The Job Offer That Costs Money
Rita is a single parent living in a town of 9,000. She works 20 hours a week cleaning offices and takes home €1,180 a month, including €120 in children's allowance. Her children are 9 and 14. Her regular monthly outgoings are: rent €520, electricity €95, water €25, bus pass €60, school expenses €70 (averaged over the year), food €340, a credit union loan repayment €80, and phone and internet €45. Her employer offers her a full-time contract at the same company with net pay of €1,400. Taking it would mean paying €220 a month for after-school care for the 9-year-old, spending an extra €30 on transport, and losing €150 of a means-tested benefit. The 14-year-old would be alone at home for about three hours every afternoon. Rita's sister tells her to take the job 'because work always pays'. Her social worker says the family is 'better off as it is'. Rita must answer within two weeks.
1. Using the figures, show whether Rita's monthly position would improve or worsen if she took the full-time job. State one assumption your calculation depends on.
Read the worked answer
Now Income €1,180. Outgoings: 520 + 95 + 25 + 60 + 70 + 340 + 80 + 45 = €1,235. She is short by €55 each month already.
If she accepts Income becomes €1,400 − €150 (benefit lost) = €1,250. Outgoings become €1,235 + €220 (childcare) + €30 (transport) = €1,485. Shortfall: 1,485 − 1,250 = €235.
So the full-time job leaves her €180 a month worse off, even though her pay rises by €220.
Assumption That the €220 childcare is needed for the whole month. If a relative could cover two afternoons a week, the cost might fall to about €130 and the loss to roughly €90. The calculation also assumes the €150 benefit is lost entirely rather than tapered, and that school expenses do not rise in the holidays when childcare is more expensive. Change any of these and the answer changes, which is why the figures alone do not settle the decision.
2. Rita's sister claims that 'work always pays'. Evaluate this claim using this case, referring to at least two non-financial factors.
Read the worked answer
As a general claim it fails here. 'Work pays' is true at the level of gross pay - Rita's wage rises by €220 - but not at the level of the household, because taking the job brings €400 of new costs and lost benefit against that €220. The claim assumes that the cost of working is close to zero, which is untrue for a parent paying for care and transport.
Non-financial factors
- Supervision and wellbeing of the 14-year-old: three unsupervised hours every afternoon is a real change in the child's daily life, and a 14-year-old may also be pulled into childcare for the younger sibling.
- Time and health: full-time cleaning is physically demanding; Rita currently has afternoons free for school meetings, homework and appointments. Losing that can cost money later (health, school problems).
- Long-term position: full-time work builds contributions, skills and pension entitlement, and may open promotion. Here the sister has a point - the gain is delayed, not absent.
The honest conclusion is that 'work pays' is true over years but false this month, and a social studies answer must hold both.
3. Recommend what Rita should do, and identify one policy change that would make this decision easier for parents in her position.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation Rita should not simply accept or refuse. She should ask her employer for a modified full-time contract - for example 30 hours finishing by 15:00, or full-time starting in September when the 9-year-old is older - and ask the social work department to check whether the benefit tapers rather than stopping at €150. If no flexibility is possible, refusing is defensible in the short term, but she should keep the full-time option open because of the long-term gains in contributions and skills. The reasoning is that the decision is not 'work or no work'; it is about the shape of the hours.
Policy change Fund affordable after-school care on school premises, charged on a sliding scale by income. This attacks the actual cause of the €180 loss: care costs are fixed at €220, while the wage gain is €220 and the benefit loss is €150. A subsidised place would make the same job worthwhile, and it benefits employers too, who otherwise lose experienced part-time staff who cannot afford to increase their hours. A second option would be to taper the means-tested benefit gradually instead of withdrawing €150 at once.