4 ms·

I don't know which government you work under, but it's pretty simple math. * There are maximum child to minder ratios. Where I live it's 3:1 for kids under 1.

I don't know which government you work under, but it's pretty simple math. * There are maximum child to minder ratios. Where I live it's 3:1 for kids under 1. * Minimum wage exists, though childminding really shouldn't be a minimum wage job. I want someone who knows CPR and first aid watching my kid. And who isn't looking for a better job all the time. Say you're open 8 AM to 6 PM. Minimum wage is $10 per hour. That's 10 hours * $10 = $100 per day. Or $33.33 per kid. Figure 21 workdays per month. That's ~$700 per month per kid. But of course, minders go on lunch breaks! And they take vacations! Tack on another 15% to cover for that and you're at $805. Those child minders want health insurance! How dare they! Tack on a few hundred per month per employee, or another ~$100 or so per kid. You're at $905. Oh, but the government demands taxes on what you pay the employee too! Well you're up to $1000+ per month, or the 12k you mention, So do you want to increase the child to minder ratio, cut benefits, or cut opening hours? Or, maybe you hire someone from a poor country as an au pair. They're abusing the hell out of their student visa and you're breaking employment law but it means you get cheap childcare. Of course, there are places where childcare has a low price to the consumer. It's generally where the government is footing the bill. Regarding your points 1,2,3, there is another option - we use improved technology to recognize that an improved lifestyle can be had for the same, or lower, cost. A basic, decent life can be pretty cheap these days. Except for housing, because the retirees voted to make it illegal to build new homes, and health care, which is too large a topic to cover here.

danjayh 8y ago
> So do you want to increase the child to minder ratio, cut benefits, or cut opening hours? All of the above, if the market will bear it (and I think in the case of reduced benefits, it will not - see my last paragraph). The point is that these decisions shouldn't be made by the government for the center and the parents who use it. Where I live the ratio is 4:1. Who's to say that 5:1 couldn't work, aside from the fact that the government doesn't allow it? What about something like 9:2, which would enable a single person to handle tasks that crop up (changing diapers, dealing with a fussy child, etc.) while the other handles the happy kids? what about 3 rooms at 6:1 with 2 floating caregivers who go where they're needed? Under a heavily regulated environment, none of these options can be explored. As far as benefits, as you said, I think at this point they are probably already getting above mandatory minimums, so regulation probably isn't having a huge effect there.

danjayh 8y ago

> So do you want to increase the child to minder ratio, cut benefits, or cut opening hours? All of the above, if the market will bear it (and I think in the case of reduced benefits, it will not - see my last paragraph). The point is that these decisions shouldn't be made by the government for the center and the parents who use it. Where I live the ratio is 4:1. Who's to say that 5:1 couldn't work, aside from the fact that the government doesn't allow it? What about something like 9:2, which would enable a single person to handle tasks that crop up (changing diapers, dealing with a fussy child, etc.) while the other handles the happy kids? what about 3 rooms at 6:1 with 2 floating caregivers who go where they're needed? Under a heavily regulated environment, none of these options can be explored. As far as benefits, as you said, I think at this point they are probably already getting above mandatory minimums, so regulation probably isn't having a huge effect there.