Choose between Career and Mortgage

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.

pwurple

Short term thinking is right. The real elephant in the room is the high cost of childcare.

Either tax credits towards childcare, or some kind of pricing control would be great.

Morag

Neyite wrote: »

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.

Or you end up being a stay at home Mam and say the gap will only before a few year but you end up having a child with special needs and there is no way to find child care for them what so ever so you end up being at home for a decade and the two people you had as references on your last CV are now dead.

Dolbert

pwurple wrote: »

Short term thinking is right. The real elephant in the room is the high cost of childcare.

Either tax credits towards childcare, or some kind of pricing control would be great.

In many European countries, they have state-subsidised public creches, which are insanely cheap compared to here. If the government were truly interested in giving parents a choice then childcare wouldn't be so extortionate here.

clairefontaine

They never tackle the real problems, they just ad hoc to ad hoc ad finitum.

They need to tackle the exhorbitant cost of childcare. It is nearly or more the same as a mortgage.

For single parents, they need to get the single dads to pay real maintenance and enforce it or pay directly to childcare. Contrary to popular myths and legends, many single parents get very nominal amounts and are covering the majority of the cost of childcare.

clairefontaine

Dolbert wrote: »

In many European countries, they have state-subsidised public creches, which are insanely cheap compared to here. If the government were truly interested in giving parents a choice then childcare wouldn't be so extortionate here.

Why do that when you can just let them all emmigrate?

Three Seasons

Cairo Obnoxious Weed wrote: »

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.

It's not anti women or anti children. It's anti being an idiot taking out astronomical loans.

Ask yourself this, if you lend your friend money, say 10k, and down the line they say they can't pay it back how would you feel if they were still paying for a loss making luxury such as crèche fees and sky sports, iPhones etc. You'd tell them to cop on and pay up.

Three Seasons

clairefontaine wrote: »

They never tackle the real problems, they just ad hoc to ad hoc ad finitum.

They need to tackle the exhorbitant cost of childcare. It is nearly or more the same as a mortgage.

For single parents, they need to get the single dads to pay real maintenance and enforce it or pay directly to childcare. Contrary to popular myths and legends, many single parents get very nominal amounts and are covering the majority of the cost of childcare.

What do you suggest as a solution to reduce the cost of child are?

How Strange

Subsidise childcare or offer tax relief to working parents who avail of private childcare.

I think any draconian measures such as coercing a parent to give up work is horrendously idiotic. Surely it is better for children to see their parents go out to work everyday (if they choose to)and contribute to society. Is it better that they see their parents sit around on welfare just because they had to cut their expenses to satisfy an insolvency arrangement. How dies that benefit society, the economy or the family? It creates another poverty trap.

Also I'm sure any such moves, implicit or explicit, would be contrary to basic human rights. How would it pan out if a parent decided in 10/20 years time to take a case against the state because they were coerced into giving up their job? Would the state be liable in the same way as the marriage ban? Giving up a job takes the person out of the economy so their prsi contributions would be affected. They most likely wouldn't qualify for social welfare as they voluntarily gave up working.

Do we really want to add to the numbers out of work and dependent on social welfare (if they can get it)?

So do the banks now get to decide, inadvertently, who should and should not work and leave the state and the remaining tax payers to carry the cost of the bankers agenda? Surely someone working in a low paid job, for whatever reason, should be encouraged to remain in the workforce so they continue to contribute in terms of tax, prsi etc to the economy and to society.

clairefontaine

^ Looks to me like the banks are pretty much deciding everything.

So if they say to you, look you can't afford childcare when you are claiming bankruptcy, they can do that.

HollyB

How Strange wrote: »

I think any draconian measures such as coercing a parent to give up work is horrendously idiotic. Surely it is better for children to see their parents go out to work everyday (if they choose to)and contribute to society. Is it better that they see their parents sit around on welfare just because they had to cut their expenses to satisfy an insolvency arrangement. How dies that benefit society, the economy or the family? It creates another poverty trap.

I doubt that the intention would be for both parents to give up work and claim benefits.

I can see where the banks are coming from. If the lower earner in a family is working a 39-hour week on the minimum wage, he or she would earn a gross wage of €337.35 so, in a family with two or more children in full time childcare - paid from net income - there could easily be a loss of at least several thousand a year compared to the financial situation if that person stayed home to care for the children while the spouse/partner worked. The banks are going to want to get as much of the mortgage paid as possible so, from a financial perspective, I can see why they would consider it preferable for a person in that situation to give up their job.

However, I would be concerned about the potential consequences.

On the face of it, it would make sense that, in a family where A earns €50k a year, B earns €18k a year, and childcare costs €24k a year, B should give up his or her job to care for the children but the family will be in a very difficult position if A loses his or her job, without the safety net of B's job.

There's also the longterm situation to consider. B might be in an entry level job at the moment but can reasonably expect to be earning significantly more over the next couple of years as his or her career progresses. A and B's children might be nearing school age, and they don't plan to have others, so they can expect their childcare costs to be significantly lower next year, lower than B's wages. It's not something that a one size fits all approach can work for.