Why Child Care Is So Expensive

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/why-child-care-so-expensive/602599

by jseliger • 7 years ago

198 490 7 years ago

Women's introduction to the workforce was the right thing to happen but it fundamentally hurt labor and the "middle class". You can't double the supply without changing anything in the system and inflationary effects of dual income are ridiculous.

dcolkitt• 7 years ago

I don't think there's any firm evidence to back this up. In Japan, women entered the workforce much slower than the West. Yet incomes and wages in Japan have grown at slower rates than America and Europe.

jandrese3• 7 years ago

Japan has some pretty severe confounding economic factors however.

PaulHoule3• 7 years ago

See this Liz Warren book:

https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-...

Henry Ford realized that the automobile was not going to change the world unless auto workers were so productive that they could easily afford the cars they made.

That kind of productivity increase is not possible w/ Childcare. I remember a Z Magazine cartoon more than 20 years ago where two women were pondering the mystery of why a child care worker can't afford child care and the unspoken punch line was that it was the perversity of capitalism but, no, it's not that economically efficient to pay somebody else to watch your kid for you. It makes money for the day care center, it makes money for your employer if you go to work, you pay taxes on the money you earn -- it makes money for a whole lot of people who aren't you.

You, not so much.

Universal child care is currently reeling from the discovery that recipients of universal child care in Montreal have turned into DQN adolescents. Maybe "the kids will be alright" in the end, but it is not looking like a program that pays for itself like Head Start.

raincom• 7 years ago

What is DQN?

bluedino• 7 years ago

In my state, a single childcare worker can watch up to 6 children. If they are infants I belive the number goes down to 4.

pnutjam7• 7 years ago

Your acting like this is new, the poor have always been crapped on. It was common for wet nurses babies to die in the 18th and 19th century. A mother can make enough milk for 2 babies, but the wealthy who hired wet nurses didn't want poor babies around their precious rich babies.

Heartbreaking: https://daily.jstor.org/lifesaving-horrifying-history-wet-nu...

edit (typo)

Miner49er2• 7 years ago

Well it's a chicken and an egg thing. Did women entering the workforce hurt labor? Or was labor hurting and that's why women entered the workforce?

rollerboi• 7 years ago

This is actually quite interesting, because the timeline for the massive inflation in the US during 1980s (which was solved by Volcker, RIP) roughly lines up with the upswing in labor participation rate among women: https://i0.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/...

Of course correlation =/= causation, but perhaps it was one of the contributing factors to the 10+% inflation rates of the late 70s early 80s.

cortesoft7• 7 years ago

This doesn't make economic sense.... 'doubling supply' is what economic growth is.... producing more should be balanced out with people consuming more, which is what a healthy economy does.

This is like arguing that the invention of the assembly line caused inflation because you could produce too much.

You contradict yourself by saying 'double supply' and 'inflationary effects'... increasing supply of a commodity (in this case labor) should DECREASE inflation, not increase it.

ng124• 7 years ago

It makes perfect economic sense: it's a simple supply and demand curve. Increasing the number of workers decreases their value. The only confounding factor is whether the increase in workers increases the speed at which the economy grows/ I'd guess it probably does, but not enough to offset the downward pressure on wages.

mindslight• 7 years ago

The economy isn't something to optimize unto itself, but rather a system that is supposed to serve humans. Additional labor is "being produced", and sure it is also "being consumed" - what this really means is we're all working more, and to what end?

The childcare discussion cuts to the heart of this, because the language of economic optimization cloaks its real world results - the addition of ever-more third-party intermediaries to raise your own kids, such you can keep on performing the most system-legible labor possible.

What should have really happened is that "full time employment" should have been redefined to 30 hours per week, a few decades ago. By now we should be at 20-25 hours per week. We're in the age of the greatest technological progress in history, yet rather than success, the treadmill is turning faster than ever! All to produce more layers of bureaucracy, overpackaged fast food, or junk that ends up in a river. And then we do our penance lamenting about "sustainability", when the simple answer is to stop overproducing in the first place.

RandomBacon2• 7 years ago

I'm sure it's more complex than this, and of course equal opportunities for everyone is good, but yes I think it hurt.

More people going to university -> Demand outgrows supply, universities can charge more and spend more money on appealing things. More student debt.

More workers -> More supply than demand, companies can pay less.

Each worker needs a vehicle. More expenses.

Both parents working, need to pay someone else to take care of kids. More expenses.

More debt/expenses, less pay.

RandomBacon2• 7 years ago

More people sitting in traffic, more parents that don't get to be with their kids as much, more reliance on public schools to raise kids.

kauffj2• 7 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

UncleMeat• 7 years ago

Why don't people say this about population growth? The US population is 2x what it was in 1950. Yet nobody says that this depresses wages causes problems. Would we have a stronger middle class if we Thanosed the population? That doesn't seem right.

organsnyder2• 7 years ago

Population growth leads to more consumers as well as producers. Activating a "dormant" producer segment (as if stay-at-home parenting isn't producing tangible value...) leads to an increase in producers, while the number of consumers stays the same.

snerbles• 7 years ago

Would we have a stronger middle class if we Thanosed the population?

There is historical precedent for it, see 14th-century Italy after the Black Death halved the population.

https://dailyhistory.org/How_did_the_Bubonic_Plague_make_the...

trianglem• 7 years ago

Women entered the workforce in response to a societal and social ideal and not based on the free market (outside of severe labor shortages during WW2). Of course it has a direct impact on wages and quality of life for everyone.

jandrese3• 7 years ago

We definitely felt this. My wife ended up quitting her job when we had our first because all of the child care options we investigated were going to require basically her entire after-tax income to support.

It only made sense if she was planning to grow her career and just ride out the daycare for 5 years until the kid went to school, but even then it's contingent on not having another kid during that time.

At the end of the day being a stay-at-home mom made a lot more sense.

cortesoft7• 7 years ago

If she did have a career she wanted to continue, the calculation is pretty strong on the 'riding it out until school'. You have to count ALL the salary you are going to make for the next 30-40 years of working, because sitting out for 5 years will have an effect on your income your entire career.

watwut6• 7 years ago

One problem is that it affects not just her, but whole family. When she is in full time work, then husband have to say no to later meeting, to switch with her on all those celebrations and competitions and so on. There is more coordination, work and stress for everyone, not just woman in question.

When kids are sick and they are often, you have to deal with it somehow - again either risk own employment and status on the job or own projects or demand that husband stays home some of those days.

The same goes with part time work. I know multiple women who do less then 8 hours a day not because they want to, but because they would need husband to come home from work sooner otherwise to be able to make it all. Had he had a job where he could (or if he was willing to - at least in two cases it is not job but him making excuses), they would prefer to work full time (due to those positions being more interesting).

mirekrusin• 7 years ago

Unless she gets the job a the daycare - I hear they have money to pay well?

usaar3332• 7 years ago

her entire after-tax income to support

An interesting fact of our progressive income tax that combines spousal income is that the lower earning spouse is strongly disincentived to stay at home instead of work. This is especially true if one spouse has very high income.

Coffeewine• 7 years ago

The listed reasons:

First, although child-care workers aren’t expensive on an hourly basis—their median hourly wage is less than that of non-farm-animal caretakers and janitors—labor is the biggest line item for child-care facilities. Unlike, say, car companies, they can’t cut spending by moving labor to poorer countries or by replacing human workers with machines.
The industry is highly regulated, perhaps reasonably so, given the vulnerability of the clientele ... Other costs include insurance to cover damage to the property and worker injuries, as well as legal fees to deal with inevitable parent lawsuits.
Finally, there’s the real estate. The most expensive child-care facilities tend to be situated near high-income neighborhoods or in commercial districts, where the rents are high. And they can’t downsize in a pinch, because most states require them to have ample square footage for each kid.

seiferteric• 7 years ago

You forgot mandatory ratios. This sets the limit on how low costs can be.

ChaosDegenerate6• 7 years ago

The thing with female workforce participation: isn't it just symptom of the society getting poorer. My wife worked her ass off. I was making about 130k / year. She was making about 60k / year. Then we not only moved from the US to Poland (where live is just so much cheaper). But I also started making about 330k / year. All the willingness to work evaporated on her part :-) Instead we have another kid. She stopped talking about work and started talking about having more kids. Of course, that's anectodal, but also common sense, isn't it?

My little theory is that while men still made enough money to support good life in the US (50s, 60s) most women just didn't want to work. If you can have a house, nice car, four kids, vacation home, 40 hour week, no credit card debt, no school debt, and all of that on carpenter salary -- why not to enjoy life instead of spending 50-60 hours at the office?

The dirty secret is that most women work because they HAVE TO. It's not a choice. It's sold to the society at large as something glamorous because -- what? They're going to tell the truth? Yeah, you need to work your ass off 50-60 hours a week, with credit card debt, student loan debt, two cars loan, etc, etc. just to be able barely make it to have two kids at 35 ? Because before that you need advanced degree or two. Actually both of you do... I mean how is that a better deal?

I can see that also from the reaction of my wife friends who stayed in the US working to basically help their husbands as one salary won't cut it. It's not like they wouldn't prefer to stay at home with kids. But, again, it's not like they have a choice.

FactolSarin• 7 years ago

I don't think that's necessarily woman-specific. I'm a guy, and if I could stay at home all day and spend time with my kids, I would too. Certainly, I would if my wife was making 330k/year :D

ChaosDegenerate6• 7 years ago

Yes, but also it's not like having maternal instinct wouldn't make this decision easier for you.

And keep in mind, statistics say than one of the divorce factors is husband making less than wife. From her perspective: this isn't sexy at all.

mkoryak• 7 years ago

wait, are you saying that staying at home with the kids is not work?! It is arguably a harder job than most white collar jobs out there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWcJZ210AaM

dbancajas• 7 years ago

do you have a business for 330K/year in Poland?

cortesoft7• 7 years ago

I would be very careful about making that large a generalization (that all else being equal, women would prefer to stay home over working).

Childcare is mind numbing work, especially with young kids. Sure, some women (and men) would prefer that, but a LOT of women prefer office work over raising children.

"why not to enjoy life instead of spending 50-60 hours at the office?" is really selling short how much work raising young kids is. It is NOT enjoying life to stay home with toddlers. Maybe once they start school and you get hours to yourself, but before that it is way more time consuming than working at an office.

I know, I have done both. I took long paternity leaves to care for both of my kids, and while I love being able to bond with the kids, I was so happy to be able to go back to work. The freedom I have at the office compared to being home with the kids was night and day. Just being able to go to the bathroom when I need to, to get food when I want..... young kids are non-stop work.

I LOVE being a dad, but the weekends are way more stressful than the weekdays. Wrangling kids is way harder than programming computers.

flatiron• 7 years ago

I totally agree. I work from home programming so my dad office and my programming office is the same place. Taking conference calls and browsing HN is way easier than wrangling 3 kids 5 and younger.

davidw• 7 years ago

I would be very careful about making that large a generalization (that all else being equal, women would prefer to stay home over working).

Especially within earshot of my wife. Stuff like that pisses her off to no end, with good reason. She's smart and accomplished and very much enjoys the challenges of a professional career.

ChaosDegenerate6• 7 years ago

well, somehow the society at large has no problem with exactly opposite generalization: that women prefer to work over staying home with their kids.

It is an individual matter, I agree. With most women definitely having the preference of staying at home. But for that the right partner is needed, i.e. one who provides enough resources for her and her kids. If this is not present she will go to work. We decided as a society to frame it different just not to face difficult truth, which is society becoming poorer. It's just so much easier to say that somehow nowadays women prefer working to following their maternal instinct.

