Uk Childcare 'among Priciest In World'

[Lagarde's Drift]

I heard this on the radio this morning. This is excellent. More downwards pressure on house prices, gradually more and more couples will sit back and suddenly realise that hey "this property is overpriced!".

[Maddog21]

Going rate is £4.25 per hour , per child

That's what we pay anyway

Ratio usually 2:8 can be few more or less depending on school hols etc.

[erranta]

Its a double whammy for the economy because the productivity of your wife is lost. As with housing benefit, working people have to compete with people who are subsidised by their own taxes ...

And its not just HB and daycare supplements, energy and utility costs are pushed up by general benefit levels.

Complete trash - housing benefits are set at a rate based on a median of local private rentals paid out/agreed by as you know - the workers.

If the employed refused to pay the rental prices demanded by agency/landlords the HB rates paid would also fall.

[winkie]

With all the horror stories coming out of nurseries in recent times it is clear that CRB has failed. Paedophiles characteristically look a like, evaluating the photos of the guilty printed in our papers. Clammy skin, bottle top glasses, acne, obesity etc etc

I'll be the judge of who can and can not be the guardian of my children thank you very much!

...exactly, even the so-called trained professionals can't protect the children in their so-called care, says it all.

[erranta]

When my parents bought their first house (v early 60s) they were offered a mortgage that assumed they'd have children and then be down to one salary - which was plenty to buy a family house. So when I burst onto the scene there was no financial need for my mother to go back to work.

Can you imagine the furore now if a bank looked at a young couple and said `you'll probably have kids so we'll base the mortgage offer on one salary' or `you'll probably have kids and that will reduce your income by £10k pa so we'll base the mortgage on that.

Once the system is in place it's nearly impossible to rewind though - the only way to make childcare cheaper is to relax the adult : child ratios and that would imply lower quality.

On a related issue, I've worked in secondary education - there is often a course called `Childcare studies' or `Health and social studies' or somesuch which is taken by, shall we say, the less academic (mainly) girls. Childcare /nurseries etc is the natural career progression. We therefore build in low quality from the very start.

Y

I can assure you the one thing the elites fear most is people power.

If enough people get together and say we will only pay 10% of an asking price so that a house can be bought with one salary - that would smash all the City/Bankers evil luring/manipulation/brainwashing of the population into paying Trillions £££'s in extra exponential interest over and over again, each generation, for the same 'tangible' housing stock.

They crapped themselves over the Northern Rock bank run when they realised how much damage had been done.

Forcing taxpayers to save the corrupt banking system was just as much a Brown/Darling/labour ministerial conspired ass saving inside job!

Edited May 10, 2011 by erranta

[Landagan]

That's illegal unless I'm very much mistaken.

IIRC the legal ratio is 1:3 for babies, 1:4 for toddlers and 1:6 or 1:8 for older children.

I was referring to Spain.

There are 4 P/T assistants, covering 29 three year olds.

There are always two assistants in attendance at any one time.

Of the 29 children, some attend only mornings, others afternoons.

So not sure what the actual or legal ratio is.

We pay about £100/month for good quality full-time childcare.

Childcare costs in the UK are out of control, but most mothers have to work. But accept that the majority of their salary is taken with childcare, so short term financial benefit is very little. But every little counts!

[goldbug9999]

Complete trash - housing benefits are set at a rate based on a median of local private rentals paid out/agreed by as you know - the workers.

If the employed refused to pay the rental prices demanded by agency/landlords the HB rates paid would also fall.

Basing any benefit on existing payment levels will start to drive those very levels up because of the extra money pumped into the market. All markets are an equilibrium, and the equilibrium is always modified by new money flowing in. Thus benefit payments generate the need for higher benefit payments in the future. Housing benefit accounts for about 30% of all private rental money paid ...

Edited May 10, 2011 by goldbug9999

[winkie]

Private child care the same as private elderly care is a business, there to create a profit......it only exists because people will can afford to use it....there are alternative ways of doing things.

[goldbug9999]

Private child care the same as private elderly care is a business, there to create a profit......it only exists because people will can afford to use it....

Or because the government is prepared to massively subsidise it ...

[Aries]

The question that should be asked is not why wages can't cover childcare, but why small children have to be farmed out at all - ie, why does it now require seventy to eighty hours of employement (two people working full-time) to meet a family's basic living costs? Comparatively recently, those costs could be met by one person, working a 40- to 45-hour week.

Advances in automation should have led to shorter working hours. Instead, governments invent useless jobs and pressurise both parents to consign their small children to nurseries and enter "the workplace" (since when did no work take place within the home?) in a futile attempt to distribute adequate purchasing power.

As the continuing advance of new technologies progressively reduces the need for human labour, it is not sensible to depend on full-time employment to distribute incomes. A universal, non-means-tested national dividend would make part-time work and job-sharing financially acceptable, allowing parents more time for the supremely valuable work of caring for their own children.

