Spiralling Child Nursery Costs

[dave50]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2288839/Sending-child-nursery-expensive-private-school-cost-time-place-doubles-decade.html

This has been self perpetuating for years. Mothers have been encouraged to go out to work, therefore two wage earners equals ability to secure a bigger mortgage leading to rocketing house prices and so eventually it becomes necessary for both parents to work to afford a mortgage and no longer an option and so it goes on.
If we had stuck to the tradition of one wage earner and one stay at home parent, house prices would not have shot up and things would not have come to this.

[Buenchico]

Well that's one alternative, Dave50. Another one would be (dare I say it?) higher taxes.

In this country most people's income (above the personal allowance) is taxed at 31%. (i.e, 20% income tax and 11% National Insurance). In Scandinavia around 50% of income is taken through direct taxation but they've got free child-care facilities (and many other things) as a result of it.

[ummmm]

I had two kids in nursery and it cost approx £230 a week. More than my mortgage!!

[jd_1984]

We pay £34 per day, which we are told is relatively low.

[honeydip]

That is really too much money.

This is why we have to fight for more immigration then we sould have more child carers which penultimately would reduce the cost.

[ummmm]

Mine was 13 years ago!

Although I was paying for full time nursery I rarely kept them in full time because I was working from home (2 mins away)

[ummmm]

honeydip - you're getting boring now!

[anotheoldgit]

Dare I say it, "It never happened in my day"?

[anotheoldgit]

honeydip

/// This is why we have to fight for more immigration then we sould have more child carers which penultimately would reduce the cost. ///

Or we could bring back slavery?

[ummmm]

No it didn't happen in your day, AOG. That's because houses cost 10p :-)

[bednobs]

my daughter's nursery costs 49.50 per day. Although it sounds a lot, she can be there for 10 hours (8-6) if necessary which works out to less than £5 per hour - less than you would pay a 15 year old to babysit i reckon

[New Judge]

Just a quick thought on your otherwise excellent suggestion of more immigration, honeydip:

What happens when the child carers we import have children themselves? It's not unknown for immigrants to have children of their own, believe it or not. No doubt they will want to continue to work and will need somebody to mind their children whilst they mind somebody else's. So perhaps we need a few more immigrants. Or perhaps the first lot will stop working and go on to benefits (for which they will have made little contribution).

And then of course (equally incredible, I know) they become old and need pensions (for which, once again, they will have made little or no contribution). So perhaps we'd better ship in a few more to support them in their dotage.

None of these people, of course, have anywhere to live and no doubt the schools, GP practices and hosputals where they eventually live will be full to bursting.

But other than that (and one or two other snags I can think of but cannot be bothered to mention) it's a grand idea. Or are you just having a laugh?

[DangerUXD]

Now I know this is a radical idea but dare I say....Don't have kids if you cannot afford them! It may have escaped a lot of peoples attention but there is not a shortage of people! Simple!

[New Judge]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, dave. I'm not so sure your analysis is entirely correct. Certainly the increase in the numbers of households where both parents work will have had an influence on house prices and increasing household income would certainly mean greater affordibility and so would push up prices to a degree. However, inflation is driven by many factors and one thing that does puzzle me is that if, as you suggest, the huge numbers of (mainly) women who now work "remained at home" as they might have done 50 years ago, who would undertake the work that they do? I think the economy would be an entirely different animal if all those women were still economically inactive and we would probably not have seen the growth (real growth I mean, not Gordon Brown's growth) that the country has enjoyed. Perhaps we should adopt honeydip's excellent suggestion, but vary it slightly: Sack all the working mothers and ship in vast numbers of immigrants who would do their jobs rather than look after their children. That should sort it !

[ummmm]

Danger - if everyone bought a house at todays prices hardly anyone would be able to afford children.

And, as we are talking about nursery fees, the parents are working!!

[anotheoldgit]

bednobs

/// my daughter's nursery costs 49.50 per day. Although it sounds a lot, she can be there for 10 hours (8-6) if necessary which works out to less than £5 per hour - less than you would pay a 15 year old to babysit i reckon ///

In the nursery under strangers supervision from 8am to 6pm , and then to bed when they get home.

Why do some choose to have children?

[youngmafbog]

Good idea, tax at 50% so a few can have cheap child care. Your having a laugh. And what happens when the Nursery staff demand more because they cant afford things due to high tax? Fees rise maybe?

Part of the problem was noo labour knee jerk reaction to child carers. Now it is difficult to have groups of ordinary people to share the load, you have to jump through many hoops. That and the paperwork forced on them to push prices up.

Child care should not be free but I am sure that the state could provide childcare at a reasonable price(non profit) if pushed.

[jd_1984]

old git - I am going to assume that some parents have to work to provide a home, ensure bills are paid, perhaps run a car, perhaps go on holiday. We can not judge how individuals balance this time/work management out. How much time is spent with their children, is for them to judge. I would imagine that bedknobs, like us, cherish the time ywe do get with our kids during the evening, at weekends and any holidays that we can spend together. Not many employers can so flexible to allow parents maximum time at home. Parents have to provide in whatever way they can so the family have what they need and have stability in the future.
Bedknobs may well be annoyed by your comments.

[ummmm]

AOG - Bednobs hasn't said how many days a week she works.

[emmie]

in my family all the women worked, they also took care of the children, and indeed the home, heavens sake.

[New Judge]

A bit off topic but worth a comment is, as DangerUXD has said, there is no shortage of people in the UK (quite the opposite, in fact) and people should not bleat on about the cost of having children.

There does seem to be this misapprehension that we need a continually growing population to sustain a continually growing economy when in fact the reverse is true. Growth in population does not drive growth in the economy and it cannot be sustained without the latter. Since we have a particularly sluggish economy at present (which shows no signs of changing anytime soon) it is foolish in the extreme to believe we can sustain ever growing numbers of people so it might be an idea if people were to curb their breeding instincts for a few years.