Choose between Career and Mortgage

Morag

Can't believe this, ffs it's 2013, Minister Leo saying that when it comes to restructuring house hold fiances that women should give up their jobs and careers to save on the cost of child care.

Heaven forbid the Dad might want to stay at home.

Faith

So, no abortions, which means if a woman gets pregnant, she's forced to keep it. Then, if she's finding the cost of childcare to be high, she should be forced to give up her job. That's just unbelievable.

ted1

Morag wrote: »

Can't believe this, ffs it's 2013, Minister Leo saying that when it comes to restructuring house hold fiances that women should give up their jobs and careers to save on the cost of child care.

Heaven forbid the Dad might want to stay at home.

This is being taking out of context.
The context is, if you want the state/bank to write of a couple of hundred thousand of mortgage debt and your child care cost exceed your income then you have to quit . Which is fair enough. Basic economics 101

Morag

ted1 wrote: »

This is being taking out of context.
The context is, if you want the state/bank to write of a couple of hundred thousand of mortgage debt and your child care cost exceed your income then you have to quit . Which is fair enough. Basic economics 101

It depends on the circumstances, childcare for those who are not yet going to school is more costly but the cost to your career can equal a lot more and impact on further earnings.

iguana

ted1 wrote: »

This is being taking out of context.
The context is, if you want the state/bank to write of a couple of hundred thousand of mortgage debt and your child care cost exceed your income then you have to quit . Which is fair enough. Basic economics 101

I do agree with that to a certain extent but why does it say mothers should give up their careers? Why not say lower earning parents? It isn't always the fathers that are the main breadwinners.

Paddy Cow

iguana wrote: »

I do agree with that to a certain extent but why does it say mothers should give up their careers? Why not say lower earning parents? It isn't always the fathers that are the main breadwinners.

It's a really out dated view. I know of a few couples where the father is the stay at home parent because the mother is the higher earner and the father's wage didn't or just about covered childcare.

ted1

iguana wrote: »

I do agree with that to a certain extent but why does it say mothers should give up their careers? Why not say lower earning parents? It isn't always the fathers that are the main breadwinners.

On the majority of cases it's the mother who stays at home. I know one or trek guys who stay at home who worked in construction and so there wife is working now.
However in a democratic society the rule of thumb is that the majority is accepted as the rule , sure there are exceptions but that all they are.
Fathers don't get paternal leave or any custody rights, these should be addressed before we worry about weather or not the minister used a poor choice of words

So we can't worry about sexism against women while men have problems, right

xLexie

Just listening to some hysterical lunatic on the radio now saying this is anti women and anti children.

It makes sense that if you're spending your entire wages (and maybe even more than you're earning) on child care, you'd be better off minding them yourself.

fits

xLexie wrote: »

It makes sense that if you're spending your entire wages (and maybe even more than you're earning) on child care, you'd be better off minding them yourself.

And why should the woman be singled out for this????

December2012

Do what you want with your own money. It's nobody's business.

Until it is, such as a bank or a state writing down your debt, then you should do the most financially appropriate thing.

Headlines are never the full story.

ted1

bluewolf wrote: »

So we can't worry about sexism against women while men have problems, right

I'm saying you should fight the good fight this one isn't .picking the wrong fights actually promotes sexism and people get fed up of one sided arguments.

If your truly against sexism then you should tackle the bigger injustices such as lack of father rights.

fits

December2012 wrote: »

.

Until it is, such as a bank or a state writing down your debt, then you should do the most financially appropriate thing.

.

and why should women be singled out by a government minister for this?

Jerrica

ted1 wrote: »

If your truly against sexism then you should tackle the bigger injustices such as lack of father rights.

Way to cheapen both sides of the argument. And no, sorry, I'm not going to consider my rights as a woman of secondary importance to keep the "big picture" in mind. My rights are my big picture.

If the government wishes to tell families how to be financially responsible then they address mothers and fathers equally, and not single out mothers as being the primary persons responsible for childminding costs.

ted1

fits wrote: »

and why should women be singled out by a government minister for this?

