Breadwinners

Ush1

Any body else here the sole breadwinner of their family?

I am myself and find it increasingly rare to find other people in the same boat, most families these days seem to have dual incomes.

My wife stays at home and looks after my son. We made that decision based on preferring not to have him in a creche. Has our society gone wrong somewhere that dual incomes and children in creches is the norm?

Rackstar

Thinly veiled, I earn loadsa mula.....

Canis Lupus

Ush1 wrote: »

Any body else here the sole breadwinner of their family?

I am myself and find it increasingly rare to find other people in the same boat, most families these days seem to have dual incomes.

My wife stays at home and looks after my son. We made that decision based on preferring not to have him in a creche. Has our society gone wrong somewhere that dual incomes and children in creches is the norm?

For some reason most women think they should be able to have children AND a career. It's mad like.

neonsofa

Yep I am the "breadwinner" in our family but my child is in a crèche cause it's just me and her. It's tough. I think kids going to creche does wonders for their development though. And I personally would not be able to do the stay at home parent thing- I genuinely have so much respect for those who spend all day at home with the children, I don't have that patience, it is a very tough job.

Teyla Emmagan

Me. I am also head of the household, and its only member. I have a cat to support though. And an expensive Amazon habit.

Elemonator

I think you view the wife's role at home as a traditional one. With modern countries and family planning, opportunities etc many women can now have careers. Dual income is common place in places like Germany. It saw a spike here though with the 2009 financial crash but its one of the tenets of living in a modern Western country I think.

At least you have the option of only needing one income, but its more common than you think for good reasons.

Shenshen

I currently am the sole breadwinner, as my husband is unemployed.
It's doable, but I would prefer having to worry about money a bit less. Thankfully, he's starting a new job soon.

If we had children, he'd be the one staying at home looking after them. I wouldn't have the patience. Also, I'm on the higher income.

Avatar MIA

Ush1 wrote: »

Any body else here the sole breadwinner of their family?

I am myself and find it increasingly rare to find other people in the same boat, most families these days seem to have dual incomes.

My wife stays at home and looks after my son. We made that decision based on preferring not to have him in a creche. Has our society gone wrong somewhere that dual incomes and children in creches is the norm?

Society worked around the concept of the male earning enough money to entirely support the family unit. Hence we had situations where married women had to leave the civil service if they became married.

Eventually this became unsustainable and now there are many dual income families. However, the costs of childcare (if you don't have your mammy to hand) are very high, mitigating the benefit of the second income. Until (if ever) the kids leave the home.

I was the sole "bread winner" for about 15 years, but both earning now.

Jawgap

Ush1 wrote: »

Any body else here the sole breadwinner of their family?

I am myself and find it increasingly rare to find other people in the same boat, most families these days seem to have dual incomes.

My wife stays at home and looks after my son. We made that decision based on preferring not to have him in a creche. Has our society gone wrong somewhere that dual incomes and children in creches is the norm?

Yes, but that's because I'm good at winning things - golf, rugby etc

My wife on the other hand is more sensible and spends her time getting money for her work instead of entering pointless raffles for baked products.

We both shared the child-rearing......with each other and a creche, then a school and now a university.

I'm not sure 'society has gone wrong' if it allows people to work, build a career and raise kids.

Bambi985

it's less common today than it was 30 years ago because most people these days need two very good incomes to be able to afford the cost of raising kids.

silverharp

Ush1 wrote: »

Any body else here the sole breadwinner of their family?

I am myself and find it increasingly rare to find other people in the same boat, most families these days seem to have dual incomes.

My wife stays at home and looks after my son. We made that decision based on preferring not to have him in a creche. Has our society gone wrong somewhere that dual incomes and children in creches is the norm?

its a huge social experiment for sure, I must say it feels wrong to have a kid under 2 being looked after by a business, it has to be potentially psychologically damaging? To a 6 month old baby 8 hours might as well be 8 years.

andekwarhola

I work full time and my wife works part time. Her hours were/are arranged that it has largely mitigated most childcare and now after school expenses so it's actually worked out well.

