More childcare comes online

Childcare is a conspiracy, well sort of.

Politicians like looking at GDP as a measure of how awesome we are (fyi GDP is essentially the value of all the final goods produced in an economy).

Imagine you have a mother working in a job, and employing someone to look after her children. It they switch roles, the mother isn’t being paid to look after her children – the value of her work disappears from GDP (this is called a recession).

Imagine a mother wants to look after her children more than she wants the money from working. She is better off than before, presumably her kids are better off. Nobody else is particularly affected. This should be a good thing, but OMFG GDP’s gone down.

Incidentally, many nannies are paid through meals and board. This doesn’t get included in GDP. If the government can find some way of turning this into a monetary payment, GDP goes up (YAY economic growth).

like is said, it’s a conspiracy!

I can tell you now that Master Cholet would not have been a happy chappy staying at home with mummy! I for one not only appreciate a place in childcare for my little darling, but also am thankful for the fact that the care he gets is second to none, exercises his mind much more than I would at home and provides us with the ability to pay the mortgage etc etc.

Sorry everyone, gone are the days of stay at home care because you can. I know stay at home mums who use child care to just get a break! It’s not a crime and no children die in the process. I love my son more than life itself and would love him to have more time at home, but the realities are that we need childcare. Let’s just move on from this debate and respect whatever choices we all choose to make and actually work towards making the care we provide the best we can as well as encouraging employers to be as flexible as possible for any parent of small children.

No ones child will necessarily turn out any better or worse because they experienced child care or care at home. I had care at home until I went to proper school (not pre school) at the age of 4…….I’m doing well from all my experiences. Child care never replaces whatever a parent can provide so we needn’t beat ourselves up about it.

From all accounts, raising children can be one of life’s great joys but I am pretty sure that the joyful bits are interspersed between long stretches of mind numbing repetition, drudgery and boredom. I am sure little ones can be delightful but the endless round of nappies, washing, playing “fun with felt” and singing The Wheels on the Bus 47 times till little Echinacea-Lee goes to sleep might possibly do mummy’s head in after a while and send her to the liquor cabinet.

Some women thrive by going back to work and earning a living, and surely a happy mummy = happy kids. There seem to be so many hoops for parents to jump through to get their kids into childcare, it’s almost as though the childcare operators have it in for women who choose to not be stay at home mums.

Online childcare? Isn’t all that time at a computer bad for kids.

DeskMonkey said :

johnboy said :

Not to mention the minor matter of a great number of women not wanting to spend their lives at home raising the children.

I went back to work, not because I wanted to, but because I had to. I would absolutely love it if I could stay at home with my little one, still have enough to pay off my car, put food on the table and pay bills associated with home ownership, but I can’t.

As the husband of a stay at home wife (for the 12 months after birth), I couldnt wait for my wife to go back to work. Not for financial reasons at all, but so that I wasnt the person expected to, firstly, look after the baby from the moment I walked in the door and, even more importantly, expected to provide an entire day’s conversation and social activity (despite having myself worked all day).

I know this is different when the kids are older, but smart women used to using their brains and interacting with other smart people can go a bit odd when they are stuck at home with a 6 month old for hours/days on end.

(yes, personal anecdotes do not form the basis for social policy).

I guess people don’t open a centre and say ‘$150 per day, take it or leave it’ because, while people will/may take it initially, they will keep trying to get into somewhere cheaper. So you have a high turnover.

DeskMonkey said :

johnboy said :

Not to mention the minor matter of a great number of women not wanting to spend their lives at home raising the children.

I went back to work, not because I wanted to, but because I had to. I would absolutely love it if I could stay at home with my little one, still have enough to pay off my car, put food on the table and pay bills associated with home ownership, but I can’t.

Some people want to be with their children, however it’s become very evident that many people do not. They mouth all the right words, and even say they “have” to go to work, but it’s pretty easy to tell the parents who love being with their kids a lot, and those who, while they love them and all, don’t want to spend most of their time with them.

harsh, but true.

as for the two incomes thing, I think that was a push under successive governments, who wanted more productivity which meant getting the female portion of the workforce participating more. What it’s led to, partly, is higher housing prices as the buyers’ capacity to pay has increased. Makes it quite difficult for single people, and families that do want to have one partner stay at home and actually raise the kids. It’s skewed the market to a norm that many in society can’t join.

And you see this rather dysfunctional childcare industry also. Reckon it would work better (and be cheaper) if they integrated it into the primary schooling system.

johnboy said :

Not to mention the minor matter of a great number of women not wanting to spend their lives at home raising the children.

That’s certainly another factor, but as a childless male I’ve learned to steer clear of any discussion involving what mothers may or may not want to do with their lives.

johnboy said :

Not to mention the minor matter of a great number of women not wanting to spend their lives at home raising the children.

I went back to work, not because I wanted to, but because I had to. I would absolutely love it if I could stay at home with my little one, still have enough to pay off my car, put food on the table and pay bills associated with home ownership, but I can’t.

poetix said :

When exactly did it become necessary to have two full time wages (minus massive childcare costs) to live?

The short answer is “When everyone else started doing it”. Everyone wants to have the same standard of living as the family next door, and if the family next door has two incomes then you’ll need the same. Multiply by a few million and you have our current state of affairs, where what started as a financial benefit for those who chose to do it has, in the face of increasing household incomes and consequently increasing cost of living, become a necessity for most.

Jethro said :

Gerry-Built said :

It doesn’t matter how many “new” places are created if at the same time you close a similar number of places via new legislated requirements… This needs to be read in the context of how many places disappeared with the new requirements… Which I believe lowered the staff ratios and raised the amount of required floor space per child – the net effect of which was to lower the number of children a service could cater for.

Which surely means a start-up childcare company has even more of a market?

Surely, if there is a market of 10 000 kids and there are only 9 000 places available, and then all of a sudden legislative requirements reduce the number of places to 8000, the demand would go up and the prices charged would also go up?

What is stopping entrepreneurs entering the market?

I want to know, because the way it seems at the moment, I would be stupid not to lease one of those giant empty shop spaces in Garema Place (eg. that empty JB store) and get a business loan in order to start up a big childcare centre in the middle of the city.

I could put a sign up in the city tomorrow advertising a new childcare centre and its places would be filled by tomorrow evening. In fact, I would wager that it would end up with a massive waiting list by the end of the week.

I’m really interested why a market with such demand just sitting there (and a market that is heavily subsidised by the government) hasn’t rapidly expanded to meet the demand.

If you are willing to go through the extensive process of ensuring that your company meets all the tax requirements and legislation surrounding opening a childcare centre, then go fo it.
1. http://www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Programs/ChildCareforServices/Operation/Pages/Informationonbecominganapprovedchildcareservice.aspx
2. http://www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Programs/ChildCareforServices/Operation/Pages/Legalresponsibilitieswhenoperatingachildcareservice.aspx

You’ll then need to find the appropriately trained staff, the right location, probably a highly recommended cook if you want to provide that service, purchase Early Learning tools like puzzles, toys etc, pay for the water, electricity,food, wipes, spare nappies in case a parent forgets, sleeping mats, administration (paper, envelopes etc)
Then you need to pay your insurance, wages, rent….maintenance of the property…the list goes on.