Because the state side with the mother and give her all rights with regards the child. So naturally she is the carer. Get the father there rights and this will change

fits

ted1 wrote: »

Because the state side with the mother and give her all rights with regards the child. So naturally she is the carer. Get the father there rights and this will change

Sorry but in this instance that is complete and utter horse****. For parents with large mortgage and young family EIther parent can give up their work for childcare reasons.

December2012

Have you the link to the Ministers full statement?

LittleBook

I can't access that video is this about the following quote?

I know one or two women who probably don’t make very much money at all from working, but they do it to keep their position on the career ladder, if you like, and that is a legitimate thing to do.

But if you can’t pay your mortgage as a result, or buy your groceries as a result, then that is something that needs to be taken into account in any insolvency arrangement

To be honest, my understanding is that he was asked by the journalist "and what about women who are working just to keep their foot on the career ladder?" and gifted them with this beauty of a quote.

I've been keeping an eye on this over the past couple of days because I was shocked when I read all the "mothers will be forced to quit their jobs" headlines but I've come to the conclusion that it's the media who are 100% responsible for whipping up this argument with lazy, regressive and sensationalist assumptions and headlines.

The guidelines specifically state:

Where a person is working and paying for childcare as a consequence of his or her employment, the cost of child care should not exceed the income from the employment

xLexie

fits wrote: »

And why should the woman be singled out for this????

No rational person would take "the woman must give up her job even if her partner is making less" out of it, tbh. It's typical feminists taking offence to everything. In my opinion anyway. If they want help with their debt, they should help themselves too.

ted1

Jerrica wrote: »

If the government wishes to tell families how to be financially responsible then they address mothers and fathers equally, and not single out mothers as being the primary persons responsible for childminding costs.

the governement don't wish to tell people to be financially responsible, this is directly related to whose who are ntot finaccially resposnible and require the state to write over one hundred thousand euros of debt...

LittleBook

xLexie wrote: »

It's typical feminists taking offence to everything. In my opinion anyway.

Actually, it's not. The headlines for the past few days have specifically referred to "mothers" and "women". Even the video (if it's the one I think it is!) in the OP is being diffused out of context.

The government and the media are handling this whole situation appallingly, direct your misplaced ire at them.

lazygal

ted1 wrote: »

I'm saying you should fight the good fight this one isn't .picking the wrong fights actually promotes sexism and people get fed up of one sided arguments.

If your truly against sexism then you should tackle the bigger injustices such as lack of father rights.

Do the 'what about fathers' rights' brigade have some sort of team to bring up their cause every time women discuss issues that affect women? So over this predictable rant that appears on threads like this.

xLexie

LittleBook wrote: »

Actually, it's not. The headlines for the past few days have specifically referred to "mothers" and "women". Even the video (if it's the one I think it is!) in the OP is being diffused out of context.

The government and the media are handling this whole situation appallingly, direct your misplaced ire at them.

Yes it is. If people want help with a debt they caused themselves, they need to accept there is going to be terms, before a lot of money is going to be written off.

Like I said, no rational person would assume women should give up their career if they were the higher earner, that's rags of newspapers sensationalising it so as hysterical women, like the one I listened to on the radio this morning, will be outraged and buy their paper. Paper never refused ink after all.

ted1

lazygal wrote: »

Do the 'what about fathers' rights' brigade have some sort of team to bring up their cause every time women discuss issues that affect women? So over this predictable rant that appears on threads like this.

quite a sexist comment.....

lazygal

ted1 wrote: »

quite a sexist comment.....

And constantly bringing up fathers rights on threads like this isn't? I'm sick and tired of this nonsense on every thread where issues affecting women are being discussed. Why not start a thread on fathers rights instead of whining on this one?

meeeeh

He is correct saying that till there will be a general belief in society that a women are prime carers of children then slip ups like this will happen. The actual document doesn't say only women should stay at home.

xLexie

lazygal wrote: »

And constantly bringing up fathers rights on threads like this isn't? I'm sick and tired of this nonsense on every thread where issues affecting women are being discussed. Why not start a thread on fathers rights instead of whining on this one?

