Full time childcare more than mortgage

N1AK

thequant wrote: »

If Child care is so expensive, how come these women don't keep their legs shut ?

Same reason you keep opening your mouth I imagine

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

the cost has, however, gone up far in excess of inflation due to direct and considered government action.

I'm inclined to agree with this. The cost of childcare doesn't appear to be high because the market isn't competitive or that providers are raking in profits hand over fist. Given the charges this leads me to conclude that restrictions on how they operate and the costs of complying with legislation are a considerable cost.

Is it really doing a parent a favour by restricting the number of children per worker if that means that many parents who want to work can't afford childcare to do so?

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

The figures are for median full time male and average terrace house from Land reg obviously things vary around country. But I have not picked high end average salary or low end house price.

You've picked median. We have had this argument what, 100 times?

It's not the figure most use as it's not the best average to use.

See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666

ONS States UK average pay is £25,500 for a full time worker.

You have picked the higher average of 29k and pitched it against a lower than average house price. Hence why i said your figures are correct, but hand picked well enough to make your point.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You've picked median. We have had this argument what, 100 times?

It's not the figure most use as it's not the best average to use.

See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666

ONS States UK average pay is £25,500 for a full time worker.

You have picked the higher average of 29k and pitched it against a lower than average house price. Hence why i said your figures are correct, but hand picked well enough to make your point.

Median is the best as it is the 50% point mean figure is higher I have used Full Time Male as most couples with have one male. The mean figure for full time male is £38k.

BillJones

Moto2 wrote: »

Of course they did

I appreciate those in London/SE may find that an inconceivable prospect.

Wow, so you think that people's morals are different if they live somewhere that you don't like?

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Median is the best as it is the 50% point mean figure is higher I have used Full Time Male as most couples with have one male. The mean figure for full time male is £38k.

The 50% point is rather meaningless here.

We need to look at what most people earn. Not the absolute middle number of all earners, including footballers, FTSE100 bosses etc.

It's a pretty pointless discussion and honestly can't believe we are doing if for the 100th or so time. You keep making points about affordability using these examples. I just don't see the point, as your starting points with the data used are hand picked to provide the best results.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The 50% point is rather meaningless here.

We need to look at what most people earn. Not the absolute middle number of all earners, including footballers, FTSE100 bosses etc.

It's a pretty pointless discussion and honestly can't believe we are doing if for the 100th or so time. You keep making points about affordability using these examples. I just don't see the point, as your starting points with the data used are hand picked to provide the best results.

What the median says is that 50% of men working full time earn more that £29k what is your definition of most.


Where I first bought in Surrey a 3 bed terrace is £220k and median male earnings are £37k a couple with one partner on that and another doing 10 hours a week part time at minimum wage they would earn £2331 + £260 = £2591,
£200k mortgage at 4% £1066.

Moto2

BillJones wrote: »

Wow, so you think that people's morals are different if they live somewhere that you don't like?

No,

I live in Teddington part time
I just find that *generally* people in London don't have a lot of time for or have a great deal of interest in helping each other out for mutual benefit.
Which is the polar opposite to when I'm at home in Thirsk

Nothing to do with morals, just a mindset as I find it

There, has that calmed your outrage?

CLAPTON

Moto2 wrote: »

No,

I live in Teddington part time
I just find that *generally* people in London don't have a lot of time for or have a great deal of interest in helping each other out for mutual benefit.
Which is the polar opposite to when I'm at home in Thirsk

Nothing to do with morals, just a mindset as I find it

There, has that calmed your outrage?

curious

Are you saying people in Thirsk only help their neighbours if there is a clear return guaranteed?

Moto2

CLAPTON wrote: »

curious

Are you saying people in Thirsk only help their neighbours if there is a clear return guaranteed?

semantics but ......

No, on the whole, they do have a lot of time for mutually beneficial tasks , I find
Call it helping each other or call it the grey economy if it helps

My neighbour will be putting in a new water pipe for me soon, he won't charge me a penny for his time.
He'll do it because he knows I'll help him if he needs it.