Baby Costs - !!!!!
Discussion
oldnbold said:
I guess many of the posts on this thread are a clue as to why so many kids these days grow into spoilt brats. Parents who put material benefit before actually caring for their own children.
You are not handing your kids over to some highly skilled childcare proffesional, they are often just some young, minimum wage worker who can pass a CRB check. I'm sure there is at least one qualified person at any given nursery, but how many others just have an NVQ level 2 or what ever from the local college.
I understand that for many families the female must work just so they can survive, but these are families where the joint income is under £25k, not over £100k.
One of our best friends is a primary school teacher with over 25 years experience, she now has kids turning up in reception year still wearing nappies, unable to hold a pencil or even a spoon, with no idea how to clean their teeth. All because the feckless parents can't be bothered to spend time with their own kids.
My eldest daughter is a subject head at an all girls grammer school, they have a huge problem with girls self harming. When this is investigated the cause is often parents too busy to give them any attention because their careers/social lives are more important. But of course it's never their fault, it's all down to the school!
But never mind the parents careers are going well, they'll be able to move to a bigger house soon or have an extra holiday, probably leaving the kids with the grandparents so they can have some "me" time.
If you can't be bothered to look after your kids don't have any.
You are not handing your kids over to some highly skilled childcare proffesional, they are often just some young, minimum wage worker who can pass a CRB check. I'm sure there is at least one qualified person at any given nursery, but how many others just have an NVQ level 2 or what ever from the local college.
I understand that for many families the female must work just so they can survive, but these are families where the joint income is under £25k, not over £100k.
One of our best friends is a primary school teacher with over 25 years experience, she now has kids turning up in reception year still wearing nappies, unable to hold a pencil or even a spoon, with no idea how to clean their teeth. All because the feckless parents can't be bothered to spend time with their own kids.
My eldest daughter is a subject head at an all girls grammer school, they have a huge problem with girls self harming. When this is investigated the cause is often parents too busy to give them any attention because their careers/social lives are more important. But of course it's never their fault, it's all down to the school!
But never mind the parents careers are going well, they'll be able to move to a bigger house soon or have an extra holiday, probably leaving the kids with the grandparents so they can have some "me" time.
If you can't be bothered to look after your kids don't have any.
LimaDelta said:
Sorry, that just reads as a poor attempt to assuage your guilt for abandoning your children to strangers.
Parents are the best people to raise their children, and why have them at all if 'not ruining the other half's career' is so important?
Cake and eat it springs to mind.
I really don't have any guilt - my wife stayed at home pretty much the whole time!!Parents are the best people to raise their children, and why have them at all if 'not ruining the other half's career' is so important?
Cake and eat it springs to mind.
If anything my guilt is the other way - why did we think it best?
What is your evidence that solely parents are the best people to raise their children?
I am with DoubleSix on this. The ones who have the most trouble when they enter reception for example are strongly correlated to those who are most tied to mummy's apron strings.
Edited by walm on Tuesday 14th April 17:57
oldnbold said:
If you can't be bothered to look after your kids don't have any.
I have to say that I agree with that. What's the point of having kids if you're not going to look after them, at least until they're in school? They're unlikely to want to look after you when you're old, they'll probably have emigrated.It's like getting a dog and then leaving it locked in the house all day.
Edited by Sheepshanks on Tuesday 14th April 17:57
oldnbold said:
I guess many of the posts on this thread are a clue as to why so many kids these days grow into spoilt brats.
Yeah - exactly.Those kids who want for nothing and get waited on hand and foot by mummy and daddy 24/7 rather than socialising and learning some independence.
If you're going to have kids how about working out what's actually best for them rather than thinking you know best purely on instinct or because you successfully had a fruitful bump-and-grind.
Edited by walm on Tuesday 14th April 18:30
walm said:
I love the assumption that somehow mothers (or fathers) know best or are by default the best person to bring up their DS or DD.
I mean sure they will love them more than a random nanny or daycare provider but much as my mum loves me - I am not going to take her advice on say whether I need an appendectomy or whether I have an iron-clad employment contract or on how to chip my 335d.
I GO TO A PROFESSIONAL.
Why on earth is it different for kids??
Surely a fully qualified professional is a BETTER alternative than mum or dad?