As a man you are wired to compete with other males for resources to be brought to your partner and offspring. I'm sorry but this is just how it works. Women define male attractivness based on his socio-economic status. Of course if you don't want your wife (and other females and society at large) to look down at you, you will eventually go back to work and work your ass off. She on the other hand, can but she doesn't need to. It's not like you or pretty much anyone will look down at her for not working. Current social fashions aren't going to change five milion years of evolution of the species.

jawns3• 7 years ago

Childcare is mind numbing work
It is NOT enjoying life to stay home with toddlers.
I was so happy to be able to go back to work
the weekends are way more stressful than the weekdays

I have to say, this kind of perspective on being a parent puzzles me, even though it's pretty widely held. Honestly, many parents I encounter seem almost as if they'd prefer to be their child's aunt or uncle than their mom or dad. Certainly not in title, but possibly in terms of responsibilities.

I get it, raising kids is HARD. But the sense of purpose I feel about writing code that helps my company's investors become slightly richer is totally unlike the sense of purpose I feel about teaching my child about the alphabet, even if many days it feels like a slog.

I like this quote from G.K. Chesterton about the importance of this work. Chesterton is talking specifically about a mother, but I think it holds true whether the primary caregiver is a father or a mother:

To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets, cakes. and books, to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.

tasogare• 7 years ago

but a LOT of women prefer office work over raising children

Do you have any statistics about that? I once saw a map of Japan, which is a place were a good job can still provides for a while family, showing that in every prefectures of Japan except two, more than half of women preferred to be stay at home mom. In two more others it was half-half. Of course there is the cultural context, but it’s interesting that when given the choice for real, most of women would indeed chose not to work.

Also, if one look at jobs that are prized by women, teacher arrive in a very good position. And teaching is basically rising others people kids on an industrial scale.

stvswn2• 7 years ago

Your point about childcare being difficult is absolutely correct, but I don't know if you're correct that a "LOT" of women (I assume you mean counterintuitively more than the commentor implied) would not want to stay home to raise them, all things considered. Based on personal relationships with my wife, sisters, and close family and friends I believe it is very, very common for mothers to find returning to work very difficult (even though it's a lot of work to stay home). I don't think anyone intends to imply that there aren't men who feel this way, that there aren't women who don't feel this way, or that the reason for anyone feeling this way is because work is hard and staying home with kids is easy.

maerF0x02• 7 years ago

I would be very careful about making that large a generalization (that all else being equal, women would prefer to stay home over working).

The conversation I rarely see people having is wether a people group (men or women, for example) has a long term positive/regret recollection of the choice. I understand that most of the messaging today is that women can (and should) pursue paid employment and so naturally that becomes the narrative that people repeat. But 30 yrs later do women generally regret entering the workforce to the detriment of having / raising children? Anecdotally I know many men regret spending so much time at work and not being more involved in their children's lives, could it also hold true for women?

JauntTrooper• 7 years ago

So true. We have two kids under 3. I am far more drained taking care of them for a day than I am after a day in the office.

We pay $42,000 a year in childcare (2 kids, $1,750 /month, which is one of the cheapest options in our area). After taxes its 90%+ of my wife’s entire salary.

It doesn’t make financial sense for her to work, but she’s good at her job, and she’s in a career where taking years off is punishing (law). Honestly though, a big part of it is she wants to work, stress and all. It makes sense to me.

As for me, I would prefer to stay home with them instead of work, but I am the primary earner and am also in a career that punishes people severely who take time off (finance). So here we are.

deogeo2• 7 years ago

I would be very careful about making that large a generalization

Sure - but then, lets also not generalize in the opposite direction. How many women get to work, versus how many have to work?

agumonkey• 7 years ago

I think most parents are exhausted to their knees with kids. But they also ~all say that it's their life's blood (I mean the energy, not blood ties obv.).

A job rarely gives you that much meaning.

lettergram• 7 years ago

I actually just wrote about this lol

https://austingwalters.com/tiny-handcuffs/

My general thoughts are that 90% of people don’t want to work - so yea none of us would if we didn’t have to.

One thing that’s always astonishing to me is that it’s not the the poor are necessarily getting poorer... it’s that we want to give more resources to our kids. You can have 10 kids on a salary of $120k a year, you just have to live on rice and thrift.

Konnstann2• 7 years ago

Given the amount of research that shows that the amount of resources kids have directly impacts their success later in life doing that would severely impact your kids' ability to have a salary of $120k in the future.

watwut6• 7 years ago

Having nothing useful to do day after day is not an awesome lifestyle. It is depression inducing, lowers your confidence and self respect. You are becoming increasingly pointless. Not just makes you feel dependent, but also actually makes you dependent. On one hand, you feel like a taker and useless and golddigger, so you are restraining yourself from asking what you would consider normal had you worked. On the other, partner feels like contributing more too.

It all has actual consequences. Lastly, I remember reading stats about domestic violence rates going down when economics changes so that women earns more or males less. It goes up when it changes other way.

You assume horrible office that expects you to work 60 hours a week. Somehow it is ok for men to work in that horrible office? Why don't men push to work less to actually be with family? Like, man getting to be actually a father and not just a wallet for family?

ed_balls• 7 years ago

The dirty secret is that most women work because they HAVE TO. It's not a choice.

My anecdata is quite opposite. Women having remorse for leaving children in child care, but they can't stand staying at home. They feel lonely.

onlyrealcuzzo2• 7 years ago

The US consumer was massively expanding (mostly) his credit during the 50s-80s. This is the American "Golden Age". There's no further room to expand credit -- we tried it in mid 90s-00s and it didn't work out.

There was never a time anywhere in the history of the world where one working man could work a low-skilled laborer's job and comfortably provide for a family of four.

hnuser77• 7 years ago

This completely defies logic, considering that 2 kids is replacement level fertility, the world has experienced generally consistent population growth, and most of the labor ever done in the world has been low-skilled labor.

silencio• 7 years ago

i would prefer to work instead of providing full time caregiving to my 1.5 kids and my parents (and also myself, it’s been a very rough pregnancy).

anyone that thinks being the primary caregiver is easier than working out of home is delusional. the pressure would probably crush my wife, honestly.

but here we are, the cost of caregiving meeting our standards are high, and unless i also make $300k a year in the bay area, we’re just going to hit a break even point for all the different people that need to replace me.

decebalus14• 7 years ago

The dirty secret is that most women work because they HAVE TO. It's not a choice. It's sold to the society at large as something glamorous because -- what? They're going to tell the truth? Yeah, you need to work your ass off 50-60 hours a week, with credit card debt, student loan debt, two cars loan, etc, etc. just to be able barely make it to have two kids at 35 ? Because before that you need advanced degree or two. Actually both of you do... I mean how is that a better deal?
I can see that also from the reaction of my wife friends who stayed in the US working to basically help their husbands as one salaty won't cut it. It's not like they wouldn't prefer to stay at home with kids. But, again, it's not like they have a choice.

Ok, all of that is incredibly sexist. Male here, born and raised under (full) communism, now living in the opposite system and I'm appalled by this attitude. Women work because they have to? Of course they have to. We live in an economic system in which we all need to pull our weight. There should be no class of people (like women) which should be excluded from the workforce based on some ideological bullshit idea from the 50s. It's funny that in the land of the free, financial dependence on a spouse is a badge of honor!

This kind of broken thinking is also the source of the horrors of the US divorce system (for example the absolute batshit crazy spousal support). Let's not even bring up the fact that women also have, like a normal human being, aspirations and ambitions which aim beyond being a childcare provider..

help their husbands as one salaty won't cut it

Help their husbands? In what way are they helping their husbands? They're not helping themselves or the family? If you look at this from the perspective of 'helping the husband' then there will be a problem in there somewhere. Am a husband. If I can't make ends meet the whole family suffers and the wife isn't helping me, she'll be helping the family.

MrBeansForReal2• 7 years ago

We live in an economic system in which we all need to pull our weight.

I love this comment, so I'm going to start here. This very sentence: "We live in an economic system in which we all need to pull our weight". By all you mean which class? Poor? Middle class? Middle-upper class? Rich? Wealthy?

Don't you see how we're tricking ourselves by believing in this false male/female dychotomy? Let's look at it from Marxist perpective: Poor -- male and female work Middle Class -- male and female work Middle Upper Class -- sometimes one of the partners male OR female will work, while the other will not. Upper Class -- both men and women don't work. They earn passive income on their investments, business onwership, real estate ownership, stocks and bonds profits.

So, while we here are arguing if women "should" work or not, the healthy attitude seems to be to do anything possible to be as high on the ladder above as possible. Because the reasons if we work or we don't work have nothing to do with what we believe or want. But they have everything to do with our social status, or as Marx would call it "class". If you are poor you and your partner work. If you are wealthy you and your partner don't work. If you're in one of the middle classes it's a combination. Talking about "women rights" in this scenario is just side-tracking and being blinded by the reality of social classes and social status.

This being said, there is bunch, really a lot of research in psychology strongly suggesting that women are attracted to males who are highly successful. Basically poor woman (low class) will be definitely attracted to a guy in higher class. Based on his class / social status alone. This is basic science of psychology backed by a lot of research. Declining simple biology for signaling reasons just looks so... desperate? (sorry, couldn't resist myself)

the_watcher2• 7 years ago

The dirty secret is that most women work because they HAVE TO. It's not a choice. If you can have a house, nice car, four kids, vacation home, 40 hour week, no credit card debt, no school debt, and all of that on carpenter salary -- why not to enjoy life instead of spending 50-60 hours at the office?

I think you can replace "women" with people and make this statement more accurate. I don't see why this would be unique to women, whether you agree or disagree with the "people work because they have to, not want to" statement.

ouid2• 7 years ago

That too is an undergeneralization. People work because they want to just like they breathe because they want to. Claiming that there is some sort of innate desire to work or not work is ludicrous.

stvswn2• 7 years ago

I agree generally (I believe you may be discounting that many women do want careers and the joys of motherhood and it's hard). I disagree with some commenters that this is an overly gendered idea: while it's true that there are plenty of exceptions, it's definitely true that men and women, as a broad generalization, feel differently. While many men feel a sense of pride if they are able to work hard enough and be successful enough to support their family, many women in the same situation feel guilt for missing out on their kids' upbringing during the day (again, since someone is going to say it, I'm aware there are many exceptions). I think the author missed another difference compared with past decades, however: it used to be more common than it is now for grandparents to cover childcare of young children while both parents worked (or in part-time support of a busy mother with many kids). This seems to be less common than it once was, and it might be because we are now two generations into a trend of people waiting much longer to have kids than they once did. As a child, my grandmother was in her 50s and 60s, and was able to take on a good deal of childcare in her retirement. If two generations each wait until 35 to have a first kid, then the grandparent of a 5 year old is 75 and less likely to be able to be relied upon for childcare. Added to this is the fact that the labor market for childcare looks a lot like the labor market for elder care in that both are career options for similarly situated applicants, and there just isn't enough labor supply.

mikeleung• 7 years ago

I'm terrified by the fact that this sexist reply is currently the top comment on this thread, so clearly there are many people voting it up, in addition to the fact that many men(and only men) adding their personal takes about how they know why WOMEN make the choices they do.

No wonder there is so much gender inequality in the workplace.

This does not belong on HN.

rb808• 7 years ago

Wow you're the second guy I met that went home to a good salary. Is this a manager role I guess? My cousin in law is making like 10 zl/hr so I'm not sure what is going on.

avgDev• 7 years ago

Wait...were you making 330k in Poland? Because that would be insane.

jperras6• 7 years ago

It doesn't have to be this way.

