Nurseries v nannies, I mean, 'friends'

Interesting story by Rosemary Bennett on the front of today's paper. Apparently nurseries are struggling to fill places. The assumption is that the so-called have-it-all-generation (never was there a more damaging or innacurate term for the emotional and intellectual muddle that is juggling work and children) have finally seen the light - and decided to stay at home and look after their children. Surely this has far more to do with the constant stream of scare stories in the media about how nurseries turn children into mini-asbos than a mass return to the values of our grandmothers. Most households now require double incomes to support their mortgages (a situation that is only likely to get worse as interest rates rise over the summer). I think women are just choosing alternative childcare, namely nannies and childminders, people who will fit in around their needs, who will often look after baby in the home and who won't send him or her home at the slightest sign of a cough - or take half an hour to get around to changing a nappy. Britain today is a magnet for well-educated, intelligent economic immigrants from countries such as Hungary and Poland. Nurseries simply can't compete with this seemingly bottomless pool of quality, value-for-money labour. Why take your child to a nursery when you can take your pick of flexible childcare? An afterthought: Interestingly, "relatives and friends" are now the most popular form of childcare, used by 52 per cent of working parents. Hmm. I wonder how many of thse "friends" are nice Polish ladies undeclared by employers who can't afford the crippling nanny tax that government still refuses to review.

Comments

[EFG]

I'm afraid the comment about "the lure of the cheap deal also including childcare" made me see red enough to want to post. We all do what we can to get along and to care for our children and to imply that some people are needlessly penny-pinching is uncharitable in the extreme.

To throw some numbers around (and none are very scientifically generated): Suppose that you manage to find a CRB checked and qualified nanny that you like and who is prepared to work for you…
Remember that if you work full time you will need someone to cover your journey times to and from work. Bearing this in mind, in London at least, you will not find anyone fitting that description who would work for less than £450 per week (net). This means roughly £550 per week gross (assuming that you want to comply with your employer tax and NICs obligations). Multiplying that by 52 weeks (nannies need to be paid for holidays) gives a total of £28,600 all of which has to be paid from your post tax income - meaning that you need to set aside just under £50,000 of your pre tax earnings to pay for childcare.
Surely there must be few lucky mothers (and fathers) who can easily afford this?

[MotherAtLarge]

Another day, another childcare survey that may upset many mothers.

Am I alone in objecting to the spin on that news piece yesterday of these stats spelling an end to the 'have-it-all' generation?

You can almost hear the unspoken agenda: "Greedy cows, thinking they can be mums and have paid jobs. This'll show 'em."

It reminds me of a comment by the incomparable Julie Burchill, commenting that the Daily Mail ethos found it unbearable that any woman, anywhere in the world, might actually be enjoying herself.

Of all the people in the world to pick on, working mums have to be among the least deserving and most innocent. Yet the disapproval, venom and loaded moral agendas that comes our way are worse than that reserved for criminals or politicians.

You could argue that what the latest nursery statistics actually tell us is that women don't aspire to 'have it all' and never did.
What they do show is that now we've got the chance to stay at home longer, that's what many of us are doing. Only 7% of children in daycare are now under a year old.

Women have, rightly, got better financial support in staying at home to look after their kids, and that's what many of us are choosing to do. We didn't go to work to 'have it all', we did it because our families needed the income.

To go by that phrase 'have-it-all', you'd think we were a bunch of empty-headed fun-seekers in Ibiza that had got their come-uppance.

Anybody who's actually combined looking after a small child and working knows the lifestyle is far from hedonistic, it's demanding and unforgiving. Have it all, indeed. Do it all, more like.

To read more please visit http://www.motheratlarge.com

[ABetaDad]

The truth is that people just cannot afford nursery fees and pay the mortgage as well. The same issue is starting to bite the fee paying pre-prep schools too where paying for after school care is one of those little extras that people are trying to cut back on. I get pestered by other parents at school asking if my kids want to go round their house with the unspoken quid pro quo of and would you be willing to pick mine up and look after them next week because I have a shooping trip planned in London.

The answer is always the same form me sorry folks - pay for child care and if you cannot afford it get a job!

[Heidi Clover]

Value for money... so the lure of the cheap deal now includes childcare? It is strange when women who are happy to spend £300 on a handbag without batting an eyelid haggle over paying £10 per hour (£8 plus tax) for a qualified, CRB checked nanny. Yes, there is an influx of cheap labour coming from Eastern Europe. Some are probably perfectly capable of looking after your children. Some, despite what they declare, shouldn't be in charge of a hamster, let alone a baby.

And yes, the double taxation sucks.

[The Grocer]

I think you may be making a rather large assumption as the report you have linked to actually states that nursery place provision has actually doubled over the last five years so that means we now have an extra 196,000 children in Nursery. You could therefore equally draw the conclusion that Nursery use is on the increase and that the increase in vacancies was due to the market reaching saturation point with supply exceeding demand at the moment.

[spymum]

Sarah, I agree! It's a bit of a quantum leap from 'nursery places unfilled' to 'mothers now staying home with kids', isn't it? Life is tough and expensive and most couples work unbelievably hard to achieve the level that their parents had (on only one salary). Canny working mums are simply finding easier alternatives.

And the subject of 'double' nanny taxation, well it just makes my blood boil. So unfair on women.

spymum (http://poshmum.blogspot.com)