Creche bailout

One eyed Jack

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's fairly amazing that the argument that women shouldn't be working and look after the kids comes up on boards everytime creches are mentioned.

I would have thought that those ideas were gone. My dad in his seventies wouldn't think like this. Weird.

That’s fairly disingenuous. I never brought up women in employment in the first place. I did mention that most people working in childcare are women, working in poor conditions with no prospects of career development and on low pay and no pension or healthcare entitlements.

I made the point that contrary to Harry’s opinion, crèches are not the economic necessity he maintained they are, much less that without them, it was Harry who argued that women would have to stay at home. I was making the point that nearly half a million women already do work in the home, and many more are likely to make that choice which suits them as opposed to gaining employment, simply because on balance they’re deciding for themselves that the exorbitant cost of childcare simply isn’t worth it.

Number of men working in the home in 2016 btw? Less than 10,000. I have no doubt your father as an individual wouldn’t think like that, but on a national level the figures speak for themselves.

Clarence Boddiker

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

It would appear some people got left behind....

The ones who really got left behind are the Women who have no choice but to work long hours for poor wages, in order to pay exorbitant rates to farm their children out to be raised by strangers, the rest goes on insane rents/mortgages/Car insurance/living costs all the while they see their children for just a few hours a day.

They're told that this is a good thing, positive and emancipating but its not really is it?

Maewyn Succat

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

The ones who really got left behind are the Women who have no choice but to work long hours for poor wages, in order to pay exorbitant rates to farm their children out to be raised by strangers, the rest goes on insane rents/mortgages/Car insurance/living costs all the while they see their children for just a few hours a day.

They're told that this is a good thing, positive and emancipating but its not really is it?

How can this be solved by women leaving their jobs and becoming stay at home mothers?

jmreire

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

The ones who really got left behind are the Women who have no choice but to work long hours for poor wages, in order to pay exorbitant rates to farm their children out to be raised by strangers, the rest goes on insane rents/mortgages/Car insurance/living costs all the while they see their children for just a few hours a day.

They're told that this is a good thing, positive and emancipating but its not really is it?

The main problem is, that one wage is not enough to live on in the present day, and that's the bottom line. Sure you can argue the point that if the Mothers stayed at home, they would save on creche cost's,,,but what they would save on creche costs would still not be enough to make end's meet. So no matter how little is left over after deduction and fee's of working Mother's ( or Father's as the case may be ) it's needed, so they have to work ( at least the majority of them. What wealthy families choose to do, that's a different kettle of fish.)

Clarence Boddiker

jmreire wrote: »

The main problem is, that one wage is not enough to live on in the present day, and that's the bottom line. Sure you can argue the point that if the Mothers stayed at home, they would save on creche cost's,,,but what they would save on creche costs would still not be enough to make end's meet. So no matter how little is left over after deduction and fee's of working Mother's ( or Father's as the case may be ) it's needed, so they have to work ( at least the majority of them. What wealthy families choose to do, that's a different kettle of fish.)

The Govt freely involve themselves and interfere in many, many aspects of society, but they refuse to interfere with the housing 'market'
Of course they have defacto open borders which in itself is interfering with the market as it drives up demand so they don't mind interfering that way.
'Affordable' housing can cost upwards of 400k..what a joke.

The way it used to be was that one salary could afford a mortgage for a decent house. Two people working could afford a very nice house if that was their choice.

Now the choice has been taken away, due to neoliberal/Hyper Capitalist economics. But for some bizarre reason the Irish people will never acknowledge this issue.

One eyed Jack

jmreire wrote: »

The main problem is, that one wage is not enough to live on in the present day, and that's the bottom line. Sure you can argue the point that if the Mothers stayed at home, they would save on creche cost's,,,but what they would save on creche costs would still not be enough to make end's meet. So no matter how little is left over after deduction and fee's of working Mother's ( or Father's as the case may be ) it's needed, so they have to work ( at least the majority of them. What wealthy families choose to do, that's a different kettle of fish.)

That’s not the bottom line at all. The bottom line is that people are still playing keeping up with the Jones and trying to afford a lifestyle that is simply beyond their means. They’re looking for the State to bail them out then when they get in over their heads and can no longer sustain the lifestyle they were trying to aspire to in the first place. That’s not any Government or political parties fault, it’s the fault of the people who simply chose to live beyond their means and businesses which once made a significant profit off their lifestyle choices are no longer able to sustain themselves either, so now they’re looking for a bailout from the State too like the State is a bottomless pit of cash :rolleyes:

Maewyn Succat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not the bottom line at all. The bottom line is that people are still playing keeping up with the Jones and trying to afford a lifestyle that is simply beyond their means. They’re looking for the State to bail them out then when they get in over their heads and can no longer sustain the lifestyle they were trying to aspire to in the first place. That’s not any Government or political parties fault, it’s the fault of the people who simply chose to live beyond their means and businesses which once made a significant profit off their lifestyle choices are no longer able to sustain themselves either, so now they’re looking for a bailout from the State too like the State is a bottomless pit of cash :rolleyes:

Are you saying this is why people send their kids to creches or what has any of this got to do with this thread?

One eyed Jack

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

Are you saying this is why people send their kids to creches or what has any of this got to do with this thread?

I don’t know why people send their children to crèches, beats the hell out of me tbh. What I do know is that people are aspiring to lifestyles well beyond their means and attempting to afford and sustain that lifestyle requires a household income much greater than the family can afford.

In turn, business owners have been cashing in on people’s aspirational lifestyles and creaming it, absorbing Government subsidies by jacking up their prices and increasing profits, while at the same time maintaining the same level of sub-standard employment conditions and child welfare conditions.

As an economic model it was simply unsustainable on all fronts.

As we're all Europrans, why can't we get insurance from bigger markets ie; Germany?

Maewyn Succat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know why people send their children to crèches, beats the hell out of me tbh. What I do know is that people are aspiring to lifestyles well beyond their means and attempting to afford and sustain that lifestyle requires a household income much greater than the family can afford.

In turn, business owners have been cashing in on people’s aspirational lifestyles and creaming it, absorbing Government subsidies by jacking up their prices and increasing profits, while at the same time maintaining the same level of sub-standard employment conditions and child welfare conditions.

As an economic model it was simply unsustainable on all fronts.

That's a fair bit of generalisation there. As I have said I am a fulltime student and my wife is the sole earner. We don't have any choice for now but to put our children into a creche. We are not trying to sustain some lifestyle beyond our means or whatever you think people are doing by putting their children in creches.

One eyed Jack

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

That's a fair bit of generalisation there. As I have said I am a fulltime student and my wife is the sole earner. We don't have any choice for now but to put our children into a creche. We are not trying to sustain some lifestyle beyond our means or whatever you think people are doing by putting their children in creches.

Yes, it is a generalisation, one that doesn’t care for individual circumstances such as your own, because I don’t care to comment on individual cases, that’s entirely yours or anyone else’s own personal business. What I do see is exactly as I suggested - people aspiring to lifestyles beyond their means. More going out than they’ve got coming in. That’s simply unsustainable.

You do have choices btw, no such thing as you not having choices in a first world country, that’s just nonsense, frankly. I’d say the same of anyone who claims they don’t have a choice when there are plenty of choices available to them. Your aspirations to want more for yourself and your family is not the same thing as having no choice. You made those choices, they weren’t forced upon you by anyone else.

Maewyn Succat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, it is a generalisation, one that doesn’t care for individual circumstances such as your own, because I don’t care to comment on individual cases, that’s entirely yours or anyone else’s own personal business. What I do see is exactly as I suggested - people aspiring to lifestyles beyond their means. More going out than they’ve got coming in. That’s simply unsustainable.

You do have choices btw, no such thing as you not having choices in a first world country, that’s just nonsense, frankly. I’d say the same of anyone who claims they don’t have a choice when there are plenty of choices available to them. Your aspirations to want more for yourself and your family is not the same thing as having no choice. You made those choices, they weren’t forced upon you by anyone else.

Do you think it's possible for every family in Ireland with young children to sustain a basic lifestyle on a single wage?

Fanny Wank

Just to get people to actually focus here and bring some rational debate - despite the hysteria has any of the posters on here any idea what the average cost of insurance per child per year is for a crèche? The answer will surprise a lot of you

Nermal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As we're all Europrans, why can't we get insurance from bigger markets ie; Germany?

You can have either Irish payouts, or German premiums, but not both.

Jurgen The German

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As we're all Europrans, why can't we get insurance from bigger markets ie; Germany?

In theory you can however in reality, nobody wants to enter the market, particularly for high risk sectors like childcare or motor.

People (not you btw) need to wake up. Something like 250 insurers have exited the irish market in the last 5 or 6 years. The supposed gravy train is a fallacy, these record profits do not exist, the industry has made 9% profit in the last 12 months, even with substantial increases in premium that's a modest profit.

Claims awards are completely out of whack with the rest of Europe and only when they are recalibrated will we see any meaningful shift.

Unfortunately it will take probably a year or two minimum for this to happen which undoubtedly means alot of small businesses will go under.

Maewyn Succat

Fanny **** wrote: »

Just to get people to actually focus here and bring some rational debate - despite the hysteria has any of the posters on here any idea what the average cost of insurance per child per year is for a crèche? The answer will surprise a lot of you

The cost of insurance per child is irrelevant if the creche has decided to close down when they crunch the numbers after insurance hikes.

jmreire

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not the bottom line at all. The bottom line is that people are still playing keeping up with the Jones and trying to afford a lifestyle that is simply beyond their means. They’re looking for the State to bail them out then when they get in over their heads and can no longer sustain the lifestyle they were trying to aspire to in the first place. That’s not any Government or political parties fault, it’s the fault of the people who simply chose to live beyond their means and businesses which once made a significant profit off their lifestyle choices are no longer able to sustain themselves either, so now they’re looking for a bailout from the State too like the State is a bottomless pit of cash :rolleyes:

You might elaborate a little bit about what you consider to be necessary to "keeping up with the Jones's" and having to borrow to achieve it?

Fanny Wank

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

The cost of insurance per child is irrelevant if the creche has decided to close down when they crunch the numbers after insurance hikes.

Of course it's very relevant. There is no way a crèche that is a sustainable business is closing due to insurance costs or to be emotive "hikes"

If the cost of insurance is causing them to close the business wasn't sustainable

Fyi It's a miniscule % of turnover

starbaby2003

Fanny **** wrote: »

Of course it's very relevant. There is no way a crèche that is a sustainable business is closing due to insurance costs or to be emotive "hikes"

If the cost of insurance is causing them to close the business wasn't sustainable

Fyi It's a miniscule % of turnover

You are missing the point, there is no choice. They will only be one insurer in the market if they decide to do 50% increases year on year there is no choice but to pay.

ChikiChiki

jmreire wrote: »

You might elaborate a little bit about what you consider to be necessary to "keeping up with the Jones's" and having to borrow to achieve it?

Getting a 192 Kia Sorrento on PCP and having debt is one such example.

One eyed Jack

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

Do you think it's possible for every family in Ireland with young children to sustain a basic lifestyle on a single wage?

Well seeing as you haven’t given me any figures to go on, I’ll simply say yes, you’ll simply say no, and round and round we go. Family budgets are generally calculated on the basis of household income. However that household income is made up can be either from employment or social welfare, a combination of both or one or the other. Then there’s the question of what standards either of us would consider a basic lifestyle, which is fairly open to individual interpretation. What I might consider a basic lifestyle you’re likely to consider a conservative estimate, and so on.

But to put it simply I guess, this article from 2017 suggests that the average full-time wage in Ireland is €45,000, and this article, also from 2017, using the same data from the CSO, suggests that the average household weekly spend is €845.

The figures suggest that it is possible to sustain a basic lifestyle on a single wage (45,000 / 52 = 865).

Fanny Wank

starbaby2003 wrote: »

You are missing the point, there is no choice. They will only be one insurer in the market if they decide to do 50% increases year on year there is no choice but to pay.

So how much would a 50% "hike" cost? Go on, give us an estimate?

Ok some actual facts

- I work for an insurer
- it doesn't currently write crèche insurance
- however we have quoted on schemes in the past. The figures I'll quote are in relation to the prices we quoted. We lost the scheme so actual prices are probably lower

My daughter is in crèche in Dublin. So I'll give premium figures relative to what I pay rather than quote the premium (anyone with children in crèche will easily out 2+2 together)

Insurance premiums per child per year are around 0.4-0.5% of the cost I pay per year in crèche fees

Still waters

This is essentially a boost for insurance rather than a sustainable solution for any business, all it does is guarantee insurers will be paid without any action being taken by government to control the insurance vultures that financially rape small businesses and ordinary workers, a backward step when what we want is a strong hand to deal with these robbing bastards

Fanny Wank

Still waters wrote: »

This is essentially a boost for insurance rather than a sustainable solution for any business, all it does is guarantee insurers will be paid without any action being taken by government to control the insurance vultures that financially rape small businesses and ordinary workers, a backward step when what we want is a strong hand to deal with these robbing bastards

So much emotive nonsense, so little (in fact zero) facts

The "vultures" were obviously making so much money they decided to pull out. Probably triggered some corporate and social responsibility metric. Lads the amount of cash we're making is immoral - let's pull out

Maewyn Succat

Fanny **** wrote: »

Of course it's very relevant. There is no way a crèche that is a sustainable business is closing due to insurance costs or to be emotive "hikes"

If the cost of insurance is causing them to close the business wasn't sustainable

Fyi It's a miniscule % of turnover

Turnover means very little. It's profit you need to consider which are a fraction of the turnover. Insurance hikes are the straw that broke the camel's back.

starbaby2003

Fanny **** wrote: »

So how much would a 50% "hike" cost? Go on, give us an estimate?

Ok some actual facts

- I work for an insurer
- it doesn't currently write crèche insurance
- however we have quoted on schemes in the past. The figures I'll quote are in relation to the prices we quoted. We lost the scheme so actual prices are probably lower

My daughter is in crèche in Dublin. So I'll give premium figures relative to what I pay rather than quote the premium (anyone with children in crèche will easily out 2+2 together)

Insurance premiums per child per year are around 0.4-0.5% of the cost I pay per year in crèche fees

But it’s not just Creches - it’s AfterSchools, ECCE only, breakfast clubs. Want to give a percentage per child of that ? To take the highest denominator and say it is a minuscule increase is disingenuous.

Fanny Wank

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

Turnover means very little. It's profit you need to consider which are a fraction of the turnover. Insurance hikes are the straw that broke the camel's back.

Did you see the percentage I quoted? Do you understand how much it applies approximately?

If thats the difference between closing and remaining open I repeat the business wasn't sustainable in the first place

Maewyn Succat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well seeing as you haven’t given me any figures to go on, I’ll simply say yes, you’ll simply say no, and round and round we go. Family budgets are generally calculated on the basis of household income. However that household income is made up can be either from employment or social welfare, a combination of both or one or the other. Then there’s the question of what standards either of us would consider a basic lifestyle, which is fairly open to individual interpretation. What I might consider a basic lifestyle you’re likely to consider a conservative estimate, and so on.

But to put it simply I guess, this article from 2017 suggests that the average full-time wage in Ireland is €45,000, and this article, also from 2017, using the same data from the CSO, suggests that the average household weekly spend is €845.

The figures suggest that it is possible to sustain a basic lifestyle on a single wage (45,000 / 52 = 865).

I'd say you're out of touch with reality if you think the average income for a single income family with young children is €865 per week.

Fanny Wank

starbaby2003 wrote: »

But it’s not just Creches - it’s AfterSchools, ECCE only, breakfast clubs. Want to give a percentage per child of that ? To take the highest denominator and say it is a minuscule increase is disingenuous.

I quoted figures for crèches as I have first hand experience of seeing pricing

Just cos you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's "disingenuous"

kippy

ChikiChiki wrote: »

Ireland has turned into a wild west of cartels and businesses operating like gangsters under FG leadership. They have been asleep at the wheel for such a long time now. FG have enabled this carry on by failing to tackle it.

Bailing out creches sets a bad precedent imo! Enough is enough for the taxpayer. FG need to be booted out onto the streets quick.

I don't disagree but you'd have to admit FF do and have done the exact same thing in the past and currently support the FG government in all its policies....