Au Pairs - the great debate.

22-03-2009 09:41PM

ntlbell wrote: »

how?

do tesco not open while your kids are in school?

I know people making 700e a week working 36 hours doing delivery's that doesn't sound like minimum wage to me.

more than double in fact.

Your take away argument fails cos generally they don't open in the mornings :rolleyes:

Hmmm, 36 hours a week eh? Oh yeh, I could fit that in!
Do these friends of yours pay tax on all that they earn? do they have business insurance on their cars?

ntlbell · 22-03-2009 09:42PM

Dudess wrote: »

Well you said your daughter was 13 and you're 30 - you say here you were financially set before having a child... at 17?

I was 17 when we had our first yes, I'm sure you have seen me post I also started working when I was 14, I wasn't financially set for life.

We were financially sound to raise a child on one income and we were.

I don't recall saying she was 13 tho?

Dudess · 22-03-2009 09:43PM

Well I do.

So anyway, you'd enough money to raise a child from three years of part-time jobs? Or did you leave school really early?

22-03-2009 09:43PM

ntlbell wrote: »

I was 17 when we had our first yes, I'm sure you have seen me post I also started working when I was 14, I wasn't financially set for life.

We were financially sound to raise a child on one income and we were.

I don't recall saying she was 13 tho?

I have no doubt you could survive on one income even in this day and age but that's all it would be surviving! not living.

ntlbell · 22-03-2009 09:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Your take away argument fails cos generally they don't open in the mornings :rolleyes:

Hmmm, 36 hours a week eh? Oh yeh, I could fit that in!
Do these friends of yours pay tax on all that they earn? do they have business insurance on their cars?

tesco does tho?

you could also work one or two eveings? than you have 5 nights?

i'm not saying you could fit it in, i was demonstrating that it's not min wage?

devide 36 x 700?

easy..

ntlbell · 22-03-2009 09:46PM

Dudess wrote: »

Well I do.

So anyway, you'd enough money to raise a child from three years of part-time jobs? Or did you leave school really early?

any chance you could find the post?

no, we had enough if one was working full time?

ntlbell · 22-03-2009 09:49PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I have no doubt you could survive on one income even in this day and age but that's all it would be surviving! not living.

i dunno, I'd rather just survive for a few years and bring up my own child?

again, it's priorities

Yours it to make sure your husband can spend the evening in the pub?

22-03-2009 09:56PM

ntlbell wrote: »

i dunno, I'd rather just survive for a few years and bring up my own child?

again, it's priorities

Yours it to make sure your husband can spend the evening in the pub?

yes, my priority is to fuel my husbands alcoholism. He also gambles and goes to strip clubs at the weekends. But he's pretty and he'll beat me if I tell him I don't like it.

Surviving does not equal financially sound the way - just so you know :pac:

ntlbell · 22-03-2009 10:00PM

Deleted User wrote: »

yes, my priority is to fuel my husbands alcoholism. He also gambles and goes to strip clubs at the weekends. But he's pretty and he'll beat me if I tell him I don't like it.

Surviving does not equal financially sound the way - just so you know :pac:

sure it does.

If you can provide a roof, food, clothes, etc

everything else is just a luxury no?

Being able to ponce around in an X5 that the bank owns is not being financially sound.

22-03-2009 10:02PM

one last thing!

Of course everyones priorities are different. Mine are quite simply to have my child in the best school ie. giving her a good start in life. Doing the things that make her happy and bringing her up in a home where there is no stress due to lack of funds or worrying about paying bills. I guess my priorities are really screwed up.

ntlbell · 22-03-2009 10:06PM

Deleted User wrote: »

one last thing!

Of course everyones priorities are different. Mine are quite simply to have my child in the best school ie. giving her a good start in life. Doing the things that make her happy and bringing her up in a home where there is no stress due to lack of funds or worrying about paying bills. I guess my priorities are really screwed up.

well they have changed since the thread started

it was first that your husband couldn't buy new clothes and drink after work?