You can certainly bemoan modern society etc but it costs what it costs so at the end of the day you do what you have to do to own a roof to put over your kids heads, have some sort of life and education.

Plus while we never had to go the full time crèche route, I don't think it's as bad as people make out for children from 1 or 2 upwards.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Ush1 wrote: »

Any body else here the sole breadwinner of their family?

I am myself and find it increasingly rare to find other people in the same boat, most families these days seem to have dual incomes.

My wife stays at home and looks after my son. We made that decision based on preferring not to have him in a creche. Has our society gone wrong somewhere that dual incomes and children in creches is the norm?

Why does it have to be wrong for both parents to work if they have to or want to? Things have changed, that doesn't necessarily mean it has gone wrong. Your choice is your choice and you are obviously happy with it and can afford it.

In my case we both worked. We had no choice but, as we both loved our careers, we probably would have worked anyway. Our children did not suffer by us working. Indeed they benefited from what our income could give them. And because we both worked and built on our careers we could both retire early.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

He earns more than me, but I am currently working in my own new business so hopefully that will change in the next few years. I'm financially independent though, so he doesn't have to win my bread. I can buy my own.

andekwarhola

silverharp wrote: »

its a huge social experiment for us re, I must say it feels wrong to have a kid under 2 being looked after by a business, it has to be potentially psychologically damaging? To a 6 month old baby 8 hours might as well be 8 years.

Our kids went to crèche twice a week (other 3 at home with their mother) from around 1.5-5 years and was fine with it.

They loved it there, had a lot of pals and did montessori there. That said, it depends on the place. We were really happy with ours and it had a good ethos and lots of outdoor play.

I actually thought it was good for them socially and was a good preparation for school.

A lot of the doom mongering about childcare seems to be a bit knee-jerk and a defence of traditional roles. I mean, do you honestly think every stay at home parent is really compensating for structured play, montessori and group socializing in between housework

biko

Ush1 wrote: »

My wife stays at home and looks after my son.

Why do you say "my son" and not "our son"?

Ush1

biko wrote: »

Why do you say "my son" and not "our son"?

Dunno. Our son, better?

Loveinapril

I am the sole breadwinner as my husband is in college. It is pretty stressful and we don't have kids yet. I have always earned more than him so am used to contributing more to the household, but with him in college now, our future earnings will be similar enough (I hope!).

Little CuChulainn

For unmarried couples it is much harder to have a stay at home parent due to discrimination in the tax system.

Ush1

Canis Lupus wrote: »

For some reason most women think they should be able to have children AND a career. It's mad like.

Is that true? Or are most people, men or women, both forced to work to pay a mortgage?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Ush1 wrote: »

Is that true? Or are most people, men or women, both forced to work to pay a mortgage?

I don't know about you but I would hate to be financially dependent on anyone.

Ush1

Elemonator wrote: »

I think you view the wife's role at home as a traditional one. With modern countries and family planning, opportunities etc many women can now have careers. Dual income is common place in places like Germany. It saw a spike here though with the 2009 financial crash but its one of the tenets of living in a modern Western country I think.

At least you have the option of only needing one income, but its more common than you think for good reasons.

I honestly don't. Some people, men or women, are career oriented. My wifes self confessed only passion is being a mother.

neonsofa

silverharp wrote: »

its a huge social experiment for sure, I must say it feels wrong to have a kid under 2 being looked after by a business, it has to be potentially psychologically damaging? To a 6 month old baby 8 hours might as well be 8 years.

My child was in a crèche from as early as 4 months iirc. The only other option was stay at home claiming welfare and becoming further and further removed from the workforce and society generally. If she hadn't been in a crèche during that time we'd have no money now.

I worked and studied to get a good job to support us. If I didn't I'd be another of the "single mothers on welfare" that get complained about constantly.