In this case surely it's relevant though? I'm not saying I agree with women having to give up their jobs despite being the higher earner but women want it all.
They want to be seen as the main carer, they'll (mostly) take their 6 months maternity leave, if the relationship breaks down they assume responsibility for the children and in a lot of cases make life hell for the father who has no rights. But, when it suits, it should be equal and it should be the father who stays home. Just kind of contradicts itself in my opinion.

Zulu

lazygal wrote: »

And constantly bringing up fathers rights on threads like this isn't? I'm sick and tired of this nonsense on every thread where issues affecting women are being discussed. Why not start a thread on fathers rights instead of whining on this one?

The state doesn't recognise men as care givers. Hence no fathers rights; hence expecting women to sacrifice their careers. This shouldn't be a surprise. And dismissing an evident sexism as whining is simply further sexism - so there's that.

We need to change our states perception of parents. We need the state to acknowledge that women can be the primary bread winners just as much as men can be stay at home fathers. The sooner we all realise that the two are intricately linked, and stop pulling in different directions, the sooner we can fix whats wrong.

It shouldn't be about who's got it worse, or this is my problem I'm not interesting in your "whining".
It should be about mutual respect and compassion, it should be about righting wrongs.
That's the only way we'll create a fair, equal society for our children - boys, and girls.

eviltwin

This idea is on the list of recommendations submitted by the banks so I can totally understand the fear out there. Its very short sighted. I can understand the request to give up Sky but once you are back on your feet its easy to get your tv channels back. Walking back into a career at a time of record unemployment is a lot more difficult.

I wonder will it apply to other people as well as parents. I know two people paying private companies to mind elderly parents while they go out and work. Could they face being forced to become carers if this kind of idea goes ahead? What about people using childcare while they go to college etc? What about the self employed, people who have other people relying on them to keep working?

I'll be watching this with interest to see if it gets any traction. So far I haven't seen any real anger about it which worries me.

ted1

ted1 wrote: »

Fathers don't get paternal leave or any custody rights, these should be addressed before we worry about weather or not the minister used a poor choice of words

Zulu wrote: »

And dismissing an evident sexism as whining is simply further sexism - so there's that.

Yes, it is


Anyway if the document is his/her and all neutral, this is a bit of ado about nothing

Zulu

bluewolf wrote: »

Yes, it is

...or you could just continue and cause further division, y'know; whatever.

Wibbs

lazygal wrote: »

And constantly bringing up fathers rights on threads like this isn't? I'm sick and tired of this nonsense on every thread where issues affecting women are being discussed.

Indeed and as the charter states in it's first line "First and foremost This forum is for the discussion of topics from a woman's point of view. We do welcome male input, but do bear in mind that this forum is first and foremost for the women of boards to have their say, from their point of view" and It is also not the place for men to respond to a thread on a women's point of view with "what about men?", this is considered "whataboutery" and off topic posting. If you want to discuss such subjects there are other forums on Boards where you can.. There have been a few posts already going against that rule so going forward any more "what about men" posts will be removed. Thank you.

LittleBook

xLexie wrote: »

Like I said, no rational person would assume women should give up their career if they were the higher earner, that's rags of newspapers sensationalising it so as hysterical women, like the one I listened to on the radio this morning, will be outraged and buy their paper

Yes, it's really annoying when women and feminists get "hysterical" and irrational when the media they expect to provide them with accurate information and the government they expect to look out for their interest as much as possible, fúck up their communication completely in the context of highly emotive subjects.

