Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Child Care Is So Expensive

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 522 posts

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#101

Post by JauntTrooper »

cortesoft wrote: post #18
ChaosDegenerate wrote: post #6

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 tal…

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 rais…

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.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#102

Post by watwut »

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #76
watwut wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women marched for right to work and education. It was not males forcing them to, it was literally movement by women.

The right to do something is different from the want to do something. How many people have fought for their right to vote? And yet how abysmal is voter turnout every year? The desire for education is very different from the desire for work. I am not saying there are no women (or even the majority of women) who want to work because it is their choice. But I think we are making it a gender issue when really it isn't. D…

> Social mores have dictated the man be the provider for centuries, if not millenia.

That is kind of not true.

1.) That is what happens when there is no war, country is rich and when industrial revolutions take people to factories. When they worked on small family farm, both genders had to tend animals, do crafts and so on. Most of things had to be made. The work was gendered, physical strength mattered, but it was not women twiddling fingers at home painting pretty pictures out of boredom.

2.) During economically bad periods, women had to work to survive. Their chances and options were just inferior. Victorian england required male to provide for women, but economics was bad - marriages not happening. (A lot of prostitution tho.)

3.) Plenty male occupations killed males soon. Miners were old by 40 and dead. Women lived longer and used to live from crafts they made and sold.

4.) And obviously, as men die in wars (and some wars killed a lot of men) or are just away then you cant