My child was always advanced for her age, she had no emotional issues when starting school as she was used to the routine, she gets on well with everybody as she was used to interacting and sharing things with other children (despite being an only child), and we have a lovely bond because the time we do spend together is valued by the both of us. It worked out fine for us and I have a happy confident healthy girl who I can provide for as a result.

emo72

Raising a child is a full time job. Having a career is a full time job. To the people that do both, fair play, you truly are amazing people. I couldn't do it.

silverharp

andekwarhola wrote: »

Our kids went to crèche twice a week (other 3 at home with their mother) from around 1.5-5 years and was fine with it.

They loved it there, had a lot of pals and did montessori there. That said, it depends on the place. We were really happy with ours and it had a good ethos and lots of outdoor play.

I actually thought it was good for them socially and was a good preparation for school.

A lot of the doom mongering a out childcare seems to be a bit knee-jerk and a defence of traditional roles. I mean, do you honestly think every stay at home parent is really compensating for structured play, montessori and group socializing in between housework

parents dont like being criticised . Im not saying kids should be with their mother until they go to school. My kids were at home until about 2 and then in the afternoon they went to the house of a mother and daughter team that looked after about 5 kids between them and that worked out well and they did 2 years in a montessori before they went to school.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

neonsofa wrote: »

My child was in a crèche from as early as 4 months iirc. The only other option was stay at home claiming welfare and becoming further and further removed from the workforce and society generally. If she hadn't been in a crèche during that time we'd have no money now.

I worked and studied to get a good job to support us. If I didn't I'd be another of the "single mothers on welfare" that get complained about constantly.

My child was always advanced for her age, she had no emotional issues when starting school as she was used to the routine, she gets on well with everybody as she was used to interacting and sharing things with other children (despite being an only child), and we have a lovely bond because the time we do spend together is valued by the both of us. It worked out fine for us and I have a happy confident healthy girl who I can provide for as a result.

You did what you felt/knew what was best for your child. Well done. I'm sure she was absolutely fine in crèche and will hopefully appreciate the life you are building for you both.

Ush1

Camryn Shaggy Dumpster wrote: »

Why does it have to be wrong for both parents to work if they have to or want to? Things have changed, that doesn't necessarily mean it has gone wrong. Your choice is your choice and you are obviously happy with it and can afford it.

In my case we both worked. We had no choice but, as we both loved our careers, we probably would have worked anyway. Our children did not suffer by us working. Indeed they benefited from what our income could give them. And because we both worked and built on our careers we could both retire early.

I didn't say it has to be wrong, but as you have said you didn't have a choice, surely that something worth questioning?

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Loveinapril

FizzleSticks wrote: »

If I had children I'd prefer to look after them myself until they start school.

I always thought the same until I worked as a full time childminder for a while. My head was MELTED. I don't have children yet but I will most certainly go back to work part time after they are born. Financially it will have to be when maternity leave ends but if I had a choice I think I would prefer them to be about 1 before they went to a childminder.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Ush1 wrote: »

I didn't say it has to be wrong, but as you have said you didn't have a choice, surely that something worth questioning?

You did ask 'has our society gone wrong somewhere?' And I said it hadn't.
I also said we would probably have both worked anyway. It's neither right nor wrong if we find the right balance within our own homes and families.
I don't need to question it as it did no harm and caused no hurt for us nor anybody else.

Jawgap

biko wrote: »

Why do you say "my son" and not "our son"?

My son.....

.....your daughter (if it's a child!)

RobertKK

People who live alone are the sole porridge-earners, sorry but I don't eat bread.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

jamesbere

I won 2 loaves of Pat the Baker before

Robineen

Rackstar wrote: »

Thinly veiled, I earn loadsa mula.....

Not necessarily. The OP and his wife might have realised that a big chunk of the second income would go on childcare and that her being home with the kids was more important that the small amount of extra income coming into the household from the second job.