And in this day and age you'd think women would have gotten the message that they're not assumed to be the primary source of child care. I mean, it's not as if it's enshrined in the constitution of our country, it's not as if men don't have equal rights to paternity leave. :rolleyes:

You've explicitly said that anyone who's fallen victim to this deliberate and sensationalist misrepresentation of the guidelines (including people in this thread) is irrational when clearly there is plenty of margin for error in this situation.

xLexie wrote: »

I'm not saying I agree with women having to give up their jobs despite being the higher earner but women want it all. They want to be seen as the main carer, they'll (mostly) take their 6 months maternity leave, if the relationship breaks down they assume responsibility for the children and in a lot of cases make life hell for the father who has no rights. But, when it suits, it should be equal and it should be the father who stays home. Just kind of contradicts itself in my opinion.

Honestly, if a guy came in here with the sort of lazy generalisations you're throwing about and which you can't seem to separate from the topic at hand, he'd be run out of here on a rail.

Das Kitty

Setting aside the which party is the lower wage earner for a moment, I think this measure would be short sighted in the extreme.

Issues like keeping a foothold on the career ladder are incredibly important for the future solvency of the household. Some people where I work job share while their kids are young to spend extra time with them, and I know in some cases their net income does not cover their childcare/travel costs.

Once their kids are all at school they return to work full time without having sacrificed the benefits of unbroken service.

Then there's also the fact that going out to work is rarely all to do with earning money. For most people there is an element of maintaining a person's mental health. I know I suffered badly when I was out of work and needed to depend on my husband's income. I would imagine the majority of individuals would have similar difficulties.

Forcing people out of work because the cash balance is a few quid in the red per month is ridiculous IMO. Banks and governments need people to be in employment to thrive.

I would also add that the quote from Varadker is contrary to what Enda Kenny himself stated to the media yesterday. Although, that's probably nothing new.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I do think the media and other parties are whipping this up into something it's probably not and Varakar has fell for it.

The whole argument has revolved around women and not parents in this discussion.

I heard Morning Ireland this morning and was quite offended by it. One of the commentators labelled this insolvency issue as "anti-women and anti-children". I would say it is anti-parents and anti-children.

The whole thing got skewed when it kept speaking about the mother's salary as being a determining factor. Nothing was mentioned about the partner/father's salary or if the parents weren't in a relationship if the father was contributing maintenance.

The whole discussion I heard on Morning Ireland is that mother's are solely responsible for childcare which is an archaic view and insulting to BOTH sexes.

Unfortunately the whole thing is gone out of control now and no reason discussion can be had on the topic.

meeeeh

LittleBook wrote: »

You've explicitly said that anyone who's fallen victim to this deliberate and sensationalist misrepresentation of the guidelines (including people in this thread) is irrational when clearly there is plenty of margin for error in this situation.

I don't agree with what XLexie wrote but neither do I with this part of your post. I intentionally didn't post in the thread earlier because like, I presume, everybody else I couldn't read anything more but the article title in the opening post. Sensationalist media doesn't help but don't blame them if you form your opinion on the basis of one sentence. And that is irrational.

The hysterical reactions around this subject won't help anyone. If one of the partners is stuck in a dead end job with young children who will be in the childcare for a while, it makes sense for the bank or them to quit their job. It doesn't make sense for the state because the state will lose taxes and will have to pay more in social security. If somebody is well on the career ladder or the children are older it doesn't make sense for anybody to quit job. I would expect banks and the state will employ people with enough brain power to judge and advise what to do in the situation. But realistically if a family where both parents are working can't afford even the reduced cost of the mortgage then they are most likely f****d in any case.

Penny Dreadful

Morag wrote: »

Can't believe this, ffs it's 2013, Minister Leo saying that when it comes to restructuring house hold fiances that women should give up their jobs and careers to save on the cost of child care.

Heaven forbid the Dad might want to stay at home.

Actually to be fair to Leo he didn't say that. I head the clip on the radio this morning (many times due to traffic delays!) and he kept it gender neutral until he was asked "if a woman was earning...." and he replied that he did know women like that.
He did not say that women should stay at home.

Morag

xLexie wrote: »

Just listening to some hysterical lunatic on the radio now saying this is anti women and anti children.

Way to go calling Orla O'Connor is Director of the National Women's Council of Ireland some hysterical lunatic. :rolleyes:

It is anti women as the statement reinforces the sexist notion that women are the primary carer, it's also sexist and stupid and I think we should expect better of our Ministers then to perpetuate this rubbish.

Neyite

Its fcuking stupid.

The first thing in an interview you get asked about is the gaps on your CV. That is, if it doesnt get binned before you ever get to that stage. I know someone who bins anything with an unexplained gap due to the sheer volume of applications they get.

And if you do write " 2009 -2013, Stay at home Parent" on your CV, its forcing you to put details of your personal life on the CV, so now the employer can discriminate against you because you might be less flexible because you have children, or assume you might disrupt the flow of the organisation by getting pregnant again and wanting maternity leave.

I dont have my date of birth, my gender or my marital status on my CV, so why should I have to put my reproductive status on it? If you lie and say your were unemployed, then that's grounds for rescinding the job offer or terminating your employment.

I'm studying accountancy. At some point I'll have to trade in my job for one that is a training contract, which pays pittance. If it covers child care, I'll be lucky. But, its only for a couple of years then I qualify, allowing me to then go for jobs that offer about €10,000 per annum than I get now, with potential to earn more as my experience increases, which at the moment there is no promotional potential in my current job, nor any chance of a pay rise in the next 5 years. So long term, its more beneficial to my family to have short term hardship. That's the big picture for me.

hollypink

Das Kitty wrote: »

Setting aside the which party is the lower wage earner for a moment, I think this measure would be short sighted in the extreme.

Issues like keeping a foothold on the career ladder are incredibly important for the future solvency of the household. Some people where I work job share while their kids are young to spend extra time with them, and I know in some cases their net income does not cover their childcare/travel costs.

Once their kids are all at school they return to work full time without having sacrificed the benefits of unbroken service.

I don't see this as anti-women or anti-children as such because it has an impact on everyone in the household; I do however agree with the above; this is a very shortsighted approach. Working in a low paid job, whether it has a career path or is a "dead end job" as someone phrased it, isn't a luxury; it's an investment in your future earning potential. It has been my experience that gaps in your work history make it more difficult to get a job, so from that point of view, even the "dead end job" gives you an advantage. In addition, in many industries like my own (telecoms/IT), technology moves on very fast so if you leave the industry to look after children, it is inevitably going to be more difficult to get another job in that area later, as your knowledge and skills may be out of date. The point about mental health is a good one too.

LittleBook

meeeeh wrote: »

I intentionally didn't post in the thread earlier because like, I presume, everybody else I couldn't read anything more but the article title in the opening post. Sensationalist media doesn't help but don't blame them if you form your opinion on the basis of one sentence. And that is irrational. The hysterical reactions around this subject won't help anyone.

Except it wasn't one sentence meeeeh. It's been headline news for the past two days in radio, paper and online. And to be honest, the only ones I see getting hysterical are these media. Sure, there have been some knee jerk reactions but, again, these have been fuelled with relish by journalists.

I've said all I'm going to say on "the meeja" for this discussion, think I've said enough!

meeeeh wrote: »

If one of the partners is stuck in a dead end job with young children who will be in the childcare for a while, it makes sense for the bank or them to quit their job. It doesn't make sense for the state because the state will lose taxes and will have to pay more in social security. If somebody is well on the career ladder or the children are older it doesn't make sense for anybody to quit job. I would expect banks and the state will employ people with enough brain power to judge and advise what to do in the situation. But realistically if a family where both parents are working can't afford even the reduced cost of the mortgage then they are most likely f****d in any case.

Agreed, and you raise an great point which others have addressed also.

Even one parent quitting their job (be it the mother or the father) makes no sense in the context of society at large or the well-being of the state. The banks are the only winners in that scenario.

eviltwin

Heard another side to this on the radio just now. A lot of parents have given up their jobs by choice to stay home with their kids or only work part time. Some of those people might have the potential to earn more than they do now. Could they be forced to go back to work or increase their hours to cover debts?