Québec has had subsidized daycare for almost 25 years, and the program literally pays for itself (and more!) via increased income taxes from parents that would have otherwise chosen to stay at home.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/12/affordable-daycare-su...

In Montreal, Quebec’s largest city, a day of child care cost on average $10 in 2016
Quebec’s program, which introduced low-fee, universal child care in the province in 1996, centered on a few core premises: that if the government helped make child care accessible and affordable, it would allow more women to join the workforce, increase childhood development and social skills, and ultimately raise revenue for the government through increased payroll taxes. In at least two of those objectives, the scheme has been widely successful, says Pierre Fortin, an economist at the University of Quebec at Montreal, and the country’s leading expert in the economics of subsidized child care: It’s increased participation of women in the workforce, and cost efficiency.
Since beginning the program more than two decades ago, Quebec has seen the rate of women age 26 to 44 in the workforce reach 85 percent, the highest in the world.
Early estimates anticipated the program would generate 40 percent of its costs via increased income taxes from working parents. Instead, it generated income taxes to cover more than 100 percent of the cost. “In other words, it costs zero, or the cost is negative,” Fortin said. “The governments are making money out of the program.”

The program isn't perfect; there are a variety of issues that have popped up over the years, but since we were literally the first in the world to offer such a comprehensive, sweeping, subsidized plan for the entire provincial population of ~7.1MM in 1996 that was then used as a model in various Scandinavian countries, I'd call it a rousing success.

jawns3• 7 years ago

I'm curious about the other side of the coin: Parents who would like to stay at home and provide care to their own children, but who feel as if they cannot because of financial constraints. Does this program do anything to help them?

jperras6• 7 years ago

That's actually one of the not-so-great facets of this program.

It demands a minimum of 80% participation, meaning that if you wanted to stay at home to take care of your children but use subsidized daycare 1-2 days a week to give yourself a break, it's currently not possible. If a child is absent for more than 20% of the "regular" schedule, then the daycare loses that subsidy spot due to it being under-utilized.

There's a movement to help correct this, but it's not simple due to how funds and resources are allocated and planned for.

jaltekruse• 7 years ago

I'm not sure this is the strongest case you could make for saying this ought to be the responsibility of the government. If people can make more working than childcare costs, then they can make their own decision about how to invest their own time and money. Why does the government need to pay for this, if they argument is ultimately that the wages of women now working is what ends up paying the cost of the service?

I am generally not one to rail against the government running efficient programs for general welfare, I support single payer healthcare in the US and many progressive policies. I do however think we need to consider the line where anything you buy has the government involved in re-distributing resources to make it cheaper for people with less money.

Ultimately, it might be good to allow economic forces to produce an economy again where single income households can afford to raise children, regardless of the gender of the parent who is earning an income. More work doesn't always mean societies or families ended up better off, parents spending time raising kids should not be seen as just sunken cost because we could have gotten tax money out of them.

yorwba• 7 years ago

If people can make more working than childcare costs, then they can make their own decision about how to invest their own time and money. Why does the government need to pay for this, if they argument is ultimately that the wages of women now working is what ends up paying the cost of the service?

Before a stay-at-home parent enters the workforce, they may not have the money to pay for the childcare that would free up time to work. Essentially only governments have both the money and the incentive to invest in making childcare widely available.

pfortuny• 7 years ago

“It would allow more women to enter the workforce”.

I understand what the quote means but, honestly, this is one of the big wrong points of our society: that caring for the children full-time is NOT being part of the workforce.

This is one of those cultural ideas embedded in XXI Century logic which only does harm and transmits the wrong message: people’s life is as valuable as the money the work or the “job” they have, and of course, caring for the family is not a proper job.

That is so wrong on so many levels.

I am not claiming that it is easy, the best or the most engaging or whatever. I only claim that society has given up on valuing raising one’s children and keeping the household together, and this is terrible.

meheleventyone• 7 years ago

I don’t think that it’s that people don’t value those things but that people are unable to have the luxury to act on that belief. I’m also not convinced that the choice was made by the broad base of society.

orev• 7 years ago

I think you’re being overly picky and cherry-picking your argument here. I don’t know anyone who thinks that child rearing is not hard work, and all agree that it is valuable.

But in the context of this discussion, “productivity” is an economic term for the production of goods or services, and the generation of income for the workers. Child rearing does neither of those things directly, so as an economic activity, it doesn’t register and thus those parents are not part of the workforce. Again, that does not mean it is not a valuable thing to do for both the child and society, but it also does not directly add to GDP, generate income taxes, etc.

bananabreakfast• 7 years ago

You're completely missing the point of the parent comment and misunderstanding the concept of what the workforce is.

Being a part of the workforce in this context means you are contributing income taxes. A full time parent contributes $0 in income taxes from their labor and hence is not a part of the workforce.

The value of raising a child full time is not at issue here and you're attacking a straw-man. A subsidized day care gives a parent the option of returning to the work force if they wish. This could be because they want to work, or because they have to to feed their family. The parent comment was pointing out that this choice does not result in a deficit to society but rather in a net surplus which makes it worth it to implement and offer regardless of how parents choose to raise their children.

darawk2• 7 years ago

I think you're missing the point of the "childcare is not part of the workforce" argument. It's not that it isn't work, and it's not that it isn't important. It's that, in many cases, the economic comparative advantage for the (often) female caretaker of those children is not being fully utilized.

That is to say, caring for a child is a service that costs X. But it is being performed by a person who's skills are valued at Y, where Y > X. That represents an economic loss that doesn't have to happen, if instead you substitute someone who's most highly valued skill is worth X for that caretaker.

Now, that ignores the benefit of having a child's own parents care for them, which may or may not change how you evaluate the question depending on your perspective on these things.

dobleboble• 7 years ago

A tax credit of $10/day/child for stay at home parents might make sense?

tharne4• 7 years ago

Agreed. There are very few things in life as important as raising one's children well. To say that we should incentivize or otherwise coerce people into outsourcing the upbringing of their own children so they can punch a time-clock is beyond misguided. We've elevated "careers" to an almost god-like status where we end up engineering our lives to serve our careers instead of the other way around.

com2kid7• 7 years ago

This is one of those cultural ideas embedded in XXI Century logic which only does harm and transmits the wrong message: people’s life is as valuable as the money the work or the “job” they have, and of course, caring for the family is not a proper job.

First off, what if someone doesn't want to be a stay at home parent? Why force traditional values on them?

But, in terms of pure economics, let's put it at an extreme.

Child-care is too expensive, a woman who would otherwise go on to make breakthroughs in medical science stays at home.

The lost value to society is in the literal millions.

This scenario only has to be repeated a few times before it becomes economically irresponsible to not offer subsidized child care.

And, given how large the population is, this situation will happen.

The ideal of capitalism is that people are rewarded for their contributions to society overall, by providing value for others (ideally increasing net happiness!) people are reimbursed.

Now I'm not going to even try and say that is what always happens, obviously things have gotten a bit off kilter, but by and large I'd say that for many jobs out there, that is still true.

And the thing is, some people have an outsized impact, potential is on a curve, and if a single person on the far end of the "can help out humanity' curve is not enabled to do all that they can do to help out, then we all lose out.

chris57452• 7 years ago

I understand the spirit of your position, but I think many or most people certainly value “homemaking” for lack of a better term. It’s not a “job” in the sense of monetary revenue, but it makes having a “job” possible for a partner, and has indirect monetary value in addition to the non-quantifiable value of the role itself. Like many “jobs”, homemaking is almost always thankless. I think instead of trying to get our caretaker(s) on the cover of Fortune or whatever we should just thank them more.

cjmcqueen2• 7 years ago

Completely agree. Raising a family is work and it does add to the greater good of the world. And, it's not being measured properly, which leads oeople to assume that dual income is the "right goal" when it's an intrinsic bias to the situation.

decebalus14• 7 years ago

I understand what the quote means but, honestly, this is one of the big wrong points of our society: that caring for the children full-time is NOT being part of the workforce.

I see it more as a way of self-sufficiency and financial independence from the spouse. I believe one of the wrong points in our 'free' society is that it's perfectly acceptable to basically rely on your spouse for financial stability. That is a frequent source of abuse, resentment, unfulfilled dreams, and the regular 'i raised MY kids' narrative during divorce proceedings etc..

people’s life is as valuable as the money the work or the “job” they have,

Unfortunately this is the world we live in, especially with the lack of social safety net provided by the state. Someone must go out and make money in order to sustain a certain level of quality of life.

whytaka• 7 years ago

But it is. It’s just that it’s made more communal.

I don’t really see the moral panic in having children being raised together in groups rather than by a dedicated or househusband.

empath752• 7 years ago

Maybe we should pay parents to stay home and watch their kids instead of subsidizing day care.

User232• 7 years ago

It’s always struck me as strange. Working for a boss that doesn’t care about you past the next review is liberating, but working for a family that loves you more than anything is oppressive.

fortran77• 7 years ago

Also why can't men take care of the children and women work?

If childcare is so expensive, maybe in two-parent households, one parent's job should be to raise the children while the other works.

richardw• 7 years ago

It's an incredible contribution, but in general childrearing isn't a skill you'd use in other areas of work. So the time spent on it is wasted compared to the extra e.g. 5 years becoming more competitive.

pergadad• 7 years ago

Ask yourself: is caring for my 2-3 kids at home, cleaning the house, cooking, laundry, ... Really the most interesting way I want to spend my life?

There are some (mostly women) who choose this. There are many many more (mostly women) who do this because they don't see any other choice, either due to cultural pressure or due to financials.

There are also studies that show it's good for the kids to be with other kids and in a more structured learning environment than a home can offer.

It's not that childcare is undervalued it's that most women want to see themselves as more than just responsible for bearing and rearing children.

What you are defending is the classical conservative relationship model. Nothing wrong with that. Indeed it can be pleasant for many people. For many more it is not a satisfactory way to live their life. It's also often not satisfactory for the working partner that rarely gets to see their kids.

Now, where it gets interesting would be more flexible models like they are common in the Nordics, e.g. both parents working 60-80% and alternating childcare and household duties on different days/weeks. THAT is a progressive and for all sides positive model.

ativzzz2• 7 years ago

Guess you didn't read the original article, because it mentions the exact program you linked towards the bottom about Quebec. One negative found was

But young Canadians who were eligible for the program experienced, as teenagers, “a significant worsening in self-reported health and in life satisfaction” relative to Canadians from other provinces.

So a success for parents and for the economy, but not for the well being of the kids.

jperras6• 7 years ago

I did read the article. It didn't link to the CityLab article that I posted, which I found to be a bit easier to read.

If you read the meta-analysis paper that they link to that describes the "not so good for the well being of the kids", you'll see that they're comparing children that attend daycare to children that are wholly raised at home with one or more parents:

A recent view of effects of previous child care exposure on outcomes in adolescence suggest that more hours in child care in general does not affect test scores, but has a negative effect on non-cognitive outcomes, such as impulsivity and risk-taking (Vandell et al., 2010).

These negative findings have nothing at all to do with subsidized vs. non-subsidized childcare.

dang2• 7 years ago

"Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

mherdeg• 7 years ago

Interesting!

Any response to the view that universal-childcare-educated children are "DQN" from over in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21745453 ? (I'm not sure I understand it.)

jperras6• 7 years ago

As I've linked to in previous replies, all the studies[1] I've seen are meta-analyses that compare kids in Quebec to kids in other provinces. I don't see anything that accounts (nor could they, really) for the huge variety of factors that can differ among children in the same age group across vastly different provinces. Quebec is markedly different from the rest of the country and North America in more ways than our socialized universal daycare programme.

