Who said anything about “minimum wages job”? If anyone is on a minimum wage job then or now paying someone more to look after their kids is just plain daft.
That would be the op talking about wages being less than childcare...
Daffy nails it with the facts.
While we can cope with the costs currently. I have empathy to those in other situations the books must be nigh on impossible to balance currently even without the choice of one not working
We could manage it with 2 kids with a few years between them, so only 2 year wheres they were both in nursery, but its a strain if you are both in busy jobs full time with no grandparents etc nearby
Then twins came along where on earth do you find 4k a month!!??!!
theres just no way it was viable for both of us to keep working, it ended up with my wife at home which she loved, but it really has set her career back, and that has upset her a bit. On balance she'd do it all again but it really isnt easy.
Let’s be clear, this isn’t the 70s/80s/90s. Average house prices are 8x average earnings. in the 70s it was almost 1:1, in the 80s 2:1 and in the 90s 3:1. It’s now OVER 8:1. Unless you’re living in an area with extremely cheap housing, were able to buy with inherited money or are in the privileged position to have a single income which is => 3x the average wages (or some combination of the above), 1 person staying off work, full time, for 3.5 years isn’t a possibility.
Houses might have been cheaper vs earnings, but mortgages weren't.
Our middle son and his OH have an equivalent house (3 bed semi in a cheaper part of West Yorkshire) to the one his Mum and I had, 30 years before.
Yes, their house cost nearly 4.5 times what we paid, but their monthly mortgage premium (5% deposit just like we had) is near enough the same.
They earn about 3 times what we were earning - consequently their mortgage is about 1/3 of what we were paying, in equivalent terms.
And yes, we had Sky too.
I was discussing this with my niece yesterday. They can just afford 3 days a week, and she does compressed hours in order to maintain her career. She's only one child at present though.
We decided to manage just off my wage whilst the kids were young as nursery fees would have taken any salary my wife earned.
You've unfortunately got a choice working for nothing for 5 or more years and have someone else bring up your kid, or earn nothing and bring up your own kid.
It's hard being working parents.
What should people do instead boriselbrus? Did your parents not work??
Dad worked, Mum stayed at home. But because Mum was at home doing the housework, when Dad got home he could spend the evening playing with his kids whilst Mum had the evening to chill out. Those evenings were when Dad taught us to ride bikes, play cricket, make things out of wood, take us to the park etc. There was no money for holidays and shiny stuff, but we had the most valuable thing of all - their time. Sure houses were cheaper, but with interest rates at 15%, no more affordable.
The thing is whilst I don't have kids, lots of my friends and family do. I also spent 20+ years as a cub/scout leader. The happiest, best behaved kids are in general those who are brought up by their parents.
Take my ex sister in law. Their 2 kids were looked after by one set of grandparents on a Monday and Tuesday, the other set of grandparents on Wednesday, a childminder on Thursday and Friday, and the parents at the weekend. That's 4 completely different sets of rules and boundaries. What they got praised for on a Monday (singing loudly), they got told off for on a Wednesday. And because the parents worked long hours to earn lots of money to have the nice house with the big garden to give them an "idyllic childhood", all they wanted to do at weekends was sleep, so the kids were told to stay in their rooms full of lots of toys. The result was 2 unhappy children who threw attention seeking tantrums all the time. Their house is lovely though and they do go on holiday a lot so I guess it's worth it?
Then there's my friends in Kent. When she got pregnant she gave up work, and he gave up his London commute to work more locally so he was around evenings. She brought up the kids, taking them on play dates and encouraging them to interact with other kids in the park etc. They are the happiest kids I've ever seen - chatty and sociable even now they are into their teens. Holidays were a weeks camping in a borrowed tent, toys were frequently second hand as were clothes. She has worked part time since they went to school (and she only works when they are at school) which eased things a bit financially and I know they wouldn't change a thing.
