Childcare Costs 'cancels Out Wages'

[Saving For a Space Ship]

The interests of landlords, banks, employers and the government are not served by ordinary people having time to spend with their children during their formative years, and the balance of power lies more with the former than the latter at the moment. Ordinary people might want to spend more time with their children but not be able to afford to do so.

Just a thought, without anything to back it up. Perhaps it serves the corps interests to have messed up kids to train their dysfunction to obediently work for them.

I'm reminded of the Psi-Cores' motto in Babylon 5 "the core is mother, the core is father".

Given the declining state of the world, I wonder if ti dawns upon the youngsters to refrain from breeding? What "life" are they going to have ?

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

Child care costs can be staggering.

We have a full time nanny and two kids in a nursery/pre-prep at a private school (not full time). The annual cost is about £55k in terms of pre-tax income, so over £1k per week.

We don't treat my wife's salary as needing to make up the school costs as that would occur anyway, but certainly nanny with all the employers NI on top is the main expense.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

Frankly I'm a bit surprised people are still breeding given the level of housing costs versus wages, lack of security of tenure, and lack of job security.

The side of the juxtaposition that tells us "It was always hard/There's never a right time" wins over "You need to be able to pay for your kids not scrounge off the state"

Always makes me laugh when you get both sides off the same people though.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

Children grow up. Mostly.

And the ones that don't come on here.

[Mrs Bear]

....the childcare I used to use was excellent and affordable until the rules regulations and bureaucracy became unbearable to them, so they shut shop.....many working mums lost the best care there was on offer........the system sucks.

I used to know a childminder who looked after two 2 year olds. An Ofsted inspector came to check her out and ticked her off sternly for having no books on disability/ethnicity/diversity to read to the children.

At first I thought she was joking when she told me.

[Dorkins]

The side of the juxtaposition that tells us "It was always hard/There's never a right time"

Yes, I knew if I suggested that starting a family is difficult now due to the economic situation this would bring out the "there's never a right time, you just have to do it" crowd. It's the family planning equivalent of "can't go wrong with bricks and mortar", another bit of worthless priceless innumerate Boomer wisdom.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Dorkins

[SarahBell]

I used to know a childminder who looked after two 2 year olds. An Ofsted inspector came to check her out and ticked her off sternly for having no books on disability/ethnicity/diversity to read to the children.

At first I thought she was joking when she told me.

You have to have a disabled dolly as well.

[Bill D'arblay]

We have twin 2.5 year old boys. They have just started nursery 2 days per week to give them exposure to other children and adults and they benefit from a wide range of activities we can't provide at home. The cost is slightly more than my wife's income and we are struggling. This will change next September when they they qualify for state childcare.

That sounds sensible - however, depending on your area, toddler groups can be just as good for the kids and mother (or you if you like admiring the MILFs!)

If they are your first kids don't make the mistake we did by struggling on with crap pre-schools and primary schools - move them if anything doesn't seem good. There are huge differences in quality of care. If the way they talk sounds like a PC powerpoint schedule then walk away! Kids should play until they are six or seven (like they do on the continent) but the ones who follow slavishly National Curriculum are bound to be insufferable to kids (esp. boys).

[disenfranchised]

Yes, I knew if I suggested that starting a family is difficult now due to the economic situation this would bring out the "there's never a right time, you just have to do it" crowd. It's the family planning equivalent of "can't go wrong with bricks and mortar", another bit of worthless priceless innumerate Boomer wisdom.

Unfortunately, there IS a right time for women, and that is in your 20's or 30's. Fertility starts to drop off the cliff after mid-30's.

I have a few friends aged ~40 who waited for the right time, and they are childless, not by choice but by a cumulation of choices & likely to remain so forever now, especially the women.

[Dorkins]

Unfortunately, there IS a right time for women, and that is in your 20's or 30's. Fertility starts to drop off the cliff after mid-30's.

I have a few friends aged ~40 who waited for the right time, and they are childless, not by choice but by a cumulation of choices & likely to remain so forever now, especially the women.

Yep. The choices are:

1. Lose money - Buy a massively overpriced house to raise a family in.

2. Lose security - Raise your family without security of tenure in private rentals.

3. Lose time - Play the HPC/economic reset waiting game and hope the biological clock doesn't run out.

4. Lose society - Move away from friends and family to try your luck elsewhere.

Sorry plebs, settling down into an ordinary family life is no longer on the table, only extreme options left.

[Bear Goggles]

Yep. The choices are:

1. Lose money - Buy a massively overpriced house to raise a family in.

2. Lose security - Raise your family without security of tenure in private rentals.

3. Lose time - Play the HPC/economic reset waiting game and hope the biological clock doesn't run out.

4. Lose society - Move away from friends and family to try your luck elsewhere.

Sorry plebs, settling down into an ordinary family life is no longer on the table, only extreme options left.

Yep, you've nailed it.

Although I might add that you've listed the middle class choices there. If you are in at the bottom of the income scale your choices are more about balancing providing the basics for your children vs yourself, even if you are working full time.