Moreover, they are comparing kids that are in daycare vs. kids that are raised solely by one or more of their parents; the fact that the daycare is "universal" or subsidized doesn't have anything to do with it. Moreover, the studies show that the kids are effectively more impulsive and more prone to risk-taking, and have found zero correlation with their cognitive abilities.

1. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21571.pdf

epanchin• 7 years ago

Do you think inflation has been a significant outcome of this program?

astrodust• 7 years ago

Quebec hasn't become measurably more expensive than other Canadian cities in the last 25 years and is way more affordable than a comparable city like Toronto.

glofish4• 7 years ago

The article specifically calls out the Quebec experiment as having a negative impact on the children:

So, did the Quebec child-care experiment “work”? Yes, for parents and public financing. Perhaps not for the kids.

jperras6• 7 years ago

And it was about as vague as could possibly be:

But young Canadians who were eligible for the program experienced, as teenagers, “a significant worsening in self-reported health and in life satisfaction” relative to Canadians from other provinces. So, did the Quebec child-care experiment “work”? Yes, for parents and public financing. Perhaps not for the kids.

The paper itself expands on it a little bit more:

A recent view of effects of previous child care exposure on outcomes in adolescence suggest that more hours in child care in general does not affect test scores, but has a negative effect on non-cognitive outcomes, such as impulsivity and risk-taking (Vandell et al., 2010).

These negative findings have nothing at all to do with subsidized vs. non-subsidized childcare. They're essentially comparing children in daycare vs. children that are able to be raised by one or more parents, full-time.

Would kids be better off being raised by their parents more than being raised by specialized childcare workers? Perhaps. But not everyone is given that opportunity, regardless.

werdnapk2• 7 years ago

I really don't understand some of these opinions.

My kids all started daycare quite young (less than a year old) and they LOVE it. I suppose it entirely depends on the daycare just as it can depend on the school your child attends when they're older.

The daycare my kids go to have plenty of activities... they do crafts, draw, have plenty of books and toys, play outside, "sports" and dance classes. There's no way I'd have the time or attention span to be able to do all of that with my kids unfortunately. Some parents can do it, but I think most parents need a break more often than not.

F_J_H2• 7 years ago

"pays for itself...via increased income taxes"?

It's a "nit pick" for sure, but in my understanding, something that "pays for itself" is not dependent on government subsidies. Quebec has some of the highest income taxes in the country - you pay for such services one way or another.

Plus, according to the linked article, there is not enough space in the subsidized program to meet demand, so there are private options available, which must be paid for out of pocket and covered by a tax rebate. According the to the article, the private options do not provide the same standard of care.

jperras6• 7 years ago

It's a "nit pick" for sure, but in my understanding, something that "pays for itself" is not dependent on government subsidies. Quebec has some of the highest income taxes in the country - you pay for such services one way or another.

The subsidies that are required are offset by the increased labour force participation that occurs as a direct result of said subsidies. Conversely, if the subsidies disappeared, then there's a good chance that many of those currently employed parents would have to make a choice – do I remain in the workforce and pay $1-2k/month for childcare, or do I quit my job and raise my child/children?

I've had relatives that live in Ontario that had to make this choice. Daycare in Toronto is $1600/month, and can be around $2500/month if you have two children. If one of the parents is pulling in $50,000/year (net pay of $38,979), and you have to drop close to $30,000 for childcare, for 2-4 years, is it even worth staying at your job?

jgon• 7 years ago

It's also hard to pry apart what "pays for itself" and what doesn't. Quebec doesn't just have incredibly high taxes, they are subsidized by the rest of the productive provinces in the country to the tune of about 10% of their yearly budget. A 10% cut in spending would be classified as incredibly harsh austerity in most cases, and so taking any sort of predictive value from the success of programs run by Quebec is very hard. It should also be noted that for all of these efforts to give incredibly generous benefits to Quebec parents, their birthrate is still among the lowest in Canada and buoyed up only by immigration. So it isn't even really helping people have more children.

ergothus• 7 years ago

something that "pays for itself" is not dependent on government subsidies.

I think you are ignoring the aggregate here. A govt program can "pay for itself" in ways private action cant because the govt can help smooth out risk among the participants.

Your point that this is ultimately funded by taxpayers is correct, but that doesnt mean the program cant generate more in new tax revenue than it costs. Like roads, education, and other areas, reliable and affordable child care can enable a lot.

(Note I have no actual knowledge of the specifics, so I'm arguing what is possible, not what is definitely happening)

chris57452• 7 years ago

How does the program affect the third factor- childhood development and social skills? Also, making money is fine, but are people happier? Healthier? Thanks for sharing.

throwaway_tech• 7 years ago

... the program literally pays for itself (and more!) via increased income taxes from parents that would have otherwise chosen to stay at home.

In the US both the left and right play a game where the only way to increase tax revenue is tax cuts to the rich. It has never worked...but politicians be damned if they will ever try anything other than trickle down economics.

unicornporn• 7 years ago

It doesn't have to be this way.

No it doesn't. Rates for Stockholm, Sweden (PDF): https://forskola.stockholm/globalassets/forskola-och-skola/f...

In short:

FULL-TIME RATES

Full-time rates apply to children in the ages of 1-3, who are in childcare for more than 30 hours a week.

Child 1: 3% of household income up to maximum a fee of 1425 kr/month (roughly 149 USD)

Child 2: 2% of household income up to maximum a fee of 950 kr/month (roughly 99 USD)

Child 3: 1% of household income up to maximum a fee of 475 kr/month (roughly 50 USD)

PART-TIME RATES

Child 1: 2% of household income up to maximum a fee of 950 kr/month

Child 2: 1% of household income up to maximum a fee of 475 kr/month

Child 3: 1% of household income up to maximum a fee of 475 kr/month

Every family receives child allowance[1]. Child allowance for one child is 1250 kr/month for one child. Two children: 2650 kr/month. Three chidren: 4480 kr/month.

[1] https://www.forsakringskassan.se/privatpers/foralder/nar_bar...

briandear2• 7 years ago

Sweden has a top marginal tax rate of 70% that kicks in at around $98,000. That $149 per month is deceptive when you are paying very high tax rates.

User232• 7 years ago

the program literally pays for itself (and more!) via increased income taxes from parents that would have otherwise chosen to stay at home.

Getting around 50-80k of untaxed labor value for the household is an excellent reason for any family that can manage to have one parent do the childcare job. It’s not so much an affordability issue as it is a cash flow management issue.

steve1977• 7 years ago

If the program pays for itself via increased income taxes, it's still as expensive. It's just the money flow that is different. As it involves the state, it might be even a bit more expensive due to overhead cost (it might also not, if it's not profit oriented).

whb07• 7 years ago

next they should make an article titled “Why getting into great physical shape requires a lot of effort”.

Is anyone really learning anything from this article? Or is this just a general complaint looking for a boogeyman.

imbusy111• 7 years ago

When women work, their hours are actually evaluated in monetary terms and the cost is added to the cost of childcare instead of ignoring their unpaid working hours. That's just better accounting.

SkyBelow5• 7 years ago

So the three reasons given by the article.

* Primarily labor driven. You can't automate, you can't reduce hours, you squeeze 9 hours of child care out of an 8 hour workday.

* Regulation. This prevents the one way to lower labor cost: increasing child to adult ratio. Laws prevent this.

* Real estate costs. Child care can't be moved to cheaper cities and there is even limits on the extent it can be moved within a city before it becomes to costly (in time) for parents to utilize it.

Overall... I think the second reason can be wrapped up into the first one. While legally mandated insurance and such do have an impact, the biggest impact is the limit on child to adult ratio which has the largest impact on costs and that is because it limits the efficiency a single worker can have. If the ratio is 4 kids to 1 adult, the cost will never be below 1/4 the adult's salary. If you expect the adult to be paid a living wage, then in terms of others earning a living wage, 25% of their income will have to go to child care, and that is before counting any taxes or other costs.

namdnay2• 7 years ago

That’s also before subsidies. You can subsidise so it never exceeds X% of the household income, which is what they do in France

SkyBelow5• 7 years ago

The end result is still the same when you average it out. If your ratio is 4 to 1, the average wage of 1 child care worker has to be split between 4 adults, meaning that if they are being paid equal amounts, 25% of net income has to go to child care.

Even if that money actually comes mostly from the top 1%, the average money per person works out to the same. This explains why the cost is so high. With regards to explain why the cost is so high, if that cost is being paid by the parents directly or by the rich via taxes and subsidies is not a factor in that cost, only in how it is paid.

georgeburdell• 7 years ago

As the article notes, the reason is regulation and women entering the workforce.

Honestly I don’t see a problem. We as a society have decided that we would rather be 100% safe rather than accept risk for lower cost, so we enforce strict ratios on children to caretaker ratios, license people, make in-home sprinklers mandatory, etc. $16k per child per year in Massachusetts is that cost.

For what it’s worth, none of my friends put infants in daycare due to the cost. They either got foreign au pairs or hired someone under the table for cash (very common in immigrant communities)

jefftk2• 7 years ago

foreign au pairs

https://www.steffanslegal.com/blog/first-circuit-holds-that-...

sol_remmy2• 7 years ago

For what it’s worth, none of my friends put infants in daycare due to the cost. They either got foreign au pairs or hired someone under the table for cash (very common in immigrant communities)

I'm hoping your friends are libertarians who disagree with the current political zeitgeist in Massachusetts.

It would be very depressing to hear that your friends are Liberals who publicly support these daycare laws and then privately flaunt them by 1) favoring non-American workers and 2) paying them in cash to avoid taxes

kelnos16• 7 years ago

Unfortunately I think that kind of cognitive dissonance is quite common. People feel the need to make sure "everyone is safe", but then believe their ability to judge how to best do that supersedes the law. Those laws are for "other people", not us.

vturner2• 7 years ago

This may be somewhat off-topic, but I'm often surprised that leftist policies like the article advocates are often proposed at a national level? Why is this? Why not propose a state-sponsored child-care system in a leftist state - California, Washington, Massachusetts, etc. I'm not trying to start a war here, simply genuinely interested why people on the left push national social programs versus propose them in very wealthy left-leaning states?

Miner49er2• 7 years ago

This is just a guess, but in America basically all taxes are taken at the federal level. It's easier to move that money around then add on state taxes.

AnimalMuppet3• 7 years ago

"Basically all"? I disagree. I think that state taxes total about half of federal taxes.

ng124• 7 years ago

Because those states already taxed their citizens to the breaking point. It's much easier to pass it off to the federal government where you can't escape by moving to Florida.

vturner2• 7 years ago

That is interesting. I wonder how other national programs are generally funded (or would be funded, Medicare For All for example). Are they massive wealth transfers from low tax to high tax states?

wklauss• 7 years ago

They are, even at a more local level. New York City, for example, has a free pre-k (4yo) program. But in order to be effective, some of these policies need to be applied nationwide. In other cases, state budgets are simply too constrained for them. Like someone said in the comments, this is a program that could paid itself with the income tax from both parents working, but in the US the majority of income tax goes to the federal government, I think.

kelnos16• 7 years ago

Like someone said in the comments, this is a program that could paid itself with the income tax from both parents working

That's a bit of a weird point to make, though. That income tax is already going toward paying for government programs. If you divert some of that to pay for early child care, some other programs will be left under- or unfunded.