22-03-2009 10:06PM

ntlbell wrote: »

sure it does.

If you can provide a roof, food, clothes, etc

everything else is just a luxury no?

Being able to ponce around in an X5 that the bank owns is not being financially sound.

but I love my 09 x5 soooo much!!!

Private school is a luxury to some, and I understand that totally. But my daughter is 4 and she can read, write, do multiplication and isn't even in Junior infants yet - it's a luxury worth paying for. And roofs have been pretty expensive pretty much since I've been an adult, luckily you had a child a long time ago so it's obviously easier to afford.

Snowie · 22-03-2009 10:07PM

I had the hotist spanish opair ever when i was a kid she rocked... :cool:

22-03-2009 10:07PM

ntlbell wrote: »

well they have changed since the thread started

it was first that your husband couldn't buy new clothes and drink after work?

I never said they were my priorities, again, you're not reading very well! I said why shouldn't be able to do those things when he's worked so hard. I stand by that comment.

JC 2K3 · 22-03-2009 10:10PM

Private school for under 4 year olds??

I don't really know what to make of that...

22-03-2009 10:12PM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Private school for under 4 year olds??

she's not under 4 - she is 4! And she goes to montessori. The one she's in is actually not that expensive compared to others in the area. You can pay up to €600 per month for playschool - the cheapest playschool nearby was a community subsidised one and even that was €250pm!

ntlbell · 22-03-2009 10:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

but I love my 09 x5 soooo much!!!

Private school is a luxury to some, and I understand that totally. But my daughter is 4 and she can read, write, do multiplication and isn't even in Junior infants yet - it's a luxury worth paying for. And roofs have been pretty expensive pretty much since I've been an adult, luckily you had a child a long time ago so it's obviously easier to afford.

I'm sure you're very proud.

22-03-2009 10:14PM

ntlbell wrote: »

I'm sure you're very proud.

I am - Very

JC 2K3 · 22-03-2009 10:24PM

Deleted User wrote: »

she's not under 4 - she is 4! And she goes to montessori. The one she's in is actually not that expensive compared to others in the area. You can pay up to €600 per month for playschool - the cheapest playschool nearby was a community subsidised one and even that was €250pm!

Do kids not start school at 4?

Personally, I don't think I'd send my hypothetical future child to a montessori. Having a mother who was a primary school teacher and who didn't really agree with accelerated education has influenced me on this, as has the fact I've done very well and have had a standard public education.

I'd argue that if you were tight for cash that it was an unnecessary expense (especially with college fees coming back in the near future).

Anyway, don't really wanna argue it, just my opinion.

22-03-2009 10:39PM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Do kids not start school at 4?

Personally, I don't think I'd send my hypothetical future child to a montessori. Having a mother who was a primary school teacher and who didn't really agree with accelerated education has influenced me on this, as has the fact I've done very well and have had a standard public education.

I'd argue that if you were tight for cash that it was an unnecessary expense (especially with college fees coming back in the near future).

Anyway, don't really wanna argue it, just my opinion.

she'll start primary when she's 5 - I thought it best to leave her til that age as then she'll be 18 doing her leaving.

to be honest I hadn't planned on sending her to private school or montessori, she was going to that community based playschool I mentioned, in order to socialise with other children etc but when I went to visit it there were no facilities, there was no outdoor play area and the room that 20 kids would be sitting in for 3.5 hours was tiny so, that's how I ended up sending her where she is now, I had every intention of sending her on to public school but she has just done so so well there and is so incredibly happy that I want her to stay there for primary school too. There will only be 12 in her class compared with 33 in the school she would have attended.

I went to public school (good primary bad secondary) and so did my husband so I have nothing at all against public education.

I agree that it is a luxury that can be avoided, definitely, but I've just believe that it is so worth working for, I've been saving for her college fees since she was born as I had an idea that would end up happening.

