Monday, August 8, 2011

Boo to the single-wage earner household says the Guardian.

Childcare cuts spark rise of the stay-at-home mum

Women are being priced out of the job market because of deep government cuts in state funding for childcare, according to research published on Sunday. The study by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) thinktank challenges the claims made by ministers that their flagship welfare reforms will "make work pay" and encourage people off benefits and into work. Instead, the IPPR analysis highlights figures suggesting that the increased cost of childcare is persuading many mothers to stay at home to look after their children themselves. The research focuses on low- to middle-income families in the "squeezed middle", who are already suffering from declining real wages as pay is either frozen or increased at a lower rate than inflation.

Posted by sibley's b'stard child @ 12:05 PM (2080 views)
Please complete the required fields.



26 thoughts on “Boo to the single-wage earner household says the Guardian.

  • IMO a woman’s place is in the home, at least until the youngest are at school.
    And then they should be around to take the kids to and from school, not send them onto kids club etc.

    This ‘I must get back to work’ attitude is part of the whole problem. 2nd wages are now taken into account for mortgage lending and are you girls all better off for it ?
    No course your not. House prices have simply risen to accommodate you’re extra spending power and now you HAVE to work just to get an average roof over your head.

    I’m not being lazy, but we really shouldn’t all have to be working so hard these days, yet here we are trying to work harder in the name of the elusive ‘growth’.

    Not such a bad thing IMO if Mums do stay at home and help nutter their youngsters and enjoy it.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Nurture not nutter – although some may think I am 😉

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Well, it’s up to each mother to make her own decisions as to when and whether. But the Tory calculations on how much to subsidise child care are deeply flawed – for sure, if they pay out £80 per week in vouchers or subsidies, that’s a notional cost of £80, but if they thereby enable one mother to go back to work and create (say) one quarter of a job in the nursery itself, the chances are that the mother and the nursery worker (who would otherwise be unemployed) end up paying more than £80 a week in PAYE, or end up claiming a lot less in welfare than if they were unemployed.

    The maths is tortuous, but up to a certain level, subsidies for child care reduce the net cost to the taxpayer (i.e. all those taxpayers who are neither mothers of young children nor people who’d be happy to work in a nursery).

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Right on TC, no PC in your household 😉

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • they could earn money while they stay at home, maybe a bit of webcamming or run a brothel, would reduce the cost to the state or make some money for the hubby

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Hi MW,
    BTW you got a mention in MoneyWeek last week if you didn’t know.

    On a more serious note, I confess I was stirring it up a bit and I’m sure there’s definately the opportunity for mothers to do some work (after they’ve finished their real jobs of course).

    I personally don’t get why someone would choose to have kids though, then sling them into full time childcare at 3-6 months old. Tantamount to abuse if you ask me.

    A sensitive subject for someone in the political arena such as yourself MW so I understand you not being able to fully converse what may or may not be your opinion.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Oh come on there must be an angry female out there somewhere who wants to give us what for !

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • sibley's b'stard child says:

    The ‘choice’ of work or not to work is largely an illusion (for the majority) thanks to HPI.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    STR, no I didn’t know that, any clues as to the precise article or subject matter to help me track it down?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • happy mondays says:

    Indeed sbc, there is not much choice for most if they are mortgaged to the neck or just to have a half decent standard of living..My partner has had to work so we can save the deposit for the palatial shoebox. Which has been no easy task with 2 children..

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • My comments sound hesh above, they’re not meant to and I genuinely feel sorry for those caught up in the reap of both having to work – which nowadays to some degree is most of us.

    MW
    I’m out at the moment but will come back to this thread with the info later today for you.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Harsh not hesh

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • sibley's b'stard child says:

    Exactly HM, I know for one my wife would rather be at home looking after child rather than having to work as well. The Guardian is so laughable in this regard, percieved marginalisation of one societal sector? Nay, they cry, for it runs contrary to equality.

    If we didn’t take into account dual incomes for mortgage applications in the first place I daresay we may find ourselves in the position that if households’ chose to have two wage earners, great, higher standard of living for them but not to the detriment of everyone else that surely must follow suit.

    Those lefties bang on about the right of women to work with realising that we’re all – by and large – wage slaves to achieve precisely the same outcome that one wage earner once could. It boils ma pish, I tell thee.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Although this is mostly rather tongue in cheek, I can’t help but feel that such sentiments expressed, maybe only two or three years ago, would have elicited such an indignant tirade had any lady happened to overhear; that most men wouldn’t even dare joke about it..

