SM I asked some knowledgeable females why the child care centres are so expensive. They immediately blamed the councils, and told me that the majority of child care centres are local council run.

The girls also mentioned child to carer ratios and the need for a full time registered nurse. They threw up some numbers...30 kids $80ea a day, is $12,000 a week....take out 5 carers, 1 nurse, rent and other fixed costs...is there money left...I don’t know....but the girls reckon the council sets the market rates.

As for the privateers, the fixed costs of running any business in Australia has steadily grown in the last 30 years; from utilities to rent all consume a greater percentage of your incomings. We have a pay forward tax scheme that takes capital out of the market and a nanny state social mentality that has made it illegal for a neighbour to mind a few kids every day.

SOG,

You see that is where the problem starts. In a junior school there are nearly 30 kids in a class with 1 teacher and in the first years, one teacher's aide. There is not necessarily a nurse, but someone trained in first aid, with contact details for medical assistance if required.

Two trained carers and an assistant to do the heavy lifting and the paperwork would be sufficient and would cut the wages costs by over 50% and probably the fees by 25%, making work possible for tens of thousands of women.

Have a look at the basic business model, and you will find some clues as to why child care is so expensive.

Firstly, it is a very labour-intensive operation. And unlike our "top private schools", they do not have the luxury of economies of scale. Their charges are less likely to conform to rules that limit their behaviours, and there are numerous opportunities for "events" that require the dedicated effort of one, sometimes two staff to rectify. Very few pupils at top private schools wee on the floor, for example. Or not a great deal, anyway.

This is also why the ratio differs from junior schools. The kids have started to learn the basics of self-discipline, and are therefore easier to control en masse.

You also have the demand factor. Any responsible parent is going to ask, "what is your carer/child ratio"?, and will almost certainly favour the higher statistic - which will naturally cost more.

The "off-market" opportunities exist, but are limited. It requires from the purchaser a level of integration with the community that tends to be at the opposite end of the social spectrum to the "busy professional". A case of who-you-know, rather than what-you-know. These informal operations tend to be small enough - three, four kids, tops - to stay under the radar of officialdom, and are usually highly satisfactory to all concerned.

At one time a sister in law was a "Family Daycare" lady.

They & their homes were vetted for safety, & they were given a bit of training. They had back up assistance available, if required.

These ladies were usually mothers with young kids at home, & were allowed to "mind" a maximum of 4 kids along with their own.

It worked for her, giving her some extra income enabling her to stay at home with her young ones. It also worked for the parents who's kids got a quality home environment, at a lower cost to the parents than formal daycare.

My son had 2 family day carers, both of whom he loved.

I wonder if the fact this system was too hard to unionise could have been it's problem?

Pericles,

While I agree that there is more labour needed for a group of say 30 kids from 2-5yrs, the need for 7 highly qualified carers is well over the top. Two well trained carers, and 2 unskilled helpers should be more than sufficient.

Recently I travelled to South Africa and stayed with a friend whose wife is a dentist. I happened to see where she left her child for daycare. It was a small privately run facility with 15 children run by woman that was an ex kindergarten teacher with 2 unskilled assistants, with an enclosed yard, an area with educational toys, and a place for kids to sleep. The cost per child for 4 days a week was $200 per month. The play centre had been running for more than a decade with no problems and the kids loved their time there, and my friends could certainly afford a lot more if they wanted.

Ignoring the difference in labour costs, what is wrong with this model? why do we feel the need to regulate child care to the point where many that need it cannot afford it.

As a parent I would say that my limit would be three ages 1-3, and five at a stretch with none of the usual tummy, ear and respiratory bugs in evidence.

However feminists are emphatic that it is only 'quality' of time that matters: their feminism-informed advice therefore enabling any idiot to mind 20 or more, like piglets in pens and Maccas delivery as required (saves the feminist mum from wasting time in that drive through for their dinner). Read a book? Nah, leave the idiot box blaring.

Fact is, stuff up those early years and society pays later. In some cases, not so many years later either.

Is the main problem that parents do not want to pay for the extent and quality of care they don't have the time and probably not the inclination either, to deliver themselves?