It's amazing how bad it has got in one generation, while GDP has supposedly been rising. My boomer parents could raise a family on one full time wage, my school mates who had parents on a low wage certainly didn't go hungry, and they lived in decent social housing (as did we). The elephant in the room is of course housing costs, but the cost of childcare alone seems to be more of an issue than it was a generation ago.

My personal anecdote is that our youngest has just finished nursery and can now start pre-school at our local primary. We are employing a childminder just for the afternoons. This small change will save us around £500p/m in post tax earnings, so add 40% = £700p/m or £8.4k per year. Our total childcare costs will still be in the region of £1k per month, and that feels very low to us now.

[disenfranchised]

My boomer parents could raise a family on one full time wage

Mine did too until we were both at school.

Although its a bonkers, I can see why some people see feminism as a capitalist conspiracy.

[Dorkins]

It's amazing how bad it has got in one generation, while GDP has supposedly been rising.

It's also amazing that it's not generally recognised that things are so much worse just one generation later. The mainstream debate is still stuck at the stage of denying that the UK is seriously unwell economically and politically. Everything is supposedly fine, GDP is growing, unemployment is falling, soon the green shoots of recovery will spread prosperity and happiness over the land and we can all go back to 3 party politics and watching Lawrence Llewelyn-Bowen and Diarmuid Gavin doing property makeovers as if it were the year 2000 all over again.

[Bear Goggles]

It's also amazing that it's not generally recognised that things are so much worse just one generation later. The mainstream debate is still stuck at the stage of denying that the UK is seriously unwell economically and politically. Everything is supposedly fine, GDP is growing, unemployment is falling, soon the green shoots of recovery will spread prosperity and happiness over the land and we can all go back to 3 party politics and watching Lawrence Llewelyn-Bowen and Diarmuid Gavin doing property makeovers as if it were the year 2000 all over again.

Without drifting OT onto the general decline in living standards for younger generations, I think that childcare cost is a good example of how the imbalances in the economy are reaching an unacceptable level for people.

Not being able to afford to work is something we usually associate with people receiving benefits, but you actually need to be earning a fair amount in a professional job before it becomes economically worthwhile for both parents to work with two children at nursery, and I don't think anyone can argue that having two kids and a professional career is irresponsible.

Now that my personal childcare costs are falling, we can start concentrating on increasing our contributions to our kids' university fund, so they are not crippled with a lifetime of debt should they decide they want a university education. Yet another thing my parents' generation didn't need to worry about.

[oracle]

You have to have a disabled dolly as well.

you normally do after barbie gets a couple of rounds with a two year old.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

Yep. The choices are:

1. Lose money - Buy a massively overpriced house to raise a family in.

2. Lose security - Raise your family without security of tenure in private rentals.

3. Lose time - Play the HPC/economic reset waiting game and hope the biological clock doesn't run out.

4. Lose society - Move away from friends and family to try your luck elsewhere.

Sorry plebs, settling down into an ordinary family life is no longer on the table, only extreme options left.

2 and 4 for me although conceivably that will soon change to 1

[erat_forte]

Seems crazy to me, paying someone else to raise your offspring while you go off and earn by doing... what exactly?

Better to donate your cash to the local orphanage charity if that's what you want out of life!

[frederico]

Ultimately everything exists to pay money to the banks, not to improve peoples lives.

[CentrinoDuo]

...

It's amazing how bad it has got in one generation, while GDP has supposedly been rising. My boomer parents could raise a family on one full time wage, my school mates who had parents on a low wage certainly didn't go hungry, and they lived in decent social housing (as did we). The elephant in the room is of course housing costs, but the cost of childcare alone seems to be more of an issue than it was a generation ago.

...

I've seen many similar comments like, from this forum and others (not just internet forums).

In 1980s, where a lot baby boomers are at the peak of the career, over 50% of the world lived in extreme poverty, now it's less than 20% (http://www.usaid.gov/endextremepoverty/getting-to-zero). In China, back in 1980s about a quarter lived in extreme poverty. Now it has almost been eradicated.

Back then, many jobs were available, particularly to the well educated. University degree is almost a guarantee for you to be "set for life". OECD estimated that in 2020, China & India alone will provide more than 40% of all university graduates, US & Europe total will only be 25% (http://monitor.icef.com/2012/07/china-and-india-to-produce-40-of-global-graduates-by-2020/). University degree is no longer a guarantee, it's now a barrier of entry.

Things have changed, the world has moved on. The competition for skilled, professional and managerial jobs have dramatically increased. As the gap between the "professional" and those in "extreme poverty" narrows, so is the relative wealth of the professionals.

We're seeing a wealth transfer from what we now know as the 1st world countries to the rest of the world, a reversal of what's been happening in the past. This relative balancing of wealth and prosperity will impact negatively on the traditionally wealthy countries, unless it's being managed properly (in which UK is not).

Our boomers parents (mine included) are lucky to be born in the right era where there was a huge uplift of social mobility at the expense of the "old money" (relatively). Now we are the old money and there's a huge uplift of social mobility in the emerging markets. As the world is turning global so is the impact of those countries emerging from poverty.

Boomers are lucky, that's for sure, but dreaming of the "good old days" is simply that, a dream.