Autonomous Cowherd

I stayed at home with the children, I had not intended to, but when I tried them in creche we were all unhappy and I missed them hugely. I only wanted to be with them. It is better for some to continue working but for me it was not. Whatever people need to be happy is best. It meant we were significantly poorer as I am the better educated. It meant a good slap in the face to all of my high-flying career 'prospects'' as 15 years at home leaves one decidedly out of the loop. I always did small sideline businesses, to give us a bit extra, but I do not prioritise property. Second hand clothes and a banger of a car is fine by me. In the end there are several things I have learned... Careers are not the be all and end all of a good life on this earth, a lot of people spend a lot of hours feeling a lot of stress doing a lot of stuff that makes me really wonder. I have got to do a lot of things I would never have had time for if I had had a busy career, including teach small people, cook, grow food and flowers and trees, and make art. I am branching out in new areas of work and adventure now that they have grown and I don't feel as if anything has been wasted. I have not felt the need to be identified by what I ''do'' in the sense that most people mean it ..ie what is your job. And my children, now all grown and flown, regularly tell me that they had an awesome childhood, and I often hear ... Thanks Mam.
Worth it.

neonsofa

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

I stayed at home with the children, I had not intended to, but when I tried them in creche we were all unhappy and I missed them hugely. I only wanted to be with them. It is better for some to continue working but for me it was not. Whatever people need to be happy is best. It meant we were significantly poorer as I am the better educated. It meant a good slap in the face to all of my high-flying career 'prospects'' as 15 years at home leaves one decidedly out of the loop. I always did small sideline businesses, to give us a bit extra, but I do not prioritise property. Second hand clothes and a banger of a car is fine by me. In the end there are several things I have learned... Careers are not the be all and end all of a good life on this earth, a lot of people spend a lot of hours feeling a lot of stress doing a lot of stuff that makes me really wonder. I have got to do a lot of things I would never have had time for if I had had a busy career, including teach small people, cook, grow food and flowers and trees, and make art. I am branching out in new areas of work and adventure now that they have grown and I don't feel as if anything has been wasted. I have not felt the need to be identified by what I ''do'' in the sense that most people mean it ..ie what is your job. And my children, now all grown and flown, regularly tell me that they had an awesome childhood, and I often hear ... Thanks Mam.
Worth it.

This is lovely

However a lot of working parents are not doing so to have a high flying career and fancy cars, and an identity in what they "do", some are working all the hours they can purely just to cover the basics, in alot of cases working extra just to cover the childcare so that they can cover the basics.

Autonomous Cowherd

neonsofa wrote: »

This is lovely

However a lot of working parents are not doing so to have a high flying career and fancy cars, and an identity in what they "do", some are working all the hours they can purely just to cover the basics, in alot of cases working extra just to cover the childcare so that they can cover the basics.

I agree. This is so. I think it is something wrong with the system, or rather essentially money. Money does not have the purchasing power it had in the past, and being on a hamster wheel of constant work and striving is the reality of most people's lives. We should ask why this is. Who/what is organising it so that life is that way now. It is not a humane system. Even if both parents work they should in the natural scheme of things have adequate restful hours to spend with the people they love every day. Otherwise why are we here at all?

jester77

Not sure what people have against childcare, I find them to be amazing. The amount of things they learn is amazing and the facilities are awesome. My son is only 3 and he is able to bake stuff, something I can't even do. Plus I'm jealous that he gets to use a sauna more often than I do.

jester77

There is the third option which hasn't been mentioned (and is the common one in my experience) that's both working and grandparents minding the children meaning high can work and not be robbed in childcare costs or leave their kids with strangers all day. Not an option for everyone but personally I'd be very slow to have a child without living close to family, even just for handy babysitting for a night away or night in the pub without being robbed paying a babysitter.

I was looked after by my grandparents during the day from the end of my mothers maternity leave till I started school and looking back it's some of my best childhood memories which I doubt I'd be saying if I was in a crèche rather than on a farm everyday. This was over 30 years ago too so both parents working is hardly that new a thing.

jester77 wrote: »

Not sure what people have against childcare, I find them to be amazing. The amount of things they learn is amazing and the facilities are awesome. My son is only 3 and he is able to bake stuff, something I can't even do. Plus I'm jealous that he gets to use a sauna more often than I do.

