-home mums that have been forced back into work, how many could have avoided it if they'd just been a little more cautious financially. You don't have to have a brand-new car, designer clothes and lie on your mortgage application. Kids don't care if their clothes are second-hand, or from Primark. They would far rather have mum or dad at hand.

I'll shut up now.

Munchie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 149 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.