Would you stay at home with your kids? (2 Viewers)

[Pantone247]

Imagine you told your boss you could do your entire days work in just a "few hours", I imagine you'd be just be given a lot more work or a cut in salary...

 

[Squiggle]

children don't take eight-hour naps

no woman over 50 (or at least very, very few) has small kids. And when they were younger, and did have kids, they didn't work in jobs. They worked all right--minding kids--but not in jobs.

You don't need 8 hours to do your job... if you did you wouldn't be on Thumped posting about whether it is possible to work from home and have children.

Given the cost of child minders even a part-time job that you could do during nap times and in the evening when the other partner was at home would probably be more cost effective than both parents working outside the home.

 

[snakybus]

Squiggle, I have no idea what your point is. I don't doubt that all you say is do-able or prove-able, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't work and mind babies simultaneously. Nobody can, over 50 or under 50 or whatever.

 

[Squiggle]

Squiggle, I have no idea what your point is. I don't doubt that all you say is do-able or prove-able, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't work and mind babies simultaneously. Nobody can, over 50 or under 50 or whatever.

But people have. When my friend's mother went loo-la her father, a computer programmer, worked from home and minded the three children (the youngest two were 4 and 2). Ok, one of them was in school, but the 4 year old had to be carried everywhere because she had displaced hips and was in a cast from the waist down. He also had to mind his wife.

 

[Pantone247]

You think? There may be a few exceptions, but a lot of the people I know with children treat them as accessories.

you obviously know a lot of pricks

the first mis-implication here is that both parents these days work out of choice, that's bollox, in many cases it's out of financial necessity, not to buy Prada buggys or holiday in Hamptons... I'm sure most working parents would choose to stay at home with their kids if cash wasn't an issue

the second mistake is the idea that twenty years back parents had a shit deal by being at home with the kids, sure they worked hard but you can't ignore the satisfaction that comes with spending time with your kids also once we all went to school my mother went back to classes for herself, could she have done that in a full time job? Non...

Many people now get up at 6am to dress and feed their children, while trying make themselves look somewhat respectable (many their child was up during the night so they got sod all sleep too boot) get to childcare which they pay through the nose for, go to a job try and focus on the task at hand, do 7 - 8 hours. On coming home try and fix dinner and make an effort to play with their kids before they go to bed, it's an exhausting and reptitive cycle and I doft my cap to anyone who keeps that many varied balls in the air without losing their shit altogether.... it's nothing short of disgracful that you would dimiss this as "shamefully lazy and selfish"

fucks sake

 

[Jill Hives]

Simple fact, the development of a child's personality is rooted in the ages 0-4. I would want to be there during that time to foster it. That's precious time I would not want in the hands of another to guide or most likely, to ignore.

 

[Pantone247]

But people have. When my friend's mother went loo-la her father, a computer programmer, worked from home and minded the three children (the youngest two were 4 and 2). Ok, one of them was in school, but the 4 year old had to be carried everywhere because she had displaced hips and was in a cast from the waist down. He also had to mind his wife.

that's a very extraordinary situation and I'm sure if you asked the father he would much preffered a sane wife and a stable house hold even if it did mean he'd have to work a full week

 

[broken arm]

Mothers who began their successful businesses at home are becoming a "powerful force" in British industry, a survey suggests.

The 47-year-old former midwife and her rail engineer husband Douglas, 50, were struggling with a mortgage and three children under the age of four when she decided to take the plunge and start her own business back in 1987.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5345760.stm

 

[c0De_n1NjA]

i get more work done when i work from home with cara. She watches crap cartoons, so i cant watch judge judy etc, plus i cant get stoned when i'm minding her so i do work instead.

i think the best solution would be part time child care - she learns so much in the creche and all her mates (whom i have known since they were a few months old) are hilarious little fuckers. I would feel so sorry for her to be stuck with me all day.

 

[snakybus]

But people have. When my friend's mother went loo-la her father, a computer programmer, worked from home and minded the three children (the youngest two were 4 and 2). Ok, one of them was in school, but the 4 year old had to be carried everywhere because she had displaced hips and was in a cast from the waist down. He also had to mind his wife.

I'm sure he didn't work while minding the kids. I'm sure he worked around this time. It's commendable, no doubt, but it's not desirable is it?

By the way, it's not fair to imply that I'm wasting time posting on the internet when I could be working, thereby finishing earlier and spending more time with my kids. I mean, know I'm not lazy, but I shall still kick you in the arse when I see you, if only just for fun.

 

[MDR]

In my job you can do term time, where you take a couple of months off during the summer while the kids are off school and your 9 months wages are spread over 12 months. If I had kids i'd like to do that if i could afford it.

 

[Squiggle]

I'm sure he didn't work while minding the kids. I'm sure he worked around this time. It's commendable, no doubt, but it's not desirable is it?

By the way, it's not fair to imply that I'm wasting time posting on the internet when I could be working, thereby finishing earlier and spending more time with my kids. I mean, know I'm not lazy, but I shall still kick you in the arse when I see you, if only just for fun.

