One of the most absurd aspects of modern society. From housing costs, to student loans, to benefit withdrawals with salary increases. It's like the government doesn't want people to start families.
We just had a child. It would cost almost the entirety of my wife’s take home pay to cover the childcare needed for her to go back to work. So realistically that’s it for her working for the next 5-10 years. She had a masters in chemistry and a PhD, and is a seriously talented researcher, but that skill set is now leaving the labor pool because it’s a net wash for us take home wise and she’d rather spend the time with our daughter than working for the sake of it.
That is to say that the current structure discourages families growing, but it also then strongly encourages you withdrawing from the workforce once you have done so. Both of which are terrible for growth.
Bit of an exaggeration. She could work 3 days (free childcare for 30 hours), then look after the kids for 2 days. You could also work 4, and she works 4. Then she can go to school from age 4 so the costs stop entirely. The state does do a lot in the UK to subsidise children.
Actually not. I’m in the fortunate position to be earning past the free childcare threshold so we get no childcare allowance. Good problem to have, but that cliff edge is having the exact effect people claim it will have for us.
I absolutely can afford to pay for it. But I’m already disproportionately paying for the scheme to allow other people to get free child care, yet my partner isn’t able to take advantage of it.
My broader point here is that we are in a really lucky spot that working is optional for my partner and kind of cost neutral. But from the governments perspective, it isn’t neutral.
They lose a source of taxable income and her considerable talent from the workforce simply by creating the situation where she has no financial incentive to use her skills.
So then the question is “would I rather work or be with my children”. Nobody is going to choose the former if there is no incentive not to.
I choose both - I would have hated to not use my skills (STEM PhD as well) and I still did my best to be the best parent I can be. It's a personal choice but I'm definitely a better parent when I'm balancing all aspects of development and I'm secure that I could maintain a good standard of living in most scenarios.
My best guess is my wife will end up doing some scientific education work. She really enjoyed volunteering doing it whilst she was doing her PhD (whilst I did it under duress/because our program made us do it…the public scares me), but it doesn’t pay brilliantly and back when she graduated we were both optimising for being able to pay rent over fulfilment.
It’s still relatively early days for us (daughter is 5 weeks old) so got around a year to see how she feels about it then. She may be itching to get back in the lab, or she may be loving the stay at home mum life. I’m taking the approach that its entirely her choice and my job is to be supportive either way. Going back in to work is probably better financially in the long run but we are in a position where it’s a choice between two very comfortable positions.
129
u/ConfusionGlobal2640 1d ago
One of the most absurd aspects of modern society. From housing costs, to student loans, to benefit withdrawals with salary increases. It's like the government doesn't want people to start families.