    Is the great feminist ‘own goal’ finally being recognised I wonder?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    HM, SBC and others, yes of course, if it becomes traditional for both partners to work, regardless of young children, then all that happens is that house prices go up. It’s yet another illustration of Ricardo’s Law Of Rent – nearly all growth in the economy flows through into higher rents and higher house prices.

    So, what would happen if all the Daily Mail’s favourite hate-group “the lazy and feckless” decided to stop claiming benefits and all worked and worked as hard as they could and tried to rent or buy privately? Well, rents and prices in the private sector would just increase to soak up all that extra income and we’d all just be running to keep still. To some extent, those who are currently in work and intend to remain in work will end up slightly worse off, even if the cost of working age welfare were nil, that wouldn’t be enough for tax cuts, and the annual deficit would only fall by a quarter or by half or something.

    That’s why I’m intensely relaxed about people on welfare, at least they reduce demand for houses to rent or buy, thus saving me a fair few quid, probably more than I pay via taxes towards their upkeep.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • @6 mark

    Agree, and it will have the added benefit of getting them out of the middle lane of our motorways. As it stands at the moment I have to under-cut them between the wagons.

    Back on topic, I’m sure I read somewhere that the prosperity of households is not because of rising wages but because of the ever-growing entry of women into employment. And this argument about whether women should stay at home or work has been raging at least since the 1980s.

    The poor valuation of families and single mums in particular (it’s better for you — ie meaning us taxpayers — that you go out to work) has, in my opinion, had an egregious effect on our society. That children are our future, and that they come packaged with a mother, is something society must really take more seriously than it does.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • If you think about the children as well the other net result of two incomes (for mortgage calculations) is inflated house prices for them.

    In other words not only are parents paying more for a rook over their heads for the privilege (tongue in cheek) of the mother working the increased costs will be passed onto their children as well.

    Ironic when we probably have more than enough youngsters available in the under/unemployment ranks to fill their shoes at work while they enjoy nurturing the young.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • sibley's b'stard child says:

    “That’s why I’m intensely relaxed about people on welfare, at least they reduce demand for houses to rent or buy, thus saving me a fair few quid, probably more than I pay via taxes towards their upkeep”.

    Hmm, thanks MW, I haven’t considered that before.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • For some people both parents working is out of true essential need to pay for essentials – for some it is for their own sanity (trust me after 2 years of toddler group I was close to breaking point and a couple of hours a week of adult conversation was a godsend!) but there are quite a few that seem to put their need for status in front of their children.
    I hoped that the 2008 recession might leave people questioning more what was important plus reverse the ever increasing gap of the top 0.1% and the rest. Alas the gap has widened yet further and the appetite for getting ahead of the Jones’ (with property being the greatest manifestation) is still apparent for all to see. I can’t remember who said it but when evolution falters revolution takes over – if you think it couldn’t happen in this ‘green and pleasant land’ cast you mind back a couple of days to the horrific capability of the ‘mob’.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    SBC, in case you were wondering, I am being deadly serious.

    Working age benefits incl WTC and Child Benefit costs me, via higher taxes, about £4,000 or £5,000 a year. Well big deal. I’d rather the state pays for a family to sit at home and watch telly and enjoy themselves than for the state to pay a quangocrat £200,000 a year to make my life a misery or to pay £20,000 a year housing benefit to a slumlord. For sure, our welfare system is insane as it discourages work, discourages stable relationships etc, but that is not an argument against welfare payments in itself, I’d go further and have a Citizen’s Income for all. Funded by LVT.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • cynicalsoothsayer says:

    My partner goes to work to get away from her children a couple of days a week.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark w,

    I’ve emailed you a copy of your MoneyWeek article. I hadn’t read it yet as was away on holiday. The way its written makes it sound like you were interviewed by them – presumably you weren’t?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    STR, Drewster, thanks, that’s made my day. The quote is o-tone me, but I can;t remember where exactly I said that. Probably over at Titanic Captain’s site,

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • sibley's b'stard child says:

    Yes MW, I knew you were being serious; as was I.

    You’re one of the few people I don’t seek to get a rise out of.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Sorry mark, O’ve just had a scan through this weeks MoneyWeek and can’t find you. You’re in here somewhere and will post if I find it. Looking above Drewster seems to have found it (cheers Drewster).

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    STR, thanks, but no need – D emailed me it.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>