WhompingWindows4• 7 years ago

Why would an activist's article propose a state-level policy? The point of activism is to push the agenda forward by demanding a lot MORE than you can practically get via compromise.

vibrio• 7 years ago

Just a guess but the areas where they may have the greatest economic impact may not be the wealthy states like CA, MA, WA, but some of the poorer states.

qqqwerty• 7 years ago

They do, to some extent. See this link for example[1]. But states are constrained in ways that the federal government is not.

The main difference is that the federal government can 'print money' to fund spending (the most recent tax cuts were essentially funded that way) and hope that long term economic growth from the policy change negates the increased deficit.

The second reason is that the Federal government takes more of the tax pie than states do. According to this link[2], the federal government gets 65%, states take 20%, and cities/municipalities 15%. And keep in mind that a good chunk of the federal money goes back to the states via federal programs. So if you are going to target your policy initiatives, might as well aim for the biggest slice of the pie.

[1] https://www.chs-ca.org/child-care-payment-program [2] https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-breakdown...

shantly4• 7 years ago

The free rider problem is usually the reason We Can't Have Nice Things at the state level.

organsnyder2• 7 years ago

Many states (perhaps all?) must have a balanced budget every year. This means that these programs also need to have financing attached to them—so your free childcare plan either includes a new/higher tax, and/or cuts to other programs. Makes it a much harder sell.

randyrand• 7 years ago

There’s a very dramatic “I’m right and your wrong” narcissism on the left, that feels stronger than the narcisismo on the right or center - led by stronger emotions for their beliefs than the others. I’m not entirely sure why but it almost seems tautologically explained by the left more strongly following their emotions.

Left people feel emotionally obligated to spread their “correct” opinions that “help people” as far as possible. Nationally > state.

ecoled_ame3• 7 years ago

I'm glad the population is mind-bogglingly large so I don't feel obligated to have kids. I can save a lot of money and enjoy peace & quiet while I get better at skateboarding and science and playing video games. Plus, no wife. I never have to do things I don't want to. I never have to please anybody. It rocks.

ngngngng• 7 years ago

You should feel obligated.

I believe your opinion is similar to climate change denial since all the experts on the subject disagree with you.

ecoled_ame3• 7 years ago

Sounds like extra work and and an unwanted nuisance to my life of leisure. Plus I love alone time, I could never live with a woman long enough to breed with her.

Whenever I walk in public, all I can think is jeez ... there are so many random people. Seems like we need better planning. People just have kids on whim, to satisfy themselves, like a life goal. It doesn't make much sense to me. I think mostly ladies want children.

glofish4• 7 years ago

don't badger the man,

the world (and Earth) is much better off with fewer people,

it is called quorum-sensing in science, many organisms stop reproducing then they overpopulate, humanity should do the same, if it is a philosophy that is followed, so much better, everyone is better off

myu701• 7 years ago

I'll bite.

Why should that user feel obligated to have children?

There are other users on this site (I'm not one of them) that argue that the world is suffering from overpopulation. I'm interested to hear your perspective as to why the opposite is not only okay, but imperative.

aSplash0fDerp• 7 years ago

You sound like you may fall into the category of having a brood later in life (the 50yo+ untethered sugar daddy demographic).

IMO, unless you find a partner that's going the same direction, you're doing the right thing while you're young.

Its a nice perk that in modern times we can have children in our 50's and still live long enough to see them into adulthood (though maybe not see them raise a family if they follow in your footsteps).

I think the trifecta you're looking for is.. No Kids, No Alimony... And NO CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS during the best years of your life. If they call you selfish, ask them if they regret their freedom of choice. Theres a good chance they were never free.

pseudobry• 7 years ago

Sometimes I think childcare isn't expensive at all. There are these creatures I've nearly sacrificed my sanity for during their infant years, maybe got diminished mental capacity due to lack of sleep, given blood, sweat, tears, would risk life and limb for them...and here I go giving a total stranger $20/hour to (hopefully) do that in my stead for a short while.

giarc4• 7 years ago

I agree... we pay a dayhome (a licensed childcare in someone's home) $875/month which includes 9 hours of care per day and 3'ish meals per day. That's like $40/day or like $4/hour. Where else are you going to get that value?!

JustSomeNobody3• 7 years ago

The median household income in the US is $59K. Paying $875/month isn't easy by any stretch of the imagination.

What value.

kauffj2• 7 years ago

Child care is likely expensive for at least two reasons:

- Child care is a superior good (in the economics sense). As we get richer, we almost certainly spend more of our money on it, as we do in other areas that are substantially driven by signalling (see health care, education).

- It is absurdly regulated and there is nothing close to a free market. My family participates in a child care sharing arrangement that results in several families regularly breaking the law. That is because it is illegal to watch more than 4 children (if at least one of them is not yours) without state licensing.

zeveb• 7 years ago

While it’s admirable for companies to fill the day-care vacuum, the absence of a national solution is an indictment of American policy.

California is very different from Vermont which is very different from Mississippi. It doesn't make any more sense for the three to have identical child-care systems than it does for Denmark, Italy and Lithuania.

I don't find his argument that only the federal government is large enough to capture the upside particularly compelling, and his straw-man counterarguments are … strawmen.

Moreover, it's also important to understand what the second-order results of any state child-care policy are. While parents do mistreat their children, I am reasonably sure that child-care workers mistreat children more often. If so, a child-care policy which substitutes non-parent care for parent care will likely result in increased rates of mistreatment.

seanmcdirmid• 7 years ago

While parents do mistreat their children, I am reasonably sure that child-care workers mistreat children more often.

Why would you think this? I’m pretty sure there are way more cases of child abuse by parents than child abuse by day care workers. Day care workers don’t deal with children with much privacy, there are other kids and day care workers, whereas parents have none of those constraints. Also, for day care workers, it’s just a job, vs. parents who are more emotionally caught up in taking care of their kids (and could make more mistakes due to emotions).

kcolford• 7 years ago

Furthermore, there are significant screenings that happen before a child care worker can become one while there's virtually none before someone becomes a parent. It's only after the fact that an abuser is caught.

shantly4• 7 years ago

Moreover, it's also important to understand what the second-order results of any state child-care policy are. While parents do mistreat their children, I am reasonably sure that child-care workers mistreat children more often. If so, a child-care policy which substitutes non-parent care for parent care will likely result in increased rates of mistreatment.

I am friends with lots of K-12 teachers and have known people who work with kids and families in various other capacities. I would absolutely not care to bet any amount of money that child care workers abuse or mistreat kids at higher rates than parents do.

kelnos16• 7 years ago

While parents do mistreat their children, I am reasonably sure that child-care workers mistreat children more often.

I wouldn't expect that to necessarily be true at all.

Regardless, it's irrelevant: with more and more families opting to go dual-income, childcare services will continue to become more and more necessary. This problem isn't going away; it's only going to get worse.

legitster• 7 years ago

It really comes down to the ratio. Our state has a 4-1 ratio for infants (which is entirely reasonable). You are basically paying for 1/4 of a person's time. If you want to put them into a daycare where the worker is adequately paid, that's $6000 a year alone, let alone overhead costs for facilities/admin.

No matter who pays for it, raising children is time consuming. And time is becoming more valuable.

jefftk2• 7 years ago

For reference, MA ratios (some of the most restrictive in the country) are:

    1-14m: 7:2
    15-32m: 9:2
    33m-7y: 10:1
     -- https://child-familyservices.org/wp-content/uploads/ma-regulations.pdf

distances• 7 years ago

Just as comparison, in Finland the max ratios are quite close:

<3y: 4:1, max 12 children per group (3 educators)

3y: 8:1, max 24 children per group (3 educators again)

Two thirds of educators need to have a bachelor's degree in early childhood education.

snarf21• 7 years ago

Exactly right. People also forget that while the parent works 8 hours a day, the kid is dropped off before and after commute time which means the kid may be in daycare for 9 or 10 hours. So if you get infant care at $175/week for four infants divided by 50 hours, you get $14/hour and that is gross revenue to the business. If you happen to lose an infant to a parental move, now you are losing money for that class. You can do better on the 10+ kids because the ratios are much better.

As you said, we are valuing time more and more. I can't imagine what childcare would costs with a $15/hour minimum wage. A lot of mothers would probably be forced to give up their job.

toomuchtodo• 7 years ago

Isn’t that market forces valuing a mother (or one parent, regardless of gender) at home raising their kid(s) more valuable than at the job they’d be giving up? I'm not sure I see a problem with the economy tilting towards parents being parents versus outsourcing their childcare (within reason, when one parent can comfortably support their family).

anon4lol• 7 years ago

We just went through the process of finding childcare for our infant. Originally, we were going to have my wife's parents move in to help, but her father was suddenly diagnosed with lung cancer, forcing us to scramble for child care. With my wife's student loans, it wouldn't be prudent for her to not work.

Childcare costs more than twice as much as our mortgage. We live in a blue state where many businesses feel compelled to pay $15/hour for unskilled labor. We interviewed child care providers who wanted $18-$22 per hour with no certifications, degrees, or training. We looked at au pairs, but the agencies all wanted $8k-$10k up front with no guarantees.

thu2111• 7 years ago

I wonder how the ratios are decided. 4:1 sounds pretty generous. There are families out there with stay at home mums that have 5 kids, and the mothers there have to do housework too. So the government is mandating here the child:carer hour ratio is better than some actual families.

Do infants actually need the kind of attention these ratios imply? What happened to the era when families with lots of kids would just let them play outside all day?

aidenn04• 7 years ago

Infant != kids.

Twins are quite stressful for mothers, and 4 infants would be like having quadruplets. Usually the ratios continue to rise as the children get older. Here's California's rules, for example. From kindergarten (66 months age on average) and up it's 14:1

- Infants (birth to 18 months old) -1:3

- Toddlers (18 months to 36 months old) -1:4

- Preschool (36 months to enrollment in kindergarten) - 1:8

- Children enrolled in kindergarten through 14 years old - 1:14

jkeuhlen• 7 years ago

Most of those families with multiple kids don't have 5 infants, but rather ages of the children are spread out. The ratio GP is talking about is, I believe, a limit so that infants are not neglected due to lack of time on the caretakers part. Infants do need lots of care and attention specifically during early development.

ouid2• 7 years ago

"In Massachusetts, which requires one caregiver for every three infants, the average annual cost is more than $16,000. In Mississippi, which allows a one-to-five ratio, the cost is less than $5,000."

Even if the workers were making 100% of the costs of childcare, This means that the Mississippi employee is being paid half as much as the Massachusetts employee. Mississippi's economy is clearly not comparable to Massachusetts's economy. Why is the Atlantic treating this comparison as valid?

ben77993• 7 years ago

On top of that the MA regulations are different in other ways. Any day care center in MA that is $16k+ you will find that 90%+ of the staff have at least a Bachelor's degree in Early Childhood Education. Probably not the case in a place where the average cost is less than $5000.

maerF0x02• 7 years ago

Goodhart: When the metric becomes the goal, it ceases to be a good measure... (paraphrase)

Seems like we've been moving all domestic productivity into the realm of Taxable GDP. Some say it's a conspiracy, for me it's just an observation.

Home cooked meals has become meal prep kits, home delivery. ChildCare has been outsourced (out of the home or a small community of cooperating parents). Household cleaning to cleaning services etc.

kelnos16• 7 years ago

Unfortunately I think you just have to frame thing in terms of economic measures in order to get certain policymakers to take you seriously. While some will recognize that having well-adjusted, well-educated, well-taken-care-of young children is something the government should help fund, others will take the attitude that the parents are solely responsible for that, and we shouldn't be "wasting" money on doing something the parents should be doing already. You'll also get arguments against "interfering" in parenting.