Well, he managed to get as much work done while at home as when he was in the office... yes, this meant working while the children were napping, and in the evening after they had been put to bed, or while they were playing together or watching television in the same room... but there are many jobs that do not need to be done during a 9-5 day.

Hehe... I wasn't just talking about you. But I guess I deserve the kick up the arse.

In my job you can do term time, where you take a couple of months off during the summer while the kids are off school and your 9 months wages are spread over 12 months. If I had kids i'd like to do that if i could afford it.

That seems sensible. More employers should offer options like that.

I know that the problem is an economic one for many people, and Pantone, in your case it isn't really an option for either parent to stay home as you have two sets of household expenses, but for many couples the cost of childcare eats up the majority of the second salary... and, as my colleague here, who has a one and a half year old, has pointed out there are also additional hidden costs because they have to comply with creche rules.

 

[snakybus]

If I had both my kids in a creche when I was in Dublin it would cost 2 grand.

As it has worked out, my wife minds the kids and I work, and I far prefer this. No matter what people say, a creche is not as good as being with your parents--or at least one of them.

Having said that, however, I have many friends who have their kids in a creche and these people are anything but lazy. I would never judge them. They have to work their asses off to make ends meet. I think dismissing parents who do this as "treating kids lke accessories" is unfair. And sorry but it's naive coming from someone who doesn't actually have kids, and most likely doesn't have to go through what these working parents go through - getting up at 5 or 6 AM, spending a couple hours minding kids, and then working 8-10 hour days (yes, believe it or not, some jobs do involve actually working a full day, especially as you get older and gain more responsibility - I routinely do ten hour days, often up to 12 hours), then making dinner, getting the kids to bed and getting a few hours sleep yourself (and if you dare to have a social life as well, that eats into your 5-7 hours). Oh and did I mention that you might have to get up two or three times during the night? And considering the fact that many people increasingly don't have extended family to fall back on (the extended family is quickly becoming a thing of the past), people often have little or no choice but to put children into care. Certainly, there are ways around it - if you're resourceful, and willing to be poor, and tired all the time. But believe me, these people are not lazy.

By the way, the whole thing of "working while the baby is taking a nap" is just a non-starter. Kids often only sleep for half an hour, if they feel like it. You can't predict it.

As for the woman who started her business from home, well, I imagine she probably had someone to mind the kids. Kids don't mind themselves!

But that all aside, I do actually think more people could stay at home. I actually work from home, and it's great to be here, but it's not the same as "being at home with the kids", like my wife is. I did actually do that for a while and it's tough going. I also tried to work--part time--while minding ONE child. Never again.

But I don't think it's about blaming parents for being greedy. I think it's about bringing the cost of creches and general cost of living down.

 

[Goodbye]

Or you could just get a dog

 

[Diddles]

Or you could just get a dog

Or get your dog to mind your kids while you work

 

[Jill Hives]

I know that the problem is an economic one for many people, and Pantone, in your case it isn't really an option for either parent to stay home as you have two sets of household expenses, but for many couples the cost of childcare eats up the majority of the second salary... and, as my colleague here, who has a one and a half year old, has pointed out there are also additional hidden costs because they have to comply with creche rules.

There was a show about this in the states. It took parents overwhelmed with kids and both working to make ends meet. In 9 out of 10 cases, it was more cost effective (not to mention better for the kids) that one parent be a stay at home caregiver. I even think the one couple where is came out at about or slightly in favour of two jobs, decided to have one of them stay at home.

I am far too selfish to ever have children. There is still too much I want to do and see to settle down. However, if I did finally decide to have one, I 'd be at home no matter what (until they where of school age)...I'd find a way to make it work. I am sure many parents would find this rude to say but I think many people have kids for the wrong reasons. There really should be much more thought into it rather than it's the 'normal' thing to do after getting married.

 

[snakybus]

That's fine Hayworth and I agree, mostly, but--what are the right reasons? I have never been able to figure out why I had kids, anymore than I can figure out why I'm alive myself. But I'm very glad about both of these things nonetheless. Anyone that sits around thinking about whether they should have kids or not just thinks too much. There are millions of "reasons" not to have kids. It's not about being reasonable.

 

[c0De_n1NjA]

In my job you can do term time, where you take a couple of months off during the summer while the kids are off school and your 9 months wages are spread over 12 months. If I had kids i'd like to do that if i could afford it.

thats a brilliant idea, most businesses will go a bit quiet during the summer months anyway so winners all around.

 

[Jill Hives]

Anyone that sits around thinking about whether they should have kids or not just thinks too much. There are millions of "reasons" not to have kids. It's not about being reasonable.

I don't know but the idea of creating another person who will have to live in THIS world and actually go through the joys and heartache of living, requires some thought on my part. Not to mention the fact that their lives and happiness in them will reflect, to a large degree, on myself. I don't want that responsibility right now, that's for sure. If more people put in thought into it BEFORE having them, we all might be better off. Harsh but true. That said, I have no doubt that many who are not sure why they had them, are happy they did.

 

[snakybus]

ah I don't agree with that at all, but anyway you seem to have made your mind up so what the hey