Aside from other reasons I wouldn't like to put a child in childcare the cost is a massive reason. The cost some people are paying for childcare is eye watering I couldnt so it, that money could be going to so much more beneficial places (like savings or investments).

Bambi985

Bambi985 wrote: »

it's less common today than it was 30 years ago because most people these days need two very good incomes to be able to afford the cost of raising kids property.

fyp.

I think society has gone wrong, and I think so entirely because unlike 40 years ago when people had a choice, for most of us it is not a choice of working outside the home or not: in the vast majority of relationships, especially in Dublin, it is essential for both people to work outside in order to pay for the cost of property.

I'm not quite sure how two incomes being essential in 2017 to buy a house which one income could have bought in 1970/this lack of choice can be considered an advance.

pickarooney

jester77 wrote: »

Not sure what people have against childcare, I find them to be amazing. The amount of things they learn is amazing and the facilities are awesome. My son is only 3 and he is able to bake stuff, something I can't even do. Plus I'm jealous that he gets to use a sauna more often than I do.

So he's essentially the breadwinner in your house.

Shannon757

I read The Breadwinner. Good book

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Avatar MIA

Merrick Defeated Technology wrote: »

Aside from other reasons I wouldn't like to put a child in childcare the cost is a massive reason. The cost some people are paying for childcare is eye watering I couldnt so it, that money could be going to so much more beneficial places (like savings or investments).

Frankly that's moronic - you're basically saying you'd not have kids if your grandparents weren't around to help.

Relatively few people have grandparents willing to be taken advantage of.

Robineen

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Frankly that's moronic - you're basically saying you'd not have kids if your grandparents weren't around to help.

Relatively few people have grandparents willing to be taken advantage of.

I think that poster means his own parents, not his grandparents.

Some grandparents of one's children might be happy to do it, but it seems like an awful lot of pressure to put them to me. It's tiring and a big responsibility. It ties them to their home five days a week too at a time when they have earned more freedom for themselves, having retired. I can also envisage a scenario where grandparents are guilted into doing child-minding.

If I had kids, my parents would take them once or maybe twice a week. No more. That's plenty of grandparent-grandchildren quality time. As my mother happily told me a while back - "My child-rearing days are over!"

Avatar MIA

Robineen wrote: »

I think that poster means his own parents, not his grandparents.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

As you say, Grandparents have coped on to the free ride - they've been there, done that. They'd be happy to help out once in a while, but a cheap/free alternative to a creche? It's hardly a universal model to espouse.

Dr Crayfish

Canis Lupus wrote: »

For some reason most women think they should be able to have children AND a career. It's mad like.

Well maybe it is mad. Maybe one parent should stay at home until the kids are a bit older. This 2 income thing has been imposed upon us due to what's expected of us nowadays.

Avatar MIA

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Frankly that's moronic - you're basically saying you'd not have kids if your grandparents weren't around to help.

Relatively few people have grandparents willing to be taken advantage of.

It's far from "relatively few" in my experience. Myself, siblings and all the 1st cousins were minded full time by one or both sets of grandparents.

My friends have stared to have kids now and so far of the 2 of 3 that have had a kid all are minded full time by grandparents. My gfs nephew is minded full time by his grandparents. That's just a few examples, most babies I know are actually minded by grandparents while both parents work full time.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

It angers me that couples have to both work to maintain a decent standard of living because you cant get the time back

It's not just about the money aspect, many women can't wait to go back to work and would go mad being stuck at home full time being a home maker and relying on their husbands wage.

SEPT 23 1989

I have been the breadwinner since my early 20s its not something you think about you just do it having watched your own father and grandfather doing the same thing

There is no bigger job than raising children and its such a small window in time

It angers me that couples have to both work to maintain a decent standard of living because you cant get the time back