But many policymakers will react positively if you relate new policies in terms of the economic growth they promise. It's difficult to do, in this case, though, but I get why they're trying.

strbean• 7 years ago

On the other hand, there are huge advantages to specialization. Professional cooks are less likely to cause food-borne illness, and can generally cook tastier, more varied meals.

Same goes for any other domestic work. Someone who cleans professionally can clean a house faster and better than someone who works in an office 8 hours a day. In fact, I'd bet a professional cleaner typically is faster and does a better job than a stay-at-home spouse who divides their time between every conceivable domestic task.

intrepidhero• 7 years ago

What if I don't want to follow the specialization trend to it's logical conclusion? I think there is a cost to personal well being that's not being considered here.

tathougies3• 7 years ago

The easiest solution to 'child care' -- allow children to come to the office. Most people have cushy office jobs. Kids 0 - 5 do not take up much space.

Parents can take staggered lunch breaks to watch the children. Children would be in a common area that'd be appropriately gated off. In dual-income families, either mom or dad can take the child to their office.

Benefits:

(1) Both parents can work and be with their child

(2) Children see adults working, not just playing. This is good as children want to be like adults

(3) Non-parents get to spend time with babies and children, which is wonderful!

(4) For nursing working mothers, having the baby there would make nursing much easier than pumping. Babies could even be given little bassinets to sleep and wiggle around in near mom and dad, if they want that.

(5) The child/children can share in mom and dad's lunch.

(6) Cute babies in offices!!! How great is that!?

Speaking from personal experience, when my colleagues have been forced due to circumstance to bring their young children in to the office, the experience has always been positive. However, my colleagues seem worried that one of us may be offended and apologize incessantly. We should stop this and just make it a policy that children are allowed in-office. I mean, a lot of companies I've worked at have allowed dogs, which can't be potty trained, don't wear diapers, and sometimes bite people. Why are children treated worse than dogs?

EDIT: responses to this thread are the #1 reason why we will never have affordable childcare. Americans, as a group, highly highly dislike children, even if they won't admit it out of fear of sounding like a misanthrope.

jedberg3• 7 years ago

This is essentially what the big tech companies do with their onsite daycare. They have adults who get hired just to watch the kids, and you can pop in and out as your schedule permits.

It's hard to get work done when there are kids in the work area, so I can see why most companies don't encourage this. Especially since some people don't like kids.

Another even better solution is a remote workforce. Then only you have to deal with the distractions of your kid, except during meetings. As long as you can find something to do with the kid, or people are ok with kids on the conference call, it works out.

My employees are used to seeing my kid pop into the frame during video calls, and it's not really a problem.

tathougies3• 7 years ago

Especially since some people don't like kids.

Well those people can be shunted off into some sad depressing part of the building? Or work from home.

Remote work is great, but it's also very nice and social to bring babies in to the office to meet your friends. What's so wrong with that?

WhompingWindows4• 7 years ago

Eh, I don't want babies in my building. They are distracting and we would definitely get a lot less done. I'm fine with there being a daycare center within the office park, however I'm not fine with it being a communal thing where all the parents take work-time to watch the kids.

FisDugthop• 7 years ago

I work in a dozen-story building, colocated with a half-dozen other tech companies. There is a daycare on the first floor. There's also a couple loud restaurant. However, due to quality construction practices, adjacent floors are not audible.

kube-system2• 7 years ago

My mother always said raising kids was a full time job.

The difference today is that we measure it.

WhompingWindows4• 7 years ago

And the difference is that other the economy's full time jobs pay a lot less than they used to, relative to costs like housing, education, and healthcare, which have all vastly outstripped wage growth.

kube-system2• 7 years ago

I understand your point, but I'm not sure those are accurate measuring sticks, as people's expectations of housing, education, and healthcare have changed drastically since the boomers' generation.

Regardless, it's easy to be an economic powerhouse when most of Asia had yet to undergo industrial revolution, and the rest of the developed world was rebuilding from war. I don't think it's surprising that wages are stagnant -- our economic output has competition now.

cpascal• 7 years ago

Anecdotally, the margins can be fairly large. I am aware of one daycare in the NYC metropolitan area with around 100 students that PROFITS nearly $9000/yr/student.

Their teacher pay scale also tops out at $15/hr, but each teacher represents around a $8000/month revenue stream.

The daycare’s rent is about $40,000 a month.

yters5• 7 years ago

If child care is so expensive, wouldn't the income loss of one parent staying at home be irrelevant? Plus, the parent could find some simple side gigs that fit into at home childcare, or even do paid childcare themselves.

I think the real problem is people don't like taking care of kids, and would rather have a stranger do the job. Understandable since kids are noisy, disobedient, stinky little things, but we were all that at some point (probably still are) and someone took care of us.

Then there are all the single parent families, but why are there so many single parent families? Again, I think it is because people aren't willing to put up with each other's imperfections. Yes, sometimes there is real abuse going on that means staying together is actual a danger to life. But, is that the majority of cases? I am doubtful.

So, the real reason child care is so expensive is because we aren't willing to suck up and stick out with the imperfections of other human beings without a paycheck.

mc3• 7 years ago

Parent could find some simple side gigs

Highly unlikely! Maybe for a 4 year old there could be some time during the day. Let's say 1 hour. The type of gig where you can do an hour of work and be paid for it ... won't pay much. Let's say $20. It is hardly worth it. Now compare that to being at work.

I think the real problem is people don't like taking care of kids, and would rather have a stranger do the job.

I don't think so. Taking care of your own kids is much more rewarding than going to work. If work is better it's because the job is great, not because the kids are annoying. Staying at home looking after kids is a lot easier. If you work you have a limited window to get them ready for care, it's a rush, then you have to commute to work, rush back to childcare after work, and then take them home and get them ready super quick for bed. It is not ideal, and not really a choice based on laziness.

Understandable since kids are noisy, disobedient, stinky little things.

Ok..... That's one way to characterize them I guess. Seems a bit harsh.

So, the real reason child care is so expensive is because we aren't willing to suck up and stick out with the imperfections of other human beings without a paycheck.

The real reason is it takes a lot of labour to look after the kids, administer the centre, cook, and also real estate and maintenance of property etc. And people pay for it because they need to work to afford to raise kids.

yters5• 7 years ago

Not so. Child care costs is artificial. In Texas child care was quite cheap. In Maryland costs are extraordinary. People know the demand is there, because there are a whole bunch of type A career minded people who want to climb the corporate ladder rather than look after their little food grubbers. Plus, legislation that forces corporations and government to pay for childcare just makes it all even more expensive, as always happens when you dump public money on some issue.

Also, I suspect the modern feminism that denigrates women unless they have a corporate career is also to blame. Women just have a better instinct for taking care of children than men, and modern culture has told they are worthless if they are a stay at home mom. So neither the male nor female in a modern upwardly mobile marriage want to stay at home with the kids. Thus, they want to stick the kid (usually just one nowadays) in childcare.

And finally, why do people think raising kids is so expensive? It is because of a bunch of extra BS that is unnecessary. They think they need to stick their kid in every program and every possibility of advancement so they can secure a few special spot at top colleges for a few jobs requiring extra special degrees. Meanwhile, such jobs are outsourced, automated, or plain made irrelevant, at the same time there are many blue collar jobs that pay very decently (especially minus college debt) for the taking. Or, if college is truly important, the kid can work their way through, start at community college, get scholarships, join ROTC, etc.

All of these problems are of our own making due to our own expectations, not due to the reality of what it takes to raise successful kids.

kelnos16• 7 years ago

Taking care of your own kids is much more rewarding than going to work. If work is better it's because the job is great, not because the kids are annoying.

Be careful; you're stating as fact something that is incredibly subjective.

Regardless, "taking care of your own kids" encompasses a lot of things that are not at all like one another. Teaching a kid how to do math: rewarding. Cleaning up after your kid accidentally dumps paint onto the carpet: tedious and frustrating. In part, kids are noisy, disobedient, stinky little things (as well as many other things, some of them not so negative), and I would not consider dealing with that aspect of them at all fun.

(Your opinion on all that might differ, which is kinda the point I'm trying to make here.)

usaar3332• 7 years ago

If child care is so expensive, wouldn't the income loss of one parent staying at home be irrelevant

Well, no. You might still come out ahead even if childcare consumes 60% of the lower earners' after tax income.

Also, the big issue is what to do once the kids don't need such heavy parental attention. Sucks to have lost all your work skills. Also can lead to problematic power dynamics in the relationship.

yters5• 7 years ago

There is much more to life than a corporate career. I would love to be the stay at home dad with zero corporate skills myself. Again this perspective is due to our own weird societal perspective.

simscitizen• 7 years ago

Surprised that there wasn't any mention of Baumol's cost disease: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease.

umvi• 7 years ago

Unpopular opinion - but I think farming out the majority of the raising of children to daycares is a bad idea in the long term. Obviously some times you don't have a choice, but I think stay-at-home moms (or dads) are extremely valuable for the development of the child and potentially worth more than any monetary gains to be had from dual-income.

Yeah, you might not be able to afford a nice house or car as quickly, but you get absolute control over how much love, attention, and correction your developing kids receive.

Digory• 7 years ago

The person who gets "Uber, but for Parenting, not cars" right will make a fortune.

The solutions in the article are "Medicaid, but for Parents, not doctors."

What we need is "a culture with jobs that will pay enough to support two adults and their children, so that care of children, family, and the community is an expected part of every adult relationship."

paulcole• 7 years ago

I think this is the killer untapped market for Uber. Just book a really long Uber ride and let your kid spend 8 hours in the car while you’re working. Driver can still pick up other passengers and your kid can interact with them for enrichment. Doesn’t have to be a complete waste of time. When the kid is old enough, give them a raspberry pi and let them learn to code or something while they’re riding around. Driver can stop at Whole Foods for Soylent or whatever else the kid may want to eat/drink.

bonoboTP3• 7 years ago

It would probably end up in way too many lawsuits from all towards all directions and across.

savingGrace• 7 years ago

Exactly. This offends so many people to even bring it up, but I agree 100%. Our children are the most precious people in our lives, but we're willing to give them the worst of our time. If both parents are working, they come home at the end of the day too exhausted to invest in their children. Why are the kids getting the left-overs? Does that seem fair to them?

simonsarris• 7 years ago

Studying Quebec's universal daycare launched in 1997 (with slogan "Children at the heart of our choice"), Jon Gruber @MIT and colleagues found... they didn't fare so well. Negative effects especially for boys and aggressive kids.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/measuring-the-long-term-effects-o...

It's weird to me the goal would be "make sure everyone has daycare" instead of "make sure people can raise their children".

What would taking the same amount of money and using it as a direct cash transfer subsidy look like?

pfranz4• 7 years ago

I think those are two separate ideas. I agree we shouldn't have a culture of "farming out" childrearing, but I disagree offering childcare options has to encourage that. I think in any case, we need work environments more sensitive to work/life balance.

A lot of parents who chose to stay at home described having multiple young kids as chaos and "just trying to survive." I also get, "It's just so nice to talk to adults." Higher end communities offer a lot of options for temporary childcare; daycare programs that are 2-3 hours, gyms, and groceries offering childcare while you're there that seem specifically focused on stay at home parents. Those aren't options for most people.

Just an hour or two break can really help recharge, or just plan appointments or outings. If you're lucky enough that they sleep through the night or nap, you're still tethered to the house. I really think doing things outside of a relationship helps make parenting more fruitful, but since being a parent is 24/7 you just don't have options unless you have a strong network and are willing to ask/pay for help.

spookthesunset3• 7 years ago

Not everybody has the choice to go single-income--many couples need two incomes to survive at all. Also there are single-parent households that have zero choice in the matter as well.

