Britain has one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world,
Nope.
It is expensive at the point of use. Which, arguably, it should be. Payiong for it from tax revenues does not, in fact, make it cheaper. Far from it in fact, The deadweight of taxation itself might well make that an even higher societal burden.
How about the deadweight of government in the form of OFSTED regulations and a ridiculously low ratio of infant to carer/supervisor. Read Christopher Snowdon in CAPX.
TMB: regulations plus credentialism plus rent
Our child care system is expensive because the regulations mandate a very low children to staff ratio compared with other countries. Jobs are a cost.
Getting preggo, then paying other women to raise your child, isn’t a clever plan for the majority of women. It’s actually the worst of both worlds – all the hassle and anxiety and tax of a job, but you also get to feel guilty about missing your babbies.
We need to stop treating women as economic resources and start treating them as wives and mothers instead.
You missed out Kirche.
This is exactly like the time the Nazis had sex with their wives.
As AndyF said: the low staff:child ratio makes it expensive, the high minimum wage likewise; the cross-subsidy between taxpayer-financed and parent-financed nyursery fees makes the latter even more expensive.
I waas pleased to see Jeremy Hunt slip in a change in the minimum permitted staff:child ratio: this will do more to make childcare available than £billions added to the subsidy from taxpayers.
Steve,
“Getting preggo, then paying other women to raise your child, isn’t a clever plan for the majority of women. It’s actually the worst of both worlds – all the hassle and anxiety and tax of a job, but you also get to feel guilty about missing your babbies.”
I do wonder how many fewer mothers would work if we were serious about shrinking government. I’m convinced that a lot of this is because we have huge, complicated government which creates jobs for English lecturers, tax inspectors, diversity officers. And the public sector is top heavy with women doing jobs that could be scrapped or easily automated. Then there’s all the private sector jobs that only exist because of regulations and bloat. What if we stopped doing all of this and just let people have higher tax thresholds, so the husband brought home more money and the wife didn’t work?
But I also think that women are much more clubbable with other women in terms of the things they do. Being a working woman is the done thing in the middle classes. Preferably at a charity. It’s in that list of things like Going to Yooni or buying organic food.
A lot of women will go to work for very little net pay. £1-2/hour, £70/week. The thing is that a woman who is at home can easily make that back, without all the other benefits. Like, you can shop around more, eat less takeaways. Less going out on a Friday because you’re knackered, manage with Android instead of Apple. All these restaurants full of people eating burgers and pizza, spending £50. Many women would be better off doing the odd shift at Cineworld when the husband comes home. But the thing is that work for many women isn’t about work. It’s about hanging around with the girls, which is why they spend about 5 times more on clothes than men do.
I think many women would be happier being at home and going around to each other houses for tea sometimes, and it would make zero net productivity difference to the country. But they do keep voting for bigger government so it’s all their fault.
BoM4 – I think people in general were happier and better adjusted with the Man of Business, Lady of the House arrangement.
Except Darren from Bewitched. He always looked constipated despite his wife being a knockout.
Steve,
You’d probably look constipated too if your mother-in-law could turn you into a frog when she was upset with you.
MG – maybe if Derwood hadn’t knowingly married a magic user, then pissed and moaned like an old woman every time she did the hoovering with a twitch of her nose?
Esmeralda did nothing wrong.