Of course, this practical solution to the problems caused by progress will only be possible by replacing the present debt-based financial system, which distorts and inhibits all economic activity, with one which promotes the creation and distribution of wealth throughout the population - see http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ .

[winkie]

Or because the government is prepared to massively subsidise it ...

....the subsidy can come from providing quality childcare and providing jobs...or providing benefits to those with children that are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[erranta]

Basing any benefit on existing payment levels will start to drive those very levels up because of the extra money pumped into the market. All markets are an equilibrium, and the equilibrium is always modified by new money flowing in. Thus benefit payments generate the need for higher benefit payments in the future. Housing benefit accounts for about 30% of all private rental money paid ...

Crap - if the unfortunate unemployed were all employed they would be deferantly bowing to the agency / landlord and paying the full rental price demanded on 100% of house rentals which would force prices even higher - faster!

Edited May 10, 2011 by erranta

[goldbug9999]

Crap - if the unfortunate unemployed were all employed they would be deferantly bowing to the agency / landlord and paying the full rental price demanded on 100% of house rentals which would force prices even higher - faster!

The point being that right now I have to pay my own rent plus (on average) another £400/month through my taxes towards someone elses rent.

If everyone was working then yes prices might be the same or even a little more but Id be £400 a month better off through reduced taxation.

[erranta]

The point being that right now I have to pay my own rent plus (on average) another £400/month through my taxes towards someone elses rent.

If everyone was working then yes prices might be the same or even a little more but Id be £400 a month better off through reduced taxation.

We would - but that's the going rate for not having your throat slit by a homeless vagrant!

[Austin Allegro]

Despite feminism (ie, feminism in the sense that women should be able to do the same jobs as men) being around for over a century, it's only the last couple of generations of women that have been utterly brainwashed (by marxists) into thinking that they MUST have a 'career' or they are somehow betraying the sisterhood. Fortunately some now are beginning to realise that shuffling papers in an office while farming your kids out to strangers for a net profit of a few pounds a month, if that, is perhaps not exactly 'empowering'.

And before anyone asks, yes, I would be prepared to stay at home and look after my children, assuming I had any and assuming my wife earned the same or more than me.

[leicestersq]

Leading to more and more people realising working is for mugs.

Leading to the fewer remaining workers having to pay even more taxes to support those who aren't working.

Benefits have been linked to CPI instead of RPI but CPI is 4% at the moment. How many workers won't get that good a rise this year so their living standards are futher reduced in proportion to those on benefits. Then the workers energy and utility costs are pushed up more by the general rise in benefits.

Welcome to the UK where the more you try to support yourself, the more the government will steal from you to give to those don't.

Exactly. If no one but one person in the UK worked, the cost of everything would go to the moon. Basic supply and demand, as supply falls as people withdraw from the workforce, the prices of things rise as less is produced. And as you say, the burden is always on those working, who have a greater and greater portion of their production taken from them to support everyone else.

It is shocking that given the clear supply problems the economy faces, we encourage claiming benefits by giving increases far ahead of of pre-tax private sector pay, let alone post tax (the figure that matters).

The benefits system has to be changed. Until it is, child care costs are going to discourage more and more people from working, pushing prices up even more. The classic vicious circle.

[Snugglybear]

It might be salutary to see how these things are organised in France, or Germany, or the Netherlands, or Denmark, or Sweden, or Norway, or Finland...

A small clue: much, much better.

[winkie]

Despite feminism (ie, feminism in the sense that women should be able to do the same jobs as men) being around for over a century, it's only the last couple of generations of women that have been utterly brainwashed (by marxists) into thinking that they MUST have a 'career' or they are somehow betraying the sisterhood. Fortunately some now are beginning to realise that shuffling papers in an office while farming your kids out to strangers for a net profit of a few pounds a month, if that, is perhaps not exactly 'empowering'.

And before anyone asks, yes, I would be prepared to stay at home and look after my children, assuming I had any and assuming my wife earned the same or more than me.

....unfortunately, not every mother (or father) has a partner to share the working load with for all different reasons....some mums HAVE to work to support their family or go on benefits, two choices......also children grow up fast and go their own way in life.....the parents then require the skills and experience to keep them to retirement, anyway why should one person have to be reliant on another....we are all individuals many like the feeling of being able to support ourselves if we have to......never underestimate the toings and froings of life......be prepared for the unexpected.

[Tired of Waiting]

Sky

Clearly the answer is more govt subsidy to push the costs even higher. You need 2 workers to buy a house, pay the bills and then a huge govt subsidy to pay someone to look after your kids because of the high cost economy.

Yet another structural failure in the UK economy.

Edit meant kids not cuts, not sure what Freud would have made of that...

And it is an old problem. The data below is almost 10 years old, and we were already worse than most rich countries. Not sure if we progressed much since, or more than the other countries anyway.

Sorry about the bad news people.

United Nations, UNICEF, Innocenti Research Centre

An overview of child well-being in rich countries

A comprehensive assessment of the lives and well-being of children and adolescents in the economically advanced nations

LINK (PDF) : http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf

They measured 6 "Dimensions", (at the first page of each "dimension" there is a summarising chart.)