AYBABTME• 7 years ago

I'm not sure that having a child growing up in an isolated environment, interacting with mostly one person, is good or healthy. I have a hunch that exposure to many people, situations and environments is better for the child, as long as the overall exposure is positive. Not only that, but the isolation of the caregiver probably makes the caregiver less fit (depression, imagination-killing-routine) to provide quality education. In that lense, I think there's solid arguments for why "farming out" might be better for everyone, child and parents.

zionic• 7 years ago

Absolutely, it would go a long way towards reducing the population's sense of individualism and better prepare the next crop of corporate drones. We should get started at once!

hereme888• 7 years ago

I don't think the argument had anything to do with isolation. Your reply sounds stereotypical. Stay-at-home parents - and similarly, home-schooled children - usually have a richer and more vibrant community than schooled children and the average 9-5 working parent.

I've met hundreds, and it always strikes me as a more ideal life, because it's steeped in strong community.

Of course there are the isolation exceptions that make headlines in news media.

pnutjam7• 7 years ago

If America embraced a proper work and life balance, we could have both. Not all Mom's and Dad's want to stay home, and afew hours of quality daycare could be beneficial to most kids.

I say this as a parent with 6 kids and a wife who has cared for all of them.

ben77993• 7 years ago

I live in Massachusetts.. mentioned in the article as averaging $16k.

I have a child who stopped going to private day care a year and a half ago. For us it was more like $20-24k/yr for child care. There were centers near one of my workplaces that were more like $35-40k/yr/child. Anything near the trendy high tech office spaces in Boston/Cambridge is going to be in that > $30k/yr/child range.

I think there are nice profits being made because:

- The teachers/caretakers make 50% at best of what public school teachers make

- They just in time schedule the living daylights out of everything

- You can easily figure out the gross income of the "school" because the tuition figures are public and you can see the # of rooms in the school and calculate from regulation how many kids are there. They were always 95% full in my experience

- The expensive/fancy ones tend to be owned by big chains & franchises, those are not operations that exist without someone getting rich.

One of the biggest day care chains in the country is owned by Bain Capital.. they've made a lot of money on it. They don't get into stuff that isn't profitable.

My experience was even at the upper end of the market the product is pretty darn bad compared to public school systems in our area. The public school staff is amazing and incredibly professional compared to the private day care staff. Not even close. And the ratios for elementary school are better than pre-school/pre-K at expensive day cares in our area. And even if you took all our local & state taxes and gave 100% to the school it does not match what day care costs. And obviously the state & town do not give 100% of the money to the school system.

yanslookup• 7 years ago

For another data point, my wife and I live in Cambridge, MA we just hired a nanny for our 6 month old son at a rate of 23/hr for 30 hours per week (~35k/yr)... This was competitive with nearby day care center rates.

ben77993• 7 years ago

Yes I was referring to Kendall Sq. day cares when thinking of $36-40k/yr. I worked there when my child was born.

defen• 7 years ago

23/hr for 30 hours per week (~35k/yr)

Don't forget about the "nanny tax" (Household employer tax). You might not have to pay it this year if you're under the threshold but you probably will next year: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nanny-tax.asp

gwbas1c• 7 years ago

I live in MA, and I've used in-home daycare.

My current provider is a husband and wife team, and they aren't getting rich. (They charge $50 / day.)

Previously, I used an in-home provider where she ran a smaller in-home daycare, and her husband had an engineering job. They (household) had more money than my wife and I did. Ironically, even though she charged $55 a day, because she provided all food, it was "cheaper" due to time saved on our end.

pnutjam7• 7 years ago

I'm currently in Indiana (ugh), but had my oldest daughter in Michigan. Michigan in 2000, seemed to have some subsidies that essentially set the price for daycare. I believe in home was $45 / day. Indiana has no such subsidies and costs can vary hugely. I've seen anywhere from $25 /day to $70 /day.

meerita• 7 years ago

What is increasing the childcare so much? Other countries with less resources than 1st world countries have inmense amount of childs and I don't understand why everything became so expensive.

josephpmay• 7 years ago

In most countries, people generally live with or near their extended families, and grandparents/aunts/cousins watch over the children if the mother works. This is much less common in America.

buboard4• 7 years ago

Why then don't one of the parents choose to stay at home or work at home (excluding single parents of course)? Either childcare is not a big expense , or there's some kind of societal taboo against raising your own kids at home? Is this part of the bigger bubble that makes raising kids so effortful and costly in time, that people just end up not having them?

captainredbeard• 7 years ago

Social pressure against stay-at-home moms is a large force that often goes unrecognized.

pwthornton• 7 years ago

This logic could be applied to k-12 education, which would be rather expensive if not government-subsidized.

Pre-school in particular benefits both the children who receive it and the parents who are able to work. A lack of affordable childcare disproportionally falls on women as well, which is something worth tackling.

The other issue not even mentioned here is that childcare and pre-school are expensive but they don't pay well. A larger role from the government would pay these people more and provide more stability for pre-school teachers and children alike.

buboard4• 7 years ago

This logic could be applied to k-12 education, which would be rather expensive if not government-subsidized.

No, because most parents aren't good at teach their kids basic knowledge.

Pre-school in particular benefits both the children?

Disagree, it's a virus-fest and a herdish, artificial beginning in life. People who are lucky enough to grow their kids in rural/family/small town settings have it much better.

A lack of affordable childcare disproportionally falls on women

agreed, but that can easily be worked on

mrlala2• 7 years ago

Why then don't one of the parents choose to stay at home or work at home

Well if both parents are fairly career driven, it's pretty hard to stay at home for 6+ years until full day school starts, and that is only for 1 kid.. could be 8/9 years with 2 kids close in age. Since it's usually the woman, she is basically giving up any solid career having that kind of work gap.

And you say 'work at home' but you can't have a fulltime working at home job with very young kids. You could manage it to some degree at age 4/5+ but before then you would hardly have any time to actually focus on a job at home.

gok• 7 years ago

Work at home? What job can you do while effectively caring for a toddler?

spookthesunset3• 7 years ago

work at home

You mean "work at home" as in, not work? Ever dealt with a toddler? Kiddo will be at your workspace non-stop. You can't just tell them not to either.

If you want to get anything done without distraction, the easiest solution is to park them in front of a TV all day. Not sure if that is the outcome you'd want. Daycare at least gives them a full day of interacting with others their age, learning new things, etc. Not just watching TV or being ignored at home.

nine_zeros2• 7 years ago

How about going to Asian style societies where the caregivers are grandparents or older people? Most people close to retirement (or already retired) don't need as much money since medicare already takes care of them.

mrlala2• 7 years ago

That would be great be apparently current older generations have been brainwashed into thinking that your entire goal for your life is to save for a lavish retirement where you will finally get to enjoy yourself every day after you retire and should have no responsibilities. Which basically equates to- don't enjoy any day until you retire because you are so busy focused on retirement.

My parents are like that.. my mom even moved to live close to one of my siblings and the grandchildren.. but complains every single time she has to watch them because it takes up her valuable retired time... ok.

nine_zeros2• 7 years ago

My parents are like that.. my mom even moved to live close to one of my siblings and the grandchildren.. but complains every single time she has to watch them because it takes up her valuable retired time... ok.

That can't be serious complaining since most financially wholesome retirees are bored out of their minds. Besides the few vacations they take a year, what else is there to do all day?

factsaresacred• 7 years ago

The deal works both ways in most Asian societies. Grandparents take care of the grandchildren, children take care of the grandparents.

But in the West many children shuffle their folks off to a home. Kind of tragic all around.

abbadadda• 7 years ago

A lot of really good discussion in this article. I just wanted to add a couple of things:

It is a true blessing if a mother or father can stay at home to raise their children. However, over time being a stay at home parent is incredibly isolating. Men are suseptible to depression, but women especially so post-partum. Also, many parents do eventually want to work either part time or full time. The longer one stays out of the work force the bigger the gap on the resume and the harder it is to find work as children grow up. I agree the lowest paying jobs should not be subsidized, but I think the benefits of taxpayer subsidized childcare would be overwhelmingly positive. The quality of childcare makes a big difference in the equation, but parents, especially mothers, should be encouraged to re-enter the workforce if they so choose. Every policy creates incentives and I have no qualms with the ones created by subsidized childcare.

Dove3• 7 years ago

I am convinced the isolated stay at home parent model is not normal human behavior, but a pathology of our particular society which represents an unreasonable expectation derived from an excessive commitment to individualism and independence. It is not psychologically reasonable to expect one person to care for children all day every day. It is not historically or broadly culturally normal. It is not healthy for either the parent or the children to isolate them together like this.

It is normal for children to be cared for by many adults throughout the day, from birth - be they older relatives or simply members of the community. It is abnormal for one person to have to deal with all of their energy and issues. It is normal for children to wander and play and experience a wide and varied world. It is abnormal for them to be kept in a small, unchanging indoor space. It is normal for new parents, especially new mothers, to be intensely supported by their community. It is abnormal for them to be left alone unsupported. It is normal for homemakers to accomplish their daily tasks communally and to be active in their communities. It is abnormal for them to endure years of social isolation, primarily spending time with their children.

I am not sure what a healthy pattern for family support and child rearing looks like in this society, but I think public support for young child care, better connections with older relatives and neighbors for light child care, and light or part time but potentially meaningful work and social connections for parents is a lot closer to normalcy than the current locked together in isolation suffering silently pretending to be happy wondering why you're the only one struggling model we have now. The current model is insane and it is a testament to our toughness as human beings that we all try so hard to make it work and survive as well as we do.

xsmasher• 7 years ago

It may be a side effect of suburbanization and the mass migration to single-family homes.

finder83• 7 years ago

I believe it to actually be a result of industrialization, and I think that the old "model" could actually be more healthy for children (barring advances in society, medicine, etc).

Industrialization centralized jobs to factories, offices, etc. Previous to that, most operated their business as an attachment of their home, whether operating in trades or in aggriculture. So the children, the family, etc, were all together all of the time.

Our family actually works that way as I have a job as a remote developer and my wife is a stay at home mom. It's a great balance as I get to see my kids all day, and my wife is able to get breaks.

kodablah• 7 years ago

It is not psychologically reasonable to expect one person to care for children all day every day [...] It is normal for children to be cared for by many adults throughout the day

I'd argue having the child away from parents so often is harmful as well. Financials aside, that middle ground somewhat exists: stay at home parents that still leverage social environments for their kids. I too don't know how we can get everyone there, but the first step should be recognizing that a non-working parent doesn't have to be an isolated parent.

giggles_giggles3• 7 years ago

This is a weird comment that, in my experience, doesn't represent the reality of today's stay-at-home parents. I'd love to see hard data on this, but let me share my anecdotes in response to the middle paragraph here. My older sister has been a stay at home mother for almost a decade, so I'll share my observations from being an uncle:

It is normal for children to be cared for by many adults throughout the day, from birth - be they older relatives or simply members of the community.

My sister engages in a community of stay-at-home parents and homeschooling parents (there is a lot of overlap and she also homeschools) to provide her children with socialization and to also share the burden of parenting all the small ones.

By contrast, in daycare, where my sister and mother both worked professionally at different times, it is common for adults to be split between many children, usually as many as seven or eight per adult (by regulation).

It is abnormal for one person to have to deal with all of their energy and issues.