As a cub leader you know pretty quickly which kids are brought up by parents and which are looked after by child minders. The parents role is to teach a child right from wrong, social skills, how to cook, clean and ride a bike. In other words bring the child up. A childminders job is to hand back a live child at the end of the day.
I know this sounds judgemental and I don't really mean it to be like that. Everyone has to make choices and even more so now with the price of everything being what it is. I'm sure many parents could manage with one income a year or two ago, but now really can't so a 2nd income and a child going to grandparents is the only option other than homelessness/hunger.
Obviously there are many children brought up by parents who are still screwed up, and many perfectly happy kids brought up by child minders, but I still can't get my head around the idea that some people choose to have children, knowing they will be brought up primarily by someone else. What is the point?
Houses might have been cheaper vs earnings, but mortgages weren’t.
Our middle son and his OH have an equivalent house (3 bed semi in a cheaper part of West Yorkshire) to the one his Mum and I had, 30 years before.
Yes, their house cost nearly 4.5 times what we paid, but their monthly mortgage premium (5% deposit just like we had) is near enough the same.
They earn about 3 times what we were earning – consequently their mortgage is about 1/3 of what we were paying, in equivalent terms.
And yes, we had Sky too.
Not sure how that stacks up...Average house price in the 80s was £30k, average interest rate was 12%, that means a repayment of £300. Today, you said 4.5x so £135k (A VERY cheap house!) at an average of 4% is £700. How on Earth they're paying £300 is anyone's guess...What's the term of the mortgage?
Again look at the averages - £300 repayment on an average salary of £9000 in mid 80s at a rate of 12% - After tax, that's about half a single income. . In 2020, that was £1135 at 4% with an average salary of £26k - That's closer to 65% of a single income. Every 1% increase in rate increases that by 5%. For the 1980s, that would be 2%. Whichever way you look at it, for the vast majority of people, it's a struggle at best.
It was also unnecessary to have two incomes to make ends meet in the 70s. House prices have risen so much relative to wages that the old nuclear family norm no longer works unless one parents has a very well paying job.
My Dad was a labourer on a building site, so not exactly rolling in cash. Plus he drank about 90% of what he earned. I’m on a decent income but not well off by any means. Still, we adjusted our expectations on what we could and couldn’t do. As per previous posts, different things work for different people.
On balance people expect more nowadays. Holidays abroad, a big TV, games console, mobile phone, subscriptions, two cars etc. All choices.
£25k per year childcare is not exactly comparable to a TV, games console or avocado toast.
I get it for the young with a garage full of Santa Cruz ebikes 😂
£25k per year childcare i
it isn't £25k/year though - I don't know where the OPs numbers are from but even the most expensive parts of london have nurseries that average £8/hour (£80 a day), 20% less than claimed. if you average all of london out you get just over £6/hour, which works out at £15k, £2k of which is paid by the goverment. Source -> https://www.childcare.co.uk/blog/most-expensive-childcare-in-london
On balance people expect more nowadays. Holidays abroad, a big TV, games console, mobile phone, subscriptions, two cars etc. All choices.
That's just society and technology progressing, the previous generation spent it on other things, same with the previous one to that. It's not a positive or a negative but a mix.
The thing is whilst I don’t have kids, lots of my friends and family do. I also spent 20+ years as a cub/scout leader. The happiest, best behaved kids are in general those who are brought up by their parents.
That kind of goes against what a lot of nurseries and schools used to see, you could tell the kids who hadn't interacted with others until they were 3 and had the 30 free hours childcare, they tended to be behind the curve and a little less in control, same with those you would see who skipped nursery altogether and started at Pre-School, they were already playing catch up and not used to a classroom environment, so more likely the 'unruly' kids.
That’s just society and technology progressing, the previous generation spent it on other things, same with the previous one to that. It’s not a positive or a negative but a mix
Could just be my background but my folks certainly didn’t spend in other areas. Didn’t have stuff like I/my friends do now. Sacrifices were made so one parent could stay at home. A choice that is stil available to some and taken up by some.
so more likely the ‘unruly’ kids.
Both mine attended groups with Mrs F and were well rounded with both adults and kids by the time they attended preschool part time.
I’ve always found the unruly kids are a mix of all sorts. Worst ones being those with shit or inattentive parents, regardless of what they did and didn’t attend.
Sure houses were cheaper, but with interest rates at 15%, no more affordable
Hear that argument a lot but the big difference is if you overpaid a little back then it had a larger diffence in your payback period and or interest payments. This very simple fact makes a big difference and why the two costs are not compatible.
That’s just society and technology progressing, the previous generation spent it on other things, same with the previous one to that. It’s not a positive or a negative but a mix.
It's probably one of the biggest changes in my lifetime, people have 'stuff' now. In the 70s we just didn't - every penny went on housing, heating, food, etc. A good example, we were a well off middle class family and were burgled whilst on holiday. Guess what they took? Some of my parents clothes and some saucepans. TV weighed about 50kg, so wasn't going anywhere - no laptops, no ipads, phone was bolted to the wall and needed a wire anyway. Our toys consisted mainly of lego (and the very boring type pre-technical lego etc).
Sure houses were cheaper, but with interest rates at 15%, no more affordable
You also had mortgage interest tax relief....
Hear that argument a lot but the big difference is if you overpaid a little back then it had a larger diffence in your payback period and or interest payments. This very simple fact makes a big difference and why the two costs are not compatible.
No one was 'overpaying' back then, it just wasn't a thing that folk did.
On balance people expect more nowadays. Holidays abroad, a big TV, games console, mobile phone, subscriptions, two cars etc. All choices.
I don't think they do but it's what the news tells you people want / have due the the miss understanding of statistics. You see whe. It's started that say 70% of people have Holidays abroad, a big TV, games console, mobile phone, subscriptions, two cars what is forgotten is the these are not the same 70% in each case. But it does help create an atmosphere of FOMO causing so ento take on personal debt and for others to to state "well look at all the things people have / buy".
No one was ‘overpaying’ back then, it just wasn’t a thing that folk did.
I doubt that very much people have always overpaid debt. I suspect it's more you and your peers didn't.
My parents had to wait to get a mortgage after being approved. Banks / Building Societies couldn't just create money back then, you had to wait for someone else to pay off their mortgage before the money was available to lend to you.
So much has changed in the last 50 years...
it isn’t £25k/year though – I don’t know where the OPs numbers are from but even the most expensive parts of london have nurseries that average £8/hour (£80 a day), 20% less than claimed. if you average all of london out you get just over £6/hour, which works out at £15k, £2k of which is paid by the goverment.
Per child?
People didn't overpay, they didn't even change mortgages very often.
Things have changed, people do expect a much higher standard of living and child care hits into that. Of course child care is expensive, you have to pay someone else to do (and even then we don't pay it very well), with a ratio of 1 to 3 you are paying for at least a third of someones salary, add on the nursery overhead and profit margin and it's going to be expensive. Does it make any sense for the government to pay for someone's child care if the wage they bring in is cost neutral, don't know.
Having kids isn't a right, it's a hell of a commitment, I wish a few people thought about it more in those terms. Yes I do have kids, no I didn't have any family support when they were younger, yes I was crucified by child care costs, yes my wife's career nose dived as a result (she went part time, then go made redundant and then never got back to the same seniority, as much her personal choice as circumstances).
I'm still paying having made the decision to fund my daughter through high level dance training so after a break from child care I've now had 6 years of £1500 a month. We're fairly well off but have sacrificed a lot to pay for her training, it was our decision as was having kids.
what they took? Some of my parents clothes and some saucepans.
You've been raided by Uhtred of Bebbanburg....😁
It’s probably one of the biggest changes in my lifetime, people have ‘stuff’ now. In the 70s we just didn’t – every penny went on housing, heating, food, etc.
I don't agree with that last part. As technology became available - whether colour TVs, video, early games machines - people bought or rented it. I'm from a rough, working class area of south Wales and we didn't lack things unless they weren't available. Not everyone had cars because car culture was still in its early days, but there were plenty around (Also motorbikes, scooters, hi-fis, electric guitars, etc. In fact almost every house had decent hi-fis. I was watching MTV from its launch, and every other school friend had an early computer within a year or two of 1981.) People did different things back then, whether it was looking after their pigeons, regularly visiting pubs, trying to fix their crap cars/motorbikes. There was money around, just used differently. And, of course people went on holiday - a week in this country was never particularly cheap.
It’s probably one of the biggest changes in my lifetime, people have ‘stuff’ now.
Stuff is far, far cheaper than it used to be. Think how much a computer or video recorder cost in the 80s. Think about the cost of a flight to Spain.
I don’t think they do but it’s what the news tells you people want / have due the the miss understanding of statistics.
I don’t know, I don’t have to walk far from my house to see an estate full of people with a brand new house and two new cars on the driveway. I regularly think how can they afford it even with two good wages?
see an estate full of people with a brand new house and two new cars on the driveway.
i think that's called selection bias...
SW London. Yes, that is the cost per child. Maybe half the cost somewhere in the midlands but even then still much more than others are quoting for their overseas childcare.
Don't worry though. I have quit latte, avocado toast, sold my games console, TV, cancelled Netflix and my overseas holiday. I can now pay for it without selling my eBikes, check out my onlyfans: oldmancrustyfeet8 🙂
Don’t worry though. I have quit latte, avocado toast, sold my games console, TV, cancelled Netflix and my overseas holiday. I can now pay for it without selling my eBikes, check out my onlyfans: oldmancrustyfeet8
See, you made a choice 😉 although I would’ve ditched the eBikes for a proper bike and made my wife work so I could stay at home with the kid
See, you made a choice 😉 although I would’ve ditched the eBikes for a proper bike and made my wife work so I could stay at home
with the kidand ride my bike in the afternoon while a childminder looks after the kid
I think that's what you meant? 😀
Mine are 5 and 7 so thankfully just out the other side of this.
We paid £525 per child for 3 days per week. That included a decent discount from my employer (on site nursery) and sibling discount.
Wife went 4 days per week - and has remained, she wanted to, I would much rather have gone part time but I earn more. I even floated the idea of sharing the maternity leave (financially it would make more sense, however wife argued I don't have boobs, which is very true...) Grandparents cover 1 day a week
I have a rather detailed spreadsheet that covers all the costs, and includes the loss of income for the maternity months my wife was on unpaid maternity leave. There was a period where our outgoings were greater than our joint income - and both of us are well above the national average
Now both have after school club 3 times a week, I keep suggesting to reduce it, but they actually enjoy it, and it is a good place for them to make friends out side of their classes.
As said above nursery wasn't just about farming the kids out, it was about their development - when they start school you can really see the difference in social skills where kids have been kept at home with mum and dad.
It is very hard. I remember at the time people saying it doesn't get any cheaper as they get older. They were full of crap, maybe I can see uni, but our outgoings on childcare have dropped from over £1k to £160pcm. We stopped at 2, partly the financial side of things, but also because those years were really really hard, and were mostly not fun.
We’ve got a nanny who costs us a couple of hundred a month more than the missus brings home after everyone’s tax and ni is accounted for.
Change jobs, become a nanny, provide your own free childcare, profit?
Paying someone more than you earn to do a job you could (and arguably, should?) do yourself is surely madness?
Paying someone more than you earn to do a job you could (and arguably, should?) do yourself is surely madness?
With the facts presented. You have no idea (nor should you judge)
We stopped at 2, partly the financial side of things, but also because those years were really really hard, and were mostly not fun.