1. Material well-being (pg 4); 2. Health and safety (pg 12); 3. Educational well-being (pg 18); 4. Family and peer relationships (pg 22); 5. Behaviours and risks (pg 26); 6. Subjective well-being (pg34)

At the beginning of the report there is a summarising table overall. This one:

The chart that affected me the most (we are a couple wishing to start a family) was this one:

This data is almost 10 years old though, but my concern is that things didn't really improved much since, could even have got worse, and it could even be cultural. Or, hopefully, this UNICEF report has a flawed methodology.

Discussion thread in the main section: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=155764&view=findpost&p=2814789

[winkie]

It might be salutary to see how these things are organised in France, or Germany, or the Netherlands, or Denmark, or Sweden, or Norway, or Finland...

A small clue: much, much better.

....the child care in Denmark and how it is organised is A1 not a patch on the UK imo.

[Self Employed Youth]

Complete trash - housing benefits are set at a rate based on a median of local private rentals paid out/agreed by as you know - the workers.

If the employed refused to pay the rental prices demanded by agency/landlords the HB rates paid would also fall.

Rents in council properties are rising by 7%

Rents in housing association are (and have been for a decade) rising by RPI + 0.5%

Housing benefit is a proportion of the market rent. And the covers the lowest 30% of properties.

Under 25 million properties in the UK.

Half mortgaged.

5 million housing benefit claimants.

That is a very high proportion of properties.

For property values to fall, we need benefit claimants to continually move to cheaper properties and force the lowest rents down. But they have no incentive to do so.

[leicestersq]

Rents in council properties are rising by 7%

Rents in housing association are (and have been for a decade) rising by RPI + 0.5%

Housing benefit is a proportion of the market rent. And the covers the lowest 30% of properties.

Under 25 million properties in the UK.

Half mortgaged.

5 million housing benefit claimants.

That is a very high proportion of properties.

For property values to fall, we need benefit claimants to continually move to cheaper properties and force the lowest rents down. But they have no incentive to do so.

What is the latest on the move to price HB at the 3 decile of average rents for an area? Has that happened yet?

And has HB actually fallen or have the reported rental figures actually increased to make sure there is no impact?

And what happened to the HB cap? I havent seen people in the street yet, so I am not sure what happened. Was the cap introduced?

[SarahBell]

What is the latest on the move to price HB at the 3 decile of average rents for an area? Has that happened yet?

And has HB actually fallen or have the reported rental figures actually increased to make sure there is no impact?

And what happened to the HB cap? I havent seen people in the street yet, so I am not sure what happened. Was the cap introduced?

May 2011

Oldham & Rochdale BRMA

Shared Accommodation Rate:

£54.00 per week

One Bedroom Rate:

£86.54 per week

Two Bedrooms Rate:

£98.08 per week

Three Bedrooms Rate:

£114.23 per week

Four Bedrooms Rate:

£138.46 per week

Jan 2011

Oldham & Rochdale BRMA

Shared Accommodation Rate:

£59.00 per week

One Bedroom Rate:

£91.15 per week

Two Bedrooms Rate:

£103.85 per week

Three Bedrooms Rate:

£121.15 per week

Four Bedrooms Rate:

£160.38 per week

Five Bedrooms Rate:

£219.23 per week

https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/search.aspx

[leicestersq]

May 2011

Oldham & Rochdale BRMA

Shared Accommodation Rate:

£54.00 per week

One Bedroom Rate:

£86.54 per week

Two Bedrooms Rate:

£98.08 per week

Three Bedrooms Rate:

£114.23 per week

Four Bedrooms Rate:

£138.46 per week

Jan 2011

Oldham & Rochdale BRMA

Shared Accommodation Rate:

£59.00 per week

One Bedroom Rate:

£91.15 per week

Two Bedrooms Rate:

£103.85 per week

Three Bedrooms Rate:

£121.15 per week

Four Bedrooms Rate:

£160.38 per week

Five Bedrooms Rate:

£219.23 per week

https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/search.aspx

Sarah,

thanks for that.

Another question. What happens if in an area you have over 30% of properties being rented out to HB claimants? I dont know if the 3rd decile as a price limit makes any sense or can make any sense in that situation. Does this happen anywhere, and if it does, what do they do?

And that benefit cap, has anyone had to be moved out yet?

[Austin Allegro]

....unfortunately, not every mother (or father) has a partner to share the working load with for all different reasons....some mums HAVE to work to support their family or go on benefits, two choices......also children grow up fast and go their own way in life.....the parents then require the skills and experience to keep them to retirement, anyway why should one person have to be reliant on another....we are all individuals many like the feeling of being able to support ourselves if we have to......never underestimate the toings and froings of life......be prepared for the unexpected.

It always was the case that some mums had to work for the reasons you state. What has changed is that now, if they want to have any chance at getting a mortgage, ALL mums HAVE to.