See above

It is normal for children to wander and play and experience a wide and varied world. It is abnormal for them to be kept in a small, unchanging indoor space.

Funny that this is an example! Many daycares are inside only or maybe have a small playground. By the time the child is 5, they're expected to sit still in actual school all day! My nephew and nieces get the pleasure of participating in something called "Forest School" where they're able to socialize with other children their age and learn about nature, shockingly, outside in nature. They're also always allowed in the backyard and have friends in their neighborhood as well. So actually from what I've seen, homeschooled kids and kids with a stay at home parent actually get _more_ outside time. It's the poor kids in day care and school that don't get to go outside.

It is normal for new parents, especially new mothers, to be intensely supported by their community. It is abnormal for them to be left alone unsupported. It is normal for homemakers to accomplish their daily tasks communally and to be active in their communities. It is abnormal for them to endure years of social isolation, primarily spending time with their children.

Again, see above. Maybe this varies a lot by locale, but here in Texas, none of your criticisms actually apply to the community of stay at home moms and homeschoolers that I have observed in my community.

bradlys3• 7 years ago

It's definitely weird when you think about it. It seems like a relatively new model.

That said - what are you going to do about it? Our major cities and culture are not setup for addressing these issues at all. We have a hard enough time trying to pass anything through congress. Trying to get some huge child care bill through is nigh on impossible. On top of that - it will, of course, not do anything for people who live in the more expensive regions of the USA because paying for child care is expensive - sure - but the price of housing those children can be just as expensive if not more.

paulddraper• 7 years ago

I agree the lowest paying jobs should not be subsidized, but I think the benefits of taxpayer subsidized childcare would be overwhelmingly positive.

I don't understand. What's the difference?

You are using taxes revenues to subsidize uneconomical labor to be economical.

What is so different about subsidizing a entry worker's pay or their child care bills?

---

FWIW, the article makes no mention of it, but child care is tax subsidized in the U.S. via the Child Care Credit [1].

[1] https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc602

GordonS2• 7 years ago

I have to agree - we are a society, not a corporation; should such decisions really be made on prospective income tax revenues?

neap24• 7 years ago

It really is much more isolating today than it would have been years ago. Back when it was the norm for a parent (usually mother) to stay home with the kids, so did every other mother on the block. My wife stays home with our kids and, within the neighborhood, she is pretty much limited to hanging out with retirees. Fortunately, she's found that there is actually quite a large number of other stay-at-home mothers/fathers if you expand your search radius beyond the neighborhood. As such, she schedules meetups, play dates, and homeschool co-ops at least two days a week. It's possible to not be lonely and depressed, but as with anything takes some effort and creativity.

I disagree that the benefits of subsidized childcare would be overwhelmingly positive. They would be positive only for those who wish to work. For those who wish to stay home (and I believe the number is higher than most people estimate), it makes it an even more expensive opportunity cost and adds even more cultural pressure to conform. And, when it comes to raising kids, I think diversity of upbringing, rather than conformity is the real answer.

GordonS2• 7 years ago

Men are suseptible to depression, but women especially so post-partum

Depression is actually much more prevalent in women, in general, need t just post-partum[0]. I've linked a single reference, but there really is a lot of evidence here (although I think men probably hide it more frequently than women, but that's just my unscientific opinion!).

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478054/

hadlock2• 7 years ago

Growing up, about 10 families all had kids within 18 months of each other, within a 3 mile radius. The parents all got together and worked out a time share agreement where all 10 kids would get dropped off from roughly 9-5 at one parent's house, then a different parent's house the next day, etc so that one house had 10 kids for an entire day, every two weeks. This happened from about age 0-3 pretty religiously. It worked out partly because all the parents were in the same age/ethnic/religious/income group, but it might work across wider groups. It didn't cost anything. We called it the "babysitting group" and 30+ years later I'm still pretty good friends with most of the kids in our group.

I think "modern" parents take their kids to the park to try and socialize with other parents/kids but the unstructured method doesn't seem as effective.

greggman2• 7 years ago

my sister solved this joining her local moms club. No idea what support exists for dads

strenholme2• 7 years ago

Here in California, once a kid is four or five years old (ready to go to elementary school), we provide subsidized care at public schools in the form of ESS (Extended Student Services). It costs under $5000 a year to have the kid cared for from 6:30am to 6pm (usually, parents drop off their kids later and pick them up earlier). The staff are very professional and kind people.

Yes, there are issues with more parents who want their kids to be in it than slots available, and there are about four or five weeks a year when it’s not available, but it does provide excellent child care for kids.

pnathan• 7 years ago

The solution is simple: extend the public school system to the newborn. It's widespread, the background check system is in place, the logistics are in place. The only question is funding and the legislation mandating it.

arbuge• 7 years ago

"One side effect of “the end of babies”—or, less dramatically, the steady decline in fertility rates around the world—is that today’s parents spend more time and money on the few kids they do have."

Might that be a cause of declining fertility rates rather than a side-effect of it?

To me it seems pretty logical that some parents in a position to use birth-control to limit the size of their families would decide to do so, given the costs of child care.

briandear2• 7 years ago

Most of the achievement gap between black and white American students is in place by kindergarten. Meanwhile, dozens of studies of preschool programs since the 1960s have shown that early-childhood education can slash the black-white kindergarten achievement gap in half.

The common orthodoxy is that the achievement gap is caused by and solvable through the schools, but the reality is much different.

Interestingly, the achievement gap between black kids from two-parent households is almost non-existent, however since 70% of black kids are in single-parent homes, the effects of those homes is borne out in the statistics — but the cause is misattributed. “Black” students are treated as a homogeneous group, but really the gap is between “black students from single (or no) parent homes” and white students (of which the majority are from two-parent households.)

The destruction of the black family is what is really behind this so-called achievement gap. The origin of that destruction is a discussion for another time, but the Moynihan Report foretold this back in 1965. The Coleman Report from the same period, also described the achievement gap as being primarily originated from the family, rather than schools. [1]

This article is long, but it relevant: https://www.city-journal.org/html/black-family-40-years-lies...

[1] https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2016/07/13/50-years-ago-t...

strenholme2• 7 years ago

I encourage healthy debate about controversial issues like this. When I opened up my New York Times today, I found this article, which questions how important two-parent households are for childhood success, especially among Afro-American youth:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/opinion/two-parent-family...

Some quotes:

“living in a two-parent family does not increase the chances of finishing high school as much for black students as for their white peers”

“Greater involvement in extended family networks may protect against some of the negative effects associated with parental absence from the home”

The conclusion of this New York Times opinion piece is that structural racism has more impact on the success of young Afro-American kids than single parent households.

danteembermage• 7 years ago

If you follow Raj Chetty's work on income mobility it appears that single parents in the neighborhood matter a lot more than single parents themselves. Since single parenthood is much more common for black families and our cities tend to be segregated, black kids tend to grow up around single parented kids which is a disadvantage. Basically having two awesome parents doesn't make up for having your entire world be not that. And having a single parent doesn't ruin an upbringing surrounded by people with two parent families. I think it's as much about shared culture as anything, the social norms get established by majority rule basically.

lordgrenville• 7 years ago

Emily Oster mentioned on a podcast [1] that although she enjoys spending time with her kids much more than she enjoys working, the marginal value of kid time declines while the marginal value of work remains steady. In my experience a lot of parents feel this way. We may agree that the intrinsic value of family is much higher than that of work or the economy, but spending too much time with one's kids can feel like a drain at a certain point, even for very loving parents. At that point, the parent probably isn't doing anything great for the kids. It's good to have another outlet.

[1] https://newbooksnetwork.com/emily-oster-cribsheet-a-data-dri...

WomanCanCode2• 7 years ago

Spending time with kids can be very draining and exhausting. Not all the time that you are spending with them is quality time. Also, since parents don't need a degree or a whole lot of experience, this is an indication that childcare is only a minimum wage job unfortunately. Also, kids really like to spend time with their own peers and doing group activities.They don't care if you are not with them all the time

2ion• 7 years ago

And the root cause: "I'd let my wife stay home but the returns on my labour have diminished so much in the past 50 years that she has to work too."

buzzy_hacker• 7 years ago

I don't understand the argument this article is making. It goes from establishing that the cost of child care has increased much faster than other goods/services, to advocating that the government pay for it. Where's the connection? Simply moving the costs from new parents to the US tax-base won't do anything to address the underlying causes of the high costs.

It seems to me that we need solutions to address the high cost in any case, and the question of whether the government should be more involved is an orthogonal concern.

Unless the argument is that there's not an effective way to control the costs, so the government should help pay for it to not overly burden new parents. But, I didn't see that point explicitly made in the article.

virmundi• 7 years ago

Why not look at the macro issues here? The environment is overtaxed. The future is doomed anyway. Why not return to the Roman system where the father has the right to kill the child up until a certain age? Incentives this with a cash payment for every child put down coupled with a requirement to be sterilized for five years. Say a one time payment of $10k per child and a tax deduction of $2k per year of the five years sterile. You can solve global warming, cost of child take, and student debt.

quantumfoam• 7 years ago

Because they don’t want you to reproduce you dumb fuck.

dang2• 7 years ago

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Could you please not create accounts to do that with?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

readhn2• 7 years ago

according to this https://www.care.com/c/stories/15167/what-is-home-daycare-an...

in MA the cost of family daycare is still $6 per hour. This is below min wage and is dirt cheap!!!

Imagine if we paid daycare $25-50/hr ? then the daycare would be truly unaffordable ... how about $103,000/year daycare cost ($50/hr) ???

readhn2• 7 years ago

Quality care SHOULD cost a lot of money because hard educational labor (child care) should be well compensated!

Great quality teachers (early childhood) SHOULD be able to earn $75-100K + Which means that really daycare should be at least somewhere around $50-75K/year.

homerhomer• 7 years ago

Our daycare used the State's regulated rate. I live in zip 97201 and it's $1,415 a day for infant care. This is the basic licensed daycare rate. I found that childcare would use this a base and go up there there.

https://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ASSISTANCE/CHILD-CARE/Pages/Rates...

hestefisk• 7 years ago

In Sydney average cost of daycare per childcare is very high — about USD 90. Denmark is half the cost. Often what drives up the cost is heavy regulation of ‘quality standards’.

WomanCanCode2• 7 years ago

Child care is expensive but I rather pay for someone to watch and look after my child at a daycare center then doing it 24 X7. Taking care of the house and children is just mindless, time consuming and exhausting, It doesn't give me the satisfaction that I get when working with something that requires a degree and talent.

noetic_techy• 7 years ago

It seems to me this is another case of government interference causing vast increases in cost, especially the caretaker to child ratio: 1:3 = $15,000 1:5 = $5,000. And what does the author advocate? More government meddling! Higher standards! Good intention policies with bad economic outcomes / unintended consequences needs to stop. Yes we know if every child had 1:1 care from someone with a Ivy league child psych degree we would all be better off. Unfortunately that's not the society we can afford even in the affluent west. Save it for the elite who have the cash to burn. Don't force lower income folk into your preferred world view. You cripple them economically and then cry for more intervention because you crippled them. Sure, its one thing to enforce safety standards, its another thing entirely to enforce that every 3 children has a surrogate "parent" of the highest standard. Imagine if they imposed this ratio on grade school education. And no I'm not saying 1:100 is fine. Obviously not. But I knew people who watched 1:10 kids growing up in their own home, a mix of low income and middle class. While not ideal they all lived normal lives and everything turned out just fine for those children in the end.

purplezooey• 7 years ago

The article gives only nominal growth rates and does not mention if adjusted for inflation.

Why Child Care Is So Expensive

Related Stories