Just makes me feel sad. The toddler years are ace. Unpredictable and make you laugh all the time
SW London. Yes, that is the cost per child. Maybe half the cost somewhere in the midlands
Choosing to live in London is the issue. 5 miles outside the M25 and nursery is £53 a day...
It doesn't add up, which is why I don't live in London anymore.
Nursery in Bristol is around £335 a week. If you need pre 07:30 to 18:30 - that's £390 a week. There are no breaks or holidays. You pay the full 52 weeks or you lose the place. Anything less that 2 full days paid for and you lose the place. So you're tying yourself into £17200 (or £20200) worth of fees a year for 2-3 years. Even when the 30hours free comes in, it's more like 25 by the time they've added admin fees, etc and because its only for 38 weeks, it's actually more like 18 hours on an annual basis, so its still £13+k right up until they go to school. Even in school, there's still going to be many who need wraparound care from 07:30 to 18:30, so 4.5 days a week for 38 weeks at an average of 21hours at £10 still comes to £8k. Then there's meals, milk, uniform, trips, birthdays and summer clubs which can easily come to £300-£400 a week. I'd say that it's still, easily above £10k/y/child even when they're in school if your job is 9-17:30, 5 days a week with only 20 days annual leave. The first 12 years, living without family support are likely to cost you £100-120k/child. It's a huge cost and perhaps it should be one that's more widely acknowledged.
There should be an easier period from 12-17 years and then it's possibly driving, cars, uni, and houses. As my 10 year old would say - Oooof!
All of these numbers are pre-deductions from the government child tax accounts which will save around 20%.
With the facts presented. You have no idea (nor should you judge)
I wasn't judging but, correct on both counts.
Maybe I've been pitifully underpaid for too long, but these numbers just seem crazy to me. Quitting a job would be a net gain.
I'm struggling to understand the moaning here. We've always known kids were expensive. Do people really not think about this before having kids, I hope many do, but many don't. The number of people who won't get married / civil partnership because it's too much of a commitment but happily have kids which should be a life long commitment you can't get out of is mind boggling.
Many, many people bring up kids on low incomes (ok the state pays a lot of it), if you have dual incomes you need to decide how to spend on the kids, you have two choices (unless you dump your kids on your parents which is how a lot manage), pay someone else or do it your self. Kids aren't easy financially or emotionally, but they can be very rewarding, if you put the effort in.
If you need pre 07:30 to 18:30
And that's the issue if you read back through this thread. When I think of our three, the kids they've encountered in school who've been a little "challenging" have been the ones maximising childcare and, sometimes, with parents reluctant to recognise there's an underlying condition.
With three kids, spaced 3 and 2 apart, we've
been very lucky to have a decent employer and a wife who knows what she wants!
In the end we had a nanny for the youngest who also did whole day cover for all 3. She was brilliant, about 15k a year part time.
When she left, we got a replacement who was rubbish though. We terminated her and Covid hit. I've been home ever since and now work short days and do all the school runs and most of the holiday cover.
Despite my best efforts, feedback from the teachers is that our kids are great.
Looking back, as challenging as those times can be, I think my wife was right to have as much involvement as we could. But we've also been able to take advantage of buying a house in 2010 with a chunk of equity, very low interest rates, and me going contracting giving us an ability to be tax efficient.
We terminated her
Harsh
stumpyjon
Full Member
I’m struggling to understand the moaning here.
Think of it another way. It's 2022, You're 30 years old, married, with a good job in a professional field, earning £40k a year. Your partner is similar. Your post tax and student loan earnings are around £27.5k a year. £55k for the pair of you. Your rent is £1200, your fixed bills are now £700 (CT, Ins, utilities, etc), your food is £500-£600, You have a car loan at £250 and running the car costs £100. That's £2850 of your £4500 joint take home pay - none of the above is excessive and is about average for Bristol. So, you've got £1650 a month "free" But you need to save for a house, but you want to have kids, you also want to have some life...which do you do, because you can't do even 2 of them...?