1. The little blighters need socialising so daycare/nursery solves that one.
2. The nursery can help with benchmarking various developmental milestones.
3. They will instill far more discipline than most over-indulgent parents (which includes me).
4. They will probably let them be more adventurous since they won't be watching their every move and wrapping them on cotton wool (also me).
It's odd to me that many appear happy to ruin their other half's career under the entirely unfounded belief that somehow they are the best person to raise a child rather than someone who does it for a living!!!
Our local pre school has just lost a preschool teacher (or whatever their role is actually called) anyway out of pure interest we looked into the salary (oddly enough we Mrs and I are on the Preschool PTA why because we have a high interest in our kids and want to be part of it so golf mountain biking going to the footie (going to Le Mans) is off the cards) it pays £7.20per hour. That's 2013 living wage also lunch hou isn't salaried and the actual working hours a day is 6 hours a day for only 4 days a week. They are great with the kids but that's experiance not "qualification". I mean sure they will love them more than a random nanny or daycare provider but much as my mum loves me - I am not going to take her advice on say whether I need an appendectomy or whether I have an iron-clad employment contract or on how to chip my 335d.
I GO TO A PROFESSIONAL.
Why on earth is it different for kids??
Surely a fully qualified professional is a BETTER alternative than mum or dad?
1. The little blighters need socialising so daycare/nursery solves that one.
2. The nursery can help with benchmarking various developmental milestones.
3. They will instill far more discipline than most over-indulgent parents (which includes me).
4. They will probably let them be more adventurous since they won't be watching their every move and wrapping them on cotton wool (also me).
It's odd to me that many appear happy to ruin their other half's career under the entirely unfounded belief that somehow they are the best person to raise a child rather than someone who does it for a living!!!
I tell you one thing I try to spend as much time as possible with my kids - the oldest always says please Daddy don't go to work stay and play. Hardest thing to hear when your leaving the house for work. It when you come home running and jumping to give you a huge hug telling you how much they missed you and they love you.
The number of times s
ts have been ruined as she cuddles me coverd in slobber/home made ice cream chocolate. Also when they help bake cakes and literally have made you one and cannot wait for you to eat it
Of course you have the challenging naughty times too but that's what being a parent is all about. MTFU IMHO.
Welshbeef said:
MTFU IMHO.
Not sure what I need to MTFU about!I am not the one preaching that parents are the best people to raise their kids and materialism is bad and then promptly contradicting himself by saying that he goes off to work. Why didn't you stay at home too?
Surely you could have moved into a smaller house and sold one car and BOTH stayed at home - wouldn't that be the best thing for WB jnr?
Or is it that just one parent is enough?
Why is one the magic number? Perhaps 0.5 is better or 2/3? Or 1.5?
Not really fair if you have two kids is it?
Why are you on the preschool PTA if you have no intention of sending your kids there?
Or are you going to send them there so your wife can slack off?
Pretty selfish if you ask me.
walm said:
Not sure what I need to MTFU about!
I am not the one preaching that parents are the best people to raise their kids and materialism is bad and then promptly contradicting himself by saying that he goes off to work. Why didn't you stay at home too?
Surely you could have moved into a smaller house and sold one car and BOTH stayed at home - wouldn't that be the best thing for WB jnr?
Or is it that just one parent is enough?
Why is one the magic number? Perhaps 0.5 is better or 2/3? Or 1.5?
Not really fair if you have two kids is it?
Why are you on the preschool PTA if you have no intention of sending your kids there?
Or are you going to send them there so your wife can slack off?
Pretty selfish if you ask me.
Lol I am not the one preaching that parents are the best people to raise their kids and materialism is bad and then promptly contradicting himself by saying that he goes off to work. Why didn't you stay at home too?
Surely you could have moved into a smaller house and sold one car and BOTH stayed at home - wouldn't that be the best thing for WB jnr?
Or is it that just one parent is enough?
Why is one the magic number? Perhaps 0.5 is better or 2/3? Or 1.5?
Not really fair if you have two kids is it?
Why are you on the preschool PTA if you have no intention of sending your kids there?
Or are you going to send them there so your wife can slack off?
Pretty selfish if you ask me.
. We're poles apart on perspective so no point in further discussion Same as politics state you view then leave it alone if you know the other party opposes and clearly will not amend their view. Makes for a happier life.