You see how this idea can be twisted to suit just about any set up out there?

I can see the logic in it, if you are at a loss when you factor in childcare it seems a bit mad to keep working but its all about the bigger picture really isn't it? And do we really want banks etc able to micro manage our lives if we are unlucky enough to find ourselves in debt?

vitani

Neyite wrote: »

I'm studying accountancy. At some point I'll have to trade in my job for one that is a training contract, which pays pittance. If it covers child care, I'll be lucky. But, its only for a couple of years then I qualify, allowing me to then go for jobs that offer about €10,000 per annum than I get now, with potential to earn more as my experience increases, which at the moment there is no promotional potential in my current job, nor any chance of a pay rise in the next 5 years. So long term, its more beneficial to my family to have short term hardship. That's the big picture for me.

Presumably, you wouldn't take on that traineeship if it meant not being able to afford a roof over your head though, would you?

I started an unpaid internship last year. I was receiving the one parent allowance at the time and after paying for childcare, I had a just enough left every week to buy food & nappies and travel to and from work. It was a short term hardship, like you say, but it led to a job in my chosen career field. The only reason I could do this was because I had good family support and no existing debts.

It would have been irresponsible for me to take on the internship if it meant I would have genuinely struggled to feed or clothe my daughter. That's regardless of my own career prospects.

I sympathise with anyone who can't afford to work, I really do. But I think there's a difference between families who have to cut back on non-essentials, and families who are so in debt that they have to apply for a deal under this new legislation. For those in the second situation, I do agree with what Varadkar said. As much as it pains me to agree with him.

meeeeh

God, I love it how liberal FF is becoming in opposition. I'm sure it has nothing to do with labour leaking votes left, right and centre.

pwurple

eviltwin wrote: »

Heard another side to this on the radio just now. A lot of parents have given up their jobs by choice to stay home with their kids or only work part time. Some of those people might have the potential to earn more than they do now. Could they be forced to go back to work or increase their hours to cover debts?

I should hope most people do try to work enough to cover their debts! It is money you spent afterall.

If not, why wouldn't I just take out a massive mortgage, and a car loan, then pack in my job to look after the kids and expect someone else to pick up the tab while I continue to swan about in my massive car and house. Is this the ideal now?

eviltwin

pwurple wrote: »

I should hope most people do try to work enough to cover their debts! It is money you spent afterall.

If not, why wouldn't I just take out a massive mortgage, and a car loan, then pack in my job to look after the kids and expect someone else to pick up the tab while I continue to swan about in my massive car and house. Is this the ideal now?

No of course its not. I just thought it was an interesting point. There are people in debt who are making repayments and slowly but surely chipping away at what they owe. I'm one of those people. I have no hope of getting a full time job where I am so could my bank reasonably expect me or my husband to take on extra work at weekends or at night to clear that debt faster?

pwurple

eviltwin wrote: »

No of course its not. I just thought it was an interesting point. There are people in debt who are making repayments and slowly but surely chipping away at what they owe. I'm one of those people. I have no hope of getting a full time job where I am so could my bank reasonably expect me or my husband to take on extra work at weekends or at night to clear that debt faster?

I doubt it. The whole discussion was about insolvency. Insolvency is where you are not paying *anything* off, and it looks like you won't ever pay it off. If you are paying something, then insolvency surely doesn't apply.

If there are people out there who are insolvent, but have ludicrous bills (whatever they are, childcare, tv, cars) then I think it's hardly unrealistic to offer them some help or financial advice in getting those bills under control.

People can be financially clueless as well as being in a tough spot with work. I'm sure we all know people who don't have a lot of cop on regarding money.

eviltwin

pwurple wrote: »

I doubt it. The whole discussion was about insolvency. Insolvency is where you are not paying *anything* off, and it looks like you won't ever pay it off. If you are paying something, then insolvency surely doesn't apply.