Your opinion is totally correct, because it's your opinion

mental07 · 22-03-2009 11:54PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

you're trusting a complete stranger to come into your home and practically raise your kid(s).

Indeed. I worked as an au pair for a year (not in Ireland) and I was pretty astonished at the trust the family put in me, even though they barely knew me! I met them one afternoon, corresponded by email, then - bang! - was given the keys to their house and was instructed to pick up their child after school Monday to Friday.

Imagine if I had scarpered or something and the young one was stranded at school?! Or if I'd been a total psycho? They had no way of knowing.

23-03-2009 08:50AM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Do kids not start school at 4?

Personally, I don't think I'd send my hypothetical future child to a montessori. Having a mother who was a primary school teacher and who didn't really agree with accelerated education has influenced me on this,

Why? Some children thrive on being stimulated that way. My gmother is a primary teacher and has seen many who'd benefit from it as well.

Personally if my child is bright and enjoys it I would most certainly take them ahead into primary school education whether on my own or montessori etc.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 23-03-2009 11:15AM

My girlfriends an Aupair here, gets treated well by the family, mainly a supporting role, the mother doesn't work and my gf only babsits on her own the odd time.

In general I think its a bad idea for kids. Every year that family has a new european girl who comes over, the kids get attached and the girl leaves. Surely that has to mess up the kids sense of trust.

carrieb · 23-03-2009 11:24AM

galwayrush wrote: »

Most people with au pairs have to constantly remind the rest of us that they have one. Seems to be a badge of honour with the new breed of idiots the celtic tiger overdraft caused.

It certainly works like that in Italy! I am working as an au pair at the moment but the parents dont actually need one imo. I am actually a "mothers help" so I work 1-9 every day. I feel this family and a lot of others I have encountered want to have an au pair in the same way that yummy mummys in Dublin want to have a 4X4.

I have been with this family for 2 months and am leaving in a few weeks. This is my 2nd time to try the au pair thing, I thought I was unlucky with the last family a few yrs ago but I am now thinking that the type of parents who want an au pair are not the type of ppl I want to live with!!

Also most girls stay for up to 1 year which means that every year a new girl arrives, the kids get used to her and she goes. (possibly more then 1 a year in a lot of cases)

A nanny or a creche is one thing, having someone come and live in your house is very different. It's cheap for the parents, I'll say that!

I def wouldnt be a stay at home mum if I had kids however I wouldnt get an au pair either as I wouldnt want to have some1 living with me and being there all the time. It gets awkward for everyone.

consultech · 23-03-2009 11:29AM

orla wrote: »

I've spent too many years in college to be a stay at home mum.

lol - The naive famous last words I'm never surprised to hear so often.

consultech · 23-03-2009 11:38AM

Deleted User wrote: »

she'll start primary when she's 5 - I thought it best to leave her til that age as then she'll be 18 doing her leaving.

to be honest I hadn't planned on sending her to private school or montessori, she was going to that community based playschool I mentioned, in order to socialise with other children etc but when I went to visit it there were no facilities, there was no outdoor play area and the room that 20 kids would be sitting in for 3.5 hours was tiny so, that's how I ended up sending her where she is now, I had every intention of sending her on to public school but she has just done so so well there and is so incredibly happy that I want her to stay there for primary school too. There will only be 12 in her class compared with 33 in the school she would have attended.

I went to public school (good primary bad secondary) and so did my husband so I have nothing at all against public education.

I agree that it is a luxury that can be avoided, definitely, but I've just believe that it is so worth working for, I've been saving for her college fees since she was born as I had an idea that would end up happening.

Your opinion is totally correct, because it's your opinion

Given how industrious you come accross with regard to your child's educational leg-up; if it has benefitted her to the point of much-greater intelligence than the norm, then I hope you have some sort of plan in place for her when you come to the point of realisation that you have inadvertantly retarded her socially. It'll be interesting to see if you're as smug then, as you apparently are now.

If feeling sorry for the weird privately educated over-smart kids has taught me anything, it's that no amount of parental money-throwing can negate social exclusion.

