Cyclone Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Yes, you should be able to have a hundred kids on minimum wage... or, more seriously, two (or one each). jb One each, two children, on one single minimum wage, or on two minimum wages and paying for childcare... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 They are at the market rate at the moment. There's no potential profit in going any cheaper and so no new players enter the market. If as you suggest, with 'extra money' available prices were put up by existing nurseries, there's then scope for new nurseries to open at lower (the old) price, and still make a profit. Wouldn't the market rate just go up in line with the subsidy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perplexed Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Planet Earth needs less people, not more. Anything which encourages a burgeoning birthrate is a bad idea in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 One each, two children, on one single minimum wage, or on two minimum wages and paying for childcare... For a couple with one parent at home until child starts school and the other on minimum wage. jb ---------- Post added 19-03-2014 at 12:42 ---------- Planet Earth needs less people, not more. Anything which encourages a burgeoning birthrate is a bad idea in my opinion. Birth rates in the UK are declining. We currently have the lowest birthrate since records began in 1924. If you want to decrease birthrates globally then you need to be looking at improving healthcare and education, particularly for women, globally. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Shoes Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 If you want to decrease birthrates globally then you need to be looking at improving healthcare and education, particularly for women, globally. jb Youve just taken the conversation totally off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Youve just taken the conversation totally off topic. Blame perplexed. He started it. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 You have it the wrong way round, it's the poor that is going to subsidise the rich. Giving up to £2,000 to a family with two working parents for child care - No Way - Another reason not to vote Tory, and as Labour said it was "To little to late" I shall not be voting for them either. UKIP here we come. Are there food banks in this country, are library's closing, are pensioners being penalised - I could swear, you had the kids, stay home and look after them. and what's ukips stance on the matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 For a couple with one parent at home until child starts school and the other on minimum wage. jb ---------- Post added 19-03-2014 at 12:42 ---------- Birth rates in the UK are declining. We currently have the lowest birthrate since records began in 1924. If you want to decrease birthrates globally then you need to be looking at improving healthcare and education, particularly for women, globally. jb They were declining for years, but births and TFR have been on the up over the last decade thanks to uncontrolled mass immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Is child care 1 to 1 now? In a picky mood today? No, it generally isn't 1 to 1 but even with ratios of 6-1 a childcare business will have to pay additional staff to cover breaks, training, sickness and holidays, which eats into the saving realised by sharing childcare costs with other customers. And then the saving from sharing services with other customers are eaten up even further as the other costs are added to the bill e.g. management costs, premises, business rates, profit margins etc. As you've said, there is a competative market out there so the only real squeeze that could be made to reduce costs further (without breaking the law re ratios) would be to squeeze pay, which would really require a reduction in the minimum wage rate. And even if minimum wage was reduced it would not make childcare any more afordable for the lowest earners because their wages will keep pace i.e. go down too. My point stands... childcare costs will always be borderline uneconomical (and always poor value for money in terms of net gain) for those earning close to minimum wage. The only way to address it is to provide subsidy or tax breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 They were declining for years, but births and TFR have been on the up over the last decade thanks to uncontrolled mass immigration. It is partly due to immigration. There are other factors. In spite of any rise we are still below replacement levels. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/birth-summary-tables--england-and-wales/2011--final-/sty-fertility.html jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.