If there are people out there who are insolvent, but have ludicrous bills (whatever they are, childcare, tv, cars) then I think it's hardly unrealistic to offer them some help or financial advice in getting those bills under control.

People can be financially clueless as well as being in a tough spot with work. I'm sure we all know people who don't have a lot of cop on regarding money.

If there is a greater earning potential in the future wouldn't it make more sense to keep the person working and allow them to pay off what haircut they got, or part of it, when they are earning?

ash23

It's pretty short sighted of the government anyway.

10 years ago I was on 10k less a year and my childcare (new baby) was 12k per year.

Now, 10 years later my childcare is 4k per year so in 10 years my income less childcare has increased by 18k per annum.

Had I stayed at home, that wouldn't have happened. In fact, I'd have been on welfare for the last 10 years and would probably still be on welfare as I wouldn't have the qualifications and experience I've accumulated in the past decade.

Typical really, just seeing the short term picture.

Morag

http://www.nwci.ie/news/2013/03/27/childcare-is-not-a-luxury/

Press Release, 27 March 2013

The National Women’s Council of Ireland calls on the government to make a clear a statement that childcare costs will remain outside of the proposed Insolvency Arrangements. Statements made by Minister for Transport, Leo Varadkar, in relation to the proposed guideline on childcare are extremely anti-women and anti-children and go against all government policies to promote employment and gender equality

Orla O’Connor, Director of the National Women’s Council of Ireland said,

“Minister Varadkars comments are contrary to the Taoiseach Enda Kenny’s comments that the proposed guidelines are ‘quite incredible’ and that we need an ‘atmosphere for jobs’, including for women. Childcare is not a luxury but a necessity. It is unacceptable that the government would punish working families for making difficult financial decisions with regard to combining work and family life, including continuing their employment despite a loss of income due to the high costs of childcare. Families make all kinds of decisions and they are not all about short term maths but about the long term sustainability and well-being of the family.”

She continued,

“We know about the difficulties of interrupted careers in terms of loss of promotion and future earnings. Having only one of the parents work is also extremely precarious in the current economic climate. What if the partner loses their job? Both the EU and the OECD emphasise the importance of maintaining people particularly women in work in order to achieve gender equality but also economic recovery. Ireland already has one of the lowest maternal employment rates. Only 51.5% with children aged between 4 -5 years of age work and the figure is as low as 42 % for women with three children.”

Orla O’Connor concluded,

“We also have to ask ourselves why childcare costs are one of the highest in Europe in Ireland. If we want to support families struggling to pay back their mortgage, we need to invest into quality and affordable childcare that would alleviate some of the financial burden and actually create an incentive for people to stay in or seek employment.”

Neyite

vitani wrote: »

Presumably, you wouldn't take on that traineeship if it meant not being able to afford a roof over your head though, would you?

I started an unpaid internship last year. I was receiving the one parent allowance at the time and after paying for childcare, I had a just enough left every week to buy food & nappies and travel to and from work. It was a short term hardship, like you say, but it led to a job in my chosen career field. The only reason I could do this was because I had good family support and no existing debts.

It would have been irresponsible for me to take on the internship if it meant I would have genuinely struggled to feed or clothe my daughter. That's regardless of my own career prospects.

I sympathise with anyone who can't afford to work, I really do. But I think there's a difference between families who have to cut back on non-essentials, and families who are so in debt that they have to apply for a deal under this new legislation. For those in the second situation, I do agree with what Varadkar said. As much as it pains me to agree with him.

No, I wouldn't risk the roof over my head, and personally I would love to be a stay at home mother for a couple of years but once you have that cv gap it's really hard to get back into the workplace.

Right now I can't afford that drop in income and pay for childcare so I'm staying put. And that is with one child. We would like more, so short term I'm resigned that my career is stalled and hope it does not come back to bite me on the ass when my children are in school and I can work full time again.