To get a 10% deposit for a 3 bed house in Bristol you'd need to save EVERY penny for 2+ years and you'd end up with a mortgage that costs £1600 on a 30 year term.
So, you're now 32, with a 3 bed house, your income joint income is now £84k, but your mortgage is higher than your rent, your SL payments are higher and your still want kids...your nursery fees will cost you £1500 a month which is EVERYTHING and then some, what you have spare and you have to do this for 3-4 years.
But you're now 32 - assuming 6 months of trying to conceive and you're approaching 35 by the time your kid is 1. Your combined wages in real terms are now LESS than what they were 3 years ago and because one of you was off for 12-15 months, their progression has stalled. Now at 35, you have LESS available and MUCH higher bills, you may have to borrow a little to keep things going when things break, like the car or the washing machine as there's no slack in the system.
Now - you calculated all this in advance, but no plan survives contact with the unknown, and so your plan to maybe, possibly have a second child is in tatters, your outgoings every month are less than your incoming, but you know it'll get easier in time - do you go for that second child at 36 or do you wait? financially it's on the edge of reckless, but biologically, to wait is reckless...WHAT do you do?
If you translate this story 5 years back so you're 25, your joint earnings are £60k and your takehome is £45k. Your rent is £1000, your bills are similar, so on a monthly basis, you have only £1200 a month free and the size and type of house you can buy is limited to 5x your joint income, so what do you do?
translate it it 5 years forward and you're 35, trying for your first child, your financial situation is better, but you're older and if you were planning to have 2, you're going to be having them both within a 3 year period, that means your childcare could be £30k a year...
People aren't "moaning", they're struggling to balance everything they want to achieve in life, with what they can afford and the time requirements of it all.
Perhaps think about the above and have a little empathy with folks that're stuck with this dilemma.
It’s not a dilemma, it’s a choice. We have kids who are four and eight, a mortgage, a car and the same bills only in Cheshire. Single income that’s less than one of the singles in your example. We get by and put kids before career.
Don’t have much in the way of savings or a safety net but we’ll cross that bridge if or when it comes. At some point we’ll need a three bed house (boy and girl). That’ll mean selling up and renting or moving to a less nice area unless Mrs F returns to a good job (self employed previously). I don’t moan about any of it.
You've completely missed the point - It's about NOW, not 4 or 8 years ago, it's about the choice/dilemma/whatever, NOW. House prices have risen almost 55% in the 10 years since you made your choice. Real term wages have decreased by 2%.
I'm in a similar boat, 10y old and 5y old, and bought our first (and so far only house) in 2014. What I'm saying is that for people facing the decision now, or faced with the the post decision environment of massive inflation, a cost of living crisis and post-pandemic house prices, no amount of planning could've forseen the costs involved and it's a VERY tough situation for many.
Imagine trying to make it work on a single income?
I’ve not missed the point at all. Regardless of when the decision is made you still have to make it. Now, I’d continue to rent, get a cheaper/no car and one of us would still stay at home. Yes we’d struggle but having kids isn’t a simple, cheap or easy decision. Paying out a full wage so somebody else could look after my kid just doesn’t compute for me. If it works for others that’s fine.
As said above nursery wasn’t just about farming the kids out, it was about their development – when they start school you can really see the difference in social skills where kids have been kept at home with mum and dad.
Very true, but neither of our kids were "kept at home". Off the top of my head there were a few parent and baby/toddler groups, a kids music group, swimming, gymnastics, plus preschool.
When my daughter had her once a fortnight daddy day (aged 3 probably when her mum sat on the fostering panel) we'd drop eldest at school, be at the bowling alley just after 9 when it was £1 a person, to meet up with one of her friends, brunch at local petting farm/cafe where there were other kids to play with, then tots gymnastics (she was a bit hyper so we needed to tire her out)
After all that, when MrsMC came home and asked her she'd done, the only thing she ever said was "we went to the bike shop" ****ing snitch 🤣