[winkie]

Extended families, sisters and parents used to help out more, now families often live far apart or working themselves so this is not always possible.

Always remember a dear friend of mine offered to help with child minding, picking up from school and sometimes dropping off to school...some stupid person working in the council said it was illegal for someone to do that and they had to have checks etc.....I would trust my friend and her family far more than some costly checked out stranger with my child....sometimes you wonder who thinks owns your children? you or some nosey jobs worth.

[Wurzel Of Highbridge]

Seems crazy to me, paying someone else to raise your offspring while you go off and earn by doing... what exactly?

Better to donate your cash to the local orphanage charity if that's what you want out of life!

That's what we think too.

Were planning to start a family very soon, the wife take home about £1200pcm. The way we look at the situation is that it's not worth here working unless it's the odd Saturday cash in hand whilst I look after the kids.

I guess we are fortunate as we can just about afford to loose £1200 per month. However it's taken a lot of planning, hard work and saving to be in that position. If we had started a family in our 20's then that would not be the situation.

[Neverwhere]

We're seeing a wealth transfer from what we now know as the 1st world countries to the rest of the world, a reversal of what's been happening in the past. This relative balancing of wealth and prosperity will impact negatively on the traditionally wealthy countries, unless it's being managed properly (in which UK is not).

O brave new world

This is a list of countries by home ownership rate (%), the ratio of owner-occupied units to total residential units in a specified area:

1 Romania 96.6

2 Lithuania 91.9

3 Hungary 90.5

3 Singapore 90.5

5 Slovakia 90.4

6 China 90

7 Croatia 89.5

8 Bulgaria 87.4

9 India 86.6

10 Norway 84.8

11 Russia 84.0

12 Poland 82.4

13 Estonia 82.2

14 Malta 81.8

15 Latvia 81.2

16 Czech Republic 80.4

17 Mexico 80

18 Spain 78.9

19 Iceland 77.3

20 Slovenia 76.2

21 Greece 75.9

22 Portugal 74.5

23 Brazil 74.4

24 Italy 74.1

25 Finland 73.9

26 Cyprus 73.2

27 Belgium 72.3

28 Luxembourg 70.8

29 Sweden 70.1

30 Canada 69

31 Netherlands 67.5

32 Australia 67

33 United Kingdom 66.7

34 United States 65.2

35 New Zealand 64.8

36 Denmark 64.3

37 France 63.7

38 Japan 61.6

39 Turkey 60

40 Austria 57.5

41 South Korea 54.2

42 Germany 53.3

43 Switzerland 43.9

44 Trinidad & Tobago 76

45 Hong Kong 50.9

[silver surfer]

I've seen many similar comments like, from this forum and others (not just internet forums).

In 1980s, where a lot baby boomers are at the peak of the career, over 50% of the world lived in extreme poverty, now it's less than 20% (http://www.usaid.gov/endextremepoverty/getting-to-zero). In China, back in 1980s about a quarter lived in extreme poverty. Now it has almost been eradicated.

Back then, many jobs were available, particularly to the well educated. University degree is almost a guarantee for you to be "set for life". OECD estimated that in 2020, China & India alone will provide more than 40% of all university graduates, US & Europe total will only be 25% (http://monitor.icef.com/2012/07/china-and-india-to-produce-40-of-global-graduates-by-2020/). University degree is no longer a guarantee, it's now a barrier of entry.

Things have changed, the world has moved on. The competition for skilled, professional and managerial jobs have dramatically increased. As the gap between the "professional" and those in "extreme poverty" narrows, so is the relative wealth of the professionals.

We're seeing a wealth transfer from what we now know as the 1st world countries to the rest of the world, a reversal of what's been happening in the past. This relative balancing of wealth and prosperity will impact negatively on the traditionally wealthy countries, unless it's being managed properly (in which UK is not).

Our boomers parents (mine included) are lucky to be born in the right era where there was a huge uplift of social mobility at the expense of the "old money" (relatively). Now we are the old money and there's a huge uplift of social mobility in the emerging markets. As the world is turning global so is the impact of those countries emerging from poverty.

Boomers are lucky, that's for sure, but dreaming of the "good old days" is simply that, a dream.

A thoughtful considered post, hope you stick around and post many more.

[Austin Allegro]

It's hardly news to anyone with a basic understanding of domestic economy - Amy Daczyzn wrote her book 'The Tightwad Gazette' about 20 years ago because she wanted to show it made more financial sense for one parent to stay at home than go out to work - but it's good that the idea has reached the mainstream.

However, I think there's still the idea from some in the 'sisterhood' that its somehow demeaning to stay at home and look after children and that it's better to be standing in front of a flip chart wittering on about sales figures for something or other. Fortunately this attitude seems to be changing.

[Dorkins]

I think the ideal working arrangement for a couple with children would be for both the man and the woman to each do about 20 hours of wage labour a week. This would be tax-efficient and would give plenty of time for frugal activities like home cooking and repairs, would give both partners the benefits of work like socialising, a sense of purpose and self-esteem without being physically exhausting, and would leave both parents with plenty of time and energy to spend with their children.