Childcare is bloody expensive!

Comms69

andydownes123 wrote: »

You are missing my point and again, another poster being personal. No I have nothing against anybody. Do what you like. You are clearly a parent that went straight back to work. Your choice, that's fine.

My point, again is...I know it's expensive. - it's not. I know why it's expensive. - It's not expensive, so you know why it's set at that price - that's the free market economy of supply and demand. However, there is little or no funding at the beginning to make it very expensive, which in turn is to encourage parents to stay at home for the first few years. - No it's not. It's to encourage people to financially plan for children. Which I believe, I'm sure you do to, is the best thing for any child/parent relationship, especially at the very beginning. - that's up for debate.

The government want parents to look after their children in their formative years - can you cite a policy?. , because of this there are no subsidies for child care. I don't understand why parents wouldn't want to do this. Instead we have culture of having everything on top of family/child. - Parents can do this, simply save up before having a child, take a career break and enjoy quality time with your children.

I want a child, I want my career, I want child subsidies, I want my pension, I want my promotion, I want my pay rise, I want, I want, I want! What about what the child wants/needs?

The solution is simple though, if/when you have a child - leave work.

warehouse

Childminders round my way earn £5.50 per hour for each child. Remind me what minimum wage is again?

Anyone who says childcare is too expensive should work for £5.50 an hour before they complain.

Marker_2

warehouse wrote: »

Childminders round my way earn £5.50 per hour for each child. Remind me what minimum wage is again?

Anyone who says childcare is too expensive should work for £5.50 an hour before they complain.

That's for EACH CHILD. So if a childminder has 4 children full time to look after that's £22ph.


So childminders generally are no where near minimum wage as long as they have children to look after.

Comms69

Marker wrote: »

That's for EACH CHILD. So if a childminder has 4 children full time to look after that's £22ph.


So childminders generally are no where near minimum wage as long as they have children to look after.

Depending on age, it's a 3:1 ratio, and out of that the childminder is also covering overheads.


It's also not full time work and not guaranteed. Being self employed they also have no holidays, sick leave etc. so need to account for that.

Marker_2

Comms69 wrote: »

Depending on age, it's a 3:1 ratio, and out of that the childminder is also covering overheads.


It's also not full time work and not guaranteed. Being self employed they also have no holidays, sick leave etc. so need to account for that.

Yes they do, maybe not sick days but they get paid half for 4 weeks a/l (or there abouts per year). All in whatever contract they make.


I have had 3 childminders in different parts of the country and it has been the same.


As for it not being guaranteed, its swings and round abouts, at their best with the ratios they could earn well over £50k per year. Sometimes their pay will drastically reduce if they haven't filled a gap when kids get older etc.

Comms69

Marker wrote: »

Yes they do, maybe not sick days but they get paid half for 4 weeks a/l (or there abouts per year). All in whatever contract they make. - by who? They're self employed typically? so who pays them?


I have had 3 childminders in different parts of the country and it has been the same. - literally no idea what your contract says, but basic self employment is - no paid annual leave.


As for it not being guaranteed, its swings and round abouts, at their best with the ratios they could earn well over £50k per year. Sometimes their pay will drastically reduce if they haven't filled a gap when kids get older etc.

Let's analyse that claim quickly.


Typical childminder, working 8:30-5:30, at £16.50 per hour (3:1 ratio) working 52 weeks a year, would be £38610, that's before overheads, like insurance, premises, utilities, activities. (or tax or NI). It's no where near £50k.

thriftylass

andydownes123 wrote: »

I want a child, I want my career, I want child subsidies, I want my pension, I want my promotion, I want my pay rise, I want, I want, I want! What about what the child wants/needs?

Yes so why even bother educating women beyond high school, is what your saying, if she wants children? As any major career break puts an end to most higher earning careers for women.

It's not that black and white. You can't slate women (who are the ones mostly taking time off, career breaks etc) for wanting to work and have children. Yes if you are "just" an untrained shop assistant a "career" break will be fine but not as a business owner or scientist (sorry maybe not the best examples as a bit stereotypic but you get my drift).

Yes it is expensive, and we just accepted that for about 5 years (2 children) we paid out 1500 (*) in child care a month. Couldn't be helped, we wanted them but it wasn't ideal. Other countries manage that better. The way it works here the middle earners "suffer" the most. If you don't earn enough easy decision or you get help like tax credits, if you earn loads you just pay it. If you had an education and earn just enough it's crippling for a few years.

(*) in a nursery setting where btw the nursery nurses had to stop working when they had kids because they couldn't afford childcare!

happyandcontented

Comms69 wrote: »

Let's analyse that claim quickly.


Typical childminder, working 8:30-5:30, at £16.50 per hour (3:1 ratio) working 52 weeks a year, would be £38610, that's before overheads, like insurance, premises, utilities, activities. (or tax or NI). It's no where near £50k.

I expect most start earlier than that to allow time for working parents to get to work. Also, most will not work more than 48 weeks per year.

Looking after three small children is very hard work, why should they work for minimum wage?

It amazes me that people moan about the cost of childcare but wouldn't want to stay at home and do it themselves. They should either be prepared to do that or accept that they are paid a certain rate for their skills and childminders are equally skilled in their own area.

Comms69

happyandcontented wrote: »

I expect most start earlier than that to allow time for working parents to get to work. Also, most will not work more than 48 weeks per year. - Agreed. I was maximising the example to illustrate how far from £50k it is.

Looking after three small children is very hard work, why should they work for minimum wage?

It amazes me that people moan about the cost of childcare but wouldn't want to stay at home and do it themselves. They should either be prepared to do that or accept that they are paid a certain rate for their skills and childminders are equally skilled in their own area.

Exactly. Most do it because they enjoy the work, it's a vocation as they say

sulphate

andydownes123 wrote: »

You are missing my point and again, another poster being personal. No I have nothing against anybody. Do what you like. You are clearly a parent that went straight back to work. Your choice, that's fine.

My point, again is...I know it's expensive. I know why it's expensive. However, there is little or no funding at the beginning to make it very expensive, which in turn is to encourage parents to stay at home for the first few years. Which I believe, I'm sure you do to, is the best thing for any child/parent relationship, especially at the very beginning.

The government want parents to look after their children in their formative years, because of this there are no subsidies for child care. I don't understand why parents wouldn't want to do this. Instead we have culture of having everything on top of family/child.

I want a child, I want my career, I want child subsidies, I want my pension, I want my promotion, I want my pay rise, I want, I want, I want! What about what the child wants/needs?

Actually you’re the one missing the point. Parents go back to work in order to provide for their children. The example I gave was to explain why some parents still continue to work despite not earning a great deal after childcare is taken into account. You don’t see how a parent getting promoted benefits their child? Really?

You say “it’s not personal” but you are implying that parents go back to work because they want to “have it all” without caring about what their child wants.

Also, I don’t think any parent would imply that nursery workers or childminders earn too much or aren’t worth the money! I don’t have any first hand experience of using a childminder myself but the nursery workers in my son’s nursery do a fantastic job for what I assume is minimum wage or close to. I was exhausted after spending a couple of hours just watching them! That doesn’t mean parents aren’t allowed to worry about the associated costs and look into saving £££ where possible.