Dudess · 23-03-2009 11:45AM

consultech wrote: »

Given how industrious you come accross with regard to your child's educational leg-up; if it has benefitted her to the point of much-greater intelligence than the norm, then I hope you have some sort of plan in place for her when you come to the point of realisation that you have inadvertantly retarded her socially. It'll be interesting to see if you're as smug then, as you apparently are now.

If feeling sorry for the weird privately educated over-smart kids has taught me anything, it's that no amount of parental money-throwing can negate social exclusion.

God, really unfair. How has she inadvertently socially retarded her? And how is she smug?
I don't understand the appeal of private schools either - all teachers have the same training and plenty of state schools have excellent facilities... I think the notion you get a better education is based on an assumption of "well if I'm paying money, it must be better" which isn't necessarily true at all (or "there'll be no riff-raff" - because of course every single state school is jam-packed with "riff-raff")... but whoopsadaisydoodles doesn't exactly come across as a stuck-up, elitist parent either.

23-03-2009 02:46PM

consultech wrote: »

Given how industrious you come accross with regard to your child's educational leg-up; if it has benefitted her to the point of much-greater intelligence than the norm, then I hope you have some sort of plan in place for her when you come to the point of realisation that you have inadvertantly retarded her socially. It'll be interesting to see if you're as smug then, as you apparently are now.

If feeling sorry for the weird privately educated over-smart kids has taught me anything, it's that no amount of parental money-throwing can negate social exclusion.

I would love to know how my post came across as smug! I have clearly sated that I had every intention of sending her to public national school until I saw how much she is enjoying being where she is. I'm not sure how sending a child to a fee paying school will turn them into a social retard, maybe you can explain so I understand? How is my daughter socially excluded from anything? again, if you read my post you will see the reason I sent her to montessori in the first place was for her to socialise so not really sure what exactly you are talking about.

Again, an explanation of exactly how I have "inadvertantly retarded her socially" may clarify the issue and also of how I seem so smug?

23-03-2009 06:43PM

consultech wrote: »

Given how industrious you come accross with regard to your child's educational leg-up; if it has benefitted her to the point of much-greater intelligence than the norm, then I hope you have some sort of plan in place for her when you come to the point of realisation that you have inadvertantly retarded her socially. It'll be interesting to see if you're as smug then, as you apparently are now.

Jesus christ, nothing p* off my mother more when I was little, nor me hearing it now, is that more intelligence invariably means much less social ability. All the abuse and stick she got for giving me some pre-school education and how it was going to completely ruin my life.. I'm not some antisocial idiot-savant sitting in a corner, I have wonderful friends and am quite happy socially as well as otherwise. :mad:
Some children are just unhappy unless they are being intellectually stimulated as WELL as socially.
I totally understand the importance of social acceptance and so on in a child's development, but the constant insistence I hear left and right all over the boards that a child might suddenly not be able to cope or would be miserable among their classmates just because they're a little more intelligent or younger than the average is complete rubbish. I never hear anything about the child being older than average affecting their social life. At this rate the average ages of children in first class combined with waiting times must surely go up :rolleyes:

A little less insistence that everyone be more stupid so as to be more sociable (because of course the two are inversely proportional :rolleyes:) might help in general. And less insistence that the first years of a child's life, when they're most suited to absorbing knowledge and information, be wasted completely because of this fear they might be in any way not "normal"...
:mad:

Anyway, enough ranting out of me. But seriously, that smug attitude really gets me.

Dudess · 23-03-2009 07:01PM

bluewolf wrote: »

A little less insistence that everyone be more stupid so as to be more sociable (because of course the two are inversely proportional :rolleyes:) might help in general. And less insistence that the first years of a child's life, when they're most suited to absorbing knowledge and information, be wasted completely because of this fear they might be in any way not "normal".

Well said. And apparent in popular culture with so much dumbing-down...

Au Pairs - the great debate.

Comments