Welshbeef said:
Lol .
We're poles apart on perspective so no point in further discussion Same as politics state you view then leave it alone if you know the other party opposes and clearly will not amend their view. Makes for a happier life.
Fair enough.. We're poles apart on perspective so no point in further discussion Same as politics state you view then leave it alone if you know the other party opposes and clearly will not amend their view. Makes for a happier life.
I am not sure we are poles apart though - you have pretty much described my exact domestic situation!!
(Dad at work missing the kids, mum a teacher but mostly at home, on the PTA etc...)
The difference is that I am not 100% sure it was the right thing to do, and I do believe that SOME outside help from nanny/nursery/pre-school or whatever is more healthy than 100% mum.
walm said:
Yeah - exactly.
Those kids who want for nothing and get waited on hand and foot by mummy and daddy 24/7 rather than socialising and learning some independence.
If you're going to have kids how about working out what's actually best for them rather than thinking you know best purely on instinct or because you successfully had a fruitful bump-and-grind.
I'm not suggesting that kids are waited on hand and foot. In fact it is often the kids that are farmed out into childcare who get this because when Mummy & Daddy do eventually pick up the kids from childcare they are so guilt tripped by not spending time with them they revert to the norm and throw money at the kids to make up for missing school assembly or being late picking them up, so they turn into the spoilt little brats that we see more and more of in our society.Those kids who want for nothing and get waited on hand and foot by mummy and daddy 24/7 rather than socialising and learning some independence.
If you're going to have kids how about working out what's actually best for them rather than thinking you know best purely on instinct or because you successfully had a fruitful bump-and-grind.
Edited by walm on Tuesday 14th April 18:30
You and few others appear to be working out only whats best for you and your other half's career prospects and financial renumeration, nothing to do with whats best for the kids.
I don't think there is a right or wrong it's down to individuals.
I know being a stay at home mum when mine were very small drove my wife a bit round the bend. No adult interaction and even if she met up with NCT or other adults it was all baby talk. It wasn't just a financial decision to go back to work.
I know being a stay at home mum when mine were very small drove my wife a bit round the bend. No adult interaction and even if she met up with NCT or other adults it was all baby talk. It wasn't just a financial decision to go back to work.
Simpo Two said:
Professional childcare/nanny/Governess to 8, then boarding school to 18. With luck you'll never have to meet the critters at all 
I think they can board from 5 can't they, so much less interference with one's life. But of course the big problem is what to do with them in the school holidays.
MrJuice said:
We are kind of similar. We have a 7m old, we live with my mum, I'm a maturw student, wife a full time mum. I also run a business which means we can, within reason, have whatever we need/want
Buying buggy and all other kid stuff was a fair amount of money. Probably £5000 spent on 'fixed kids assets' to date. If we have more kids, they'll ve used again. If not they'll be worth almost nothing
My advice is to budget. Look at big outgoings and small outgoings. Thibk carefully about what you need and cut out what you don't need. Example. st Starbucks coffee is expensive. Buy quality coffee from say Monmouth and your coffer is now enjoyable and costs 30p a cup. Blah blah. Just budget.
Wait, you live with your parents, but spend £5k on kid sBuying buggy and all other kid stuff was a fair amount of money. Probably £5000 spent on 'fixed kids assets' to date. If we have more kids, they'll ve used again. If not they'll be worth almost nothing
My advice is to budget. Look at big outgoings and small outgoings. Thibk carefully about what you need and cut out what you don't need. Example. s
t Starbucks coffee is expensive. Buy quality coffee from say Monmouth and your coffer is now enjoyable and costs 30p a cup. Blah blah. Just budget. Edited by MrJuice on Sunday 29th March 23:25
t? Why not save to move out?
I dread when we have kids, we don't make £110k combined, neither of us are directors, or powerfully built. FML.
oldnbold said:
You and few others appear to be working out only whats best for you and your other half's career prospects and financial renumeration, nothing to do with whats best for the kids.
We're in the Finance forum.The OP was asking about the financial implications of having kids, in particular how it related to his wife's career.
Shoot me for focusing on that!
In any case we ARE trying to work out what's best for the kids but so far all I have seen is a bunch of people ASSUMING that mummy is best without really thinking about it, without providing any evidence or applying any logic whatsoever!
I think I am the only one to have provided any evidence and it says the exact opposite.
I will post it again: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/...
For those who find clicking hard:
"The results of the study showed that the amount of time parents – mothers, in particular – spend with young children doesn’t have a statistically significant impact on their development or well-being."
walm said:
oldnbold said:
You and few others appear to be working out only whats best for you and your other half's career prospects and financial renumeration, nothing to do with whats best for the kids.
We're in the Finance forum.The OP was asking about the financial implications of having kids, in particular how it related to his wife's career.
Shoot me for focusing on that!
In any case we ARE trying to work out what's best for the kids but so far all I have seen is a bunch of people ASSUMING that mummy is best without really thinking about it, without providing any evidence or applying any logic whatsoever!
I think I am the only one to have provided any evidence and it says the exact opposite.
I will post it again: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/...
For those who find clicking hard:
"The results of the study showed that the amount of time parents – mothers, in particular – spend with young children doesn’t have a statistically significant impact on their development or well-being."
A lot of people seem to assume "mummy is best" but it's not that simple is it.
I'm very fortunate in that we didn't feel pressured to go one way or the other. We have the financial freedom to take a step back and look objectively at what was was best for child, mother and even me hoorah!!
On balance we decided 3 days at home with mum, two in nursery and then weekends all together as a family was the healthiest mix for ALL concerned.
The idea that you can't have a successful career and still be devoted and have time for your kids is hogwash, but I understand why people would like to believe it to be true - because it's annoying.
Edited by DoubleSix on Tuesday 14th April 19:56
walm said:
We're in the Finance forum.
The OP was asking about the financial implications of having kids, in particular how it related to his wife's career.
Shoot me for focusing on that!
In any case we ARE trying to work out what's best for the kids but so far all I have seen is a bunch of people ASSUMING that mummy is best without really thinking about it, without providing any evidence or applying any logic whatsoever!
I think I am the only one to have provided any evidence and it says the exact opposite.
I will post it again: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/...
For those who find clicking hard:
"The results of the study showed that the amount of time parents – mothers, in particular – spend with young children doesn’t have a statistically significant impact on their development or well-being."
I'm certainly not advocating that Mum's give up work and lock themselves in the house and avoid all social contact with others until the kids go to school. It will take some effort on the part of a parent who is at home to find groups / individuals to socialise with, the answer is not always available on google.The OP was asking about the financial implications of having kids, in particular how it related to his wife's career.
Shoot me for focusing on that!
In any case we ARE trying to work out what's best for the kids but so far all I have seen is a bunch of people ASSUMING that mummy is best without really thinking about it, without providing any evidence or applying any logic whatsoever!
I think I am the only one to have provided any evidence and it says the exact opposite.
I will post it again: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/...
For those who find clicking hard:
"The results of the study showed that the amount of time parents – mothers, in particular – spend with young children doesn’t have a statistically significant impact on their development or well-being."
As we all know you can get statistics to support any point you want, what is significantly impacted is the close bonds that a parent and child develop by spending time together. The parent also misses out on the milestones in a childs early development because many will happen when they are being looked after by the hired help. You don't get to share the pleasure that a child gets when a new skill is learnt or a new achievment reached, and the child doesn't get to see the delighted look on your face, or hear the praise from the two most important people in their young lives. They also don't learn what is acceptable behaviour by your standards, or your sense of right and wrong, or your moral code. If you are happy to entrust that part of your childs development to the 19 year old nursery assistant with an NVQ in childcare who is more interested in facebooking/texting/twittering etc on her phone than looking after your child and the several others in her "care" then crack on.
Before long we will be at the point that the Americans are at, where it can be the norm for the still sleepy child to be dropped of at 6am in its PJ's. It will have breakfast, lunch and dinner at the childcare facility and get picked up again at 6.30pm just in time to get back home in time for bed.
Edited by oldnbold on Tuesday 14th April 20:06
oldnbold said:
Simpo Two said:
Professional childcare/nanny/Governess to 8, then boarding school to 18. With luck you'll never have to meet the critters at all
I think they can board from 5 can't they, so much less interference with one's life. But of course the big problem is what to do with them in the school holidays.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff