>
The problem is too few places.
Once there are enough places, early sign up is preferred. This allows them to plan effectively, e.g. by hiring and training enough people in advance. It also allows parents to plan ahead.
An institution fails to deliver a crucial service and you blame fellow victims. >

If no places allowed early (read: pre-birth/pre-conception) signup, then the problem of too few places would be at least partially alleviated because those who were born at the time their parents put them on the waitlist would actually get places within a reasonable timeframe.
I'm not saying eliminate waitlists entirely. I'm saying eliminate putting not-yet-existing kids on said waitlists.
Jumping to the front of a line before you have something to be in line for (a baby, or in some cases even a pregnancy) is what's mucking up the system and making fewer places for those kids who are already actually here. >

How?
There are 9 places in the daycare. There are 10 kids that need it. How will signing up later change anything about the missing place for 1 kid? >

The one kid will still have to be on the waitlist, but that kid will be at the top of the list because there aren't any kids that aren't even born (or possibly conceived) yet on the list. So that one kid will have to wait less time than would have to be waited if people put a kid on the waitlist as soon as it was conceived (or even before!). >

In both scenarios only 9 out of 10 kids will get daycare, right? >

For a time. Once one of those 9 leaves, the 10th kid will get daycare. If, however, the 10th kid was behind a bunch of non-born/non-conceived kids, that 10th already-existing kid might not actually get daycare. >

Any daycare I've heard about will use all (nine) available places for eligible children. The unborn child isn't eligible, so it won't take anyone's place. Only 9 out of 10 get the service at any time; it's only the order that changes depending on sign-up timing. Or do you have different real-life experience? >

Usually by the time a space becomes available, children who weren't born when they were put on the waitlist have been born, and therefore jumped the line in front of the child who was born before they were put on the waitlist, making that older child wait even longer for a space, possibly to the point of aging out. >

I would agree with you IF there was a mechanism to ensure that there are enough spaces for all born children to get into daycare.  
The fact of the matter is though that, for example in my country but I'm sure in many others as well, if you wait until the baby is born before applying for a daycare, you're almost 100 percent guaranteed to not get into one until the child is a couple of years old.   
Parents do this not out of fun, but necessity. >

And if that was illegal, it would not be a necessity. Allowing people who don't even have anything to get into a line for (a baby, or in some cases even a pregnancy) is a major contributing factor to the long wait times for children who are already born when they were put on the waitlist.
If one daycare is full, then choose another. >

In a lot of places the waitlist exists because all the daycares are full. A position only becomes free when someone stops sending their kid. >

I'm not saying eliminate waitlists. I'm saying make putting children that don't yet exist on the waitlist illegal because it makes children who are already born when they get put on potentially not get into the daycare (or whatever the waitlist is for) at all before they're too old for it. >

It does not really matter if a fetus gets put on the waitlist (depending on how the daycare is run). In most instances the child is in existence and needing daycare when the list gets to them. The position usually isn't sitting there vacant waiting for the child to come into existence. >

So because the adult of the kid who didn't exist wanted to jump the line, the kid who actually existed when they were put on the waitlist should be given short shrift and a longer wait time? No way.
It totally matters. Wait for the kid to be born, and then wait your turn on the waitlist! >

People wouldn't be jumping on the waitlist if there was enough childcare. The waitlists are a direct result of there not being enough positions in daycare. In Australia they estimate they're at least 16,000 childcare workers short of providing enough childcare for children that currently exist.
Banning people from joining the list will only change which person gets the position. It will not fix the reason as to why a waitlist exists. The number of children needing a position will not change. The only change will be which child is sitting inside that daycare and which parent is able to return to work etc. >

I'm not saying ban waitlists. I'm saying don't get on the list until you actually have a child that can be on the list! >

It's pointless to ban something if you're not going to address why it's happening in the first place. You're only addressing a symptom on an issue. >

I'm saying that it's part of the issue, not a symptom. Allowing non-born children to be on waitlists contributes to the problem of not enough daycare spaces to go around; it's not a symptom of it, but one of the causes. >

Facts... >

It's kind of necessary to allow this for daycare when you live in a country that doesn't provide proper paid parental leave >

No, it's not necessary. All daycares should only take names of children that are already born, and that would be the end of it. >

There's not enough places for everybody. So why should "good" parents be restrained or punished??? Why punish the "lucky" kids for having "good" parents??? 
Instead, fight for more places in daycares, more teachers/daycare workers, more funding, etc. So that nobody needs to plan 9 months (or even years) ahead. >

Putting a child that doesn't exist yet on a waiting list doesn't make someone a "good" parent. It makes them entitled.
There would be more places in time for kids who were already born when they were put on the waitlist to actually have care (if later than needed) if entitled people didn't put kids that didn't even exist on the waitlists, edging out the first group of kids when a space becomes available because the second group of kids were born in the middle of the waiting period.
As it is, kids who were born when put on the waitlist more often age out because those kids who weren't born when they got in the waitlist have been born in the meantime and take the spaces that become available when the older children actually need those spaces more. >

Mate, you miss the point. There isn't enough places. So even if you make waiting lists illegal, the same amount of kids are still gonna be without daycare... 
But parents will still seek to use other advantages (e.g. money, influence, nepotism/cronyism, trying to birth the child on the right day, etc. etc.).
And instead of "good" parents (call them whatever you want, e.g. parents with foresight, ahead thinkers, planners, organized, etc.), So instead of "planner" parents, you're gonna have the most corrupt/richest parents taking all the places.
. >

For the millionth time, I'm not saying make waiting lists illegal! I'm saying make putting children on waiting lists that do not exist yet illegal, because that is one of the causes for lack of spaces in daycare for older children whose parents actually had the required child to put in the line before signing up for the waitlist.
And it's often the most corruptible/richest/whatever parents who put their nonexistent kids on waitlists, and the good ones who actually follow the social contract who wait until they actually have a kid before signing onto a waitlist. >

Wrong fight, mate. 
Instead you should be focusing on increasing the number of available places. Not on making younger kids wait longer, so that older kids can have their moment too, nor on restraining "planner/think-ahead" parents,... >

I'm not saying only don't allow non-born children onto waitlists. I'm saying that allowing non-born children onto waitlists makes the problems in the system worse than they would be if it was not allowed, and in addition to fixing the system/getting more funding, etc., only children who are actually born should be allowed on waitlists.
When the child is born, that is when you plan for a daycare/private school/whatever; planning for something involving a person that doesn't even exist yet is just being a jerk and jumping the line. >


being a jerk and jumping the line.

Thinking & planning ahead are good things! At least, these children get to start daycare at the expected age! That's nice! At least some are lucky. Why restrain that intelligence???
What are you gonna outlaw next? Getting straight As? School kids bringing their own healthy, home cooked nutritious meals instead of eating junk at the school cafeteria/restaurant? Having too many bright students occupying too many places at uni and, later, getting too many high paying jobs???
Wrong fight, mate.  It's never good to restrain any forms of intelligence. Much better to increase taxes, and use that money to help those that lag behind... >

There's planning ahead, and then there's counting your chicks before they hatch. The former is smart. The latter is ridiculous. >

Since the waiting list is available to anyone at anytime "fairly". The game is fair. OP just have to play it as competitively as other players. It is a fair game, and you lost OP. >

Must say I have never heard of it being done for unborn kids, that is a bit strange, but ultimately it is up to whoever you are signing up with really. If the kid isn't born or ultimately goes somewhere else 5 years after the parents registered them then a gap opens up. >

I know people who have 1-year olds that have been on waiting lists since they were 4 months pregnant. The waitlists aren't the problem, it's the fact that a ton of people left the daycare industry because the pay abysmal and a lot of facilities have absurd rules like, "You can't tell the children 'no'", which makes keeping a calm and orderly classroom almost impossible. (I used to be a preschool teacher) >

Again, I'm not talking about banning waitlists in general. I'm talking about not putting kids on waitlists who don't even exist yet because it makes the daycare shortages worse.
My husband and I put our daughter on a waitlist for a daycare when she was a 2 or 3 months old. She was a month past two years old before she got in. That would have been shorter if folks didn't put kids who didn't exist yet on the waitlist, since by the time space became available, the younger kids yoinked the space because they had been unfairly on the waitlist longer. >

So what are people supposed to do? Wait until the kid is born and then hope they're able to get in before work starts again. Some people only get a few DAYS of maternity leave. How are they supposed to prepare for that if they have to wait until the child is actually born to try to sign up? 
Another reason your wait was probably that long was enrolled kids having siblings born in that two year time period. Schools prioritize siblings over new enrollments and put them at the top of waitlists. Do you think that should be banned too? >

No, because it's difficult enough getting to a regular job while having to drop kids off a one place, much less multiple ones.
And yes, parents are supposed to wait until the kid is born, put the kid on waitlists for multiple daycares, and find alternative care (family members, trusted neighbors, etc) until they can get into one of them.
They are not supposed to make an already bad situation worse by signing a kid up for a waitlist before it's even born. >

In the modern world, parenting isn't about taking care of your kids -- it's all about competition and parents expecting their children to match their dreams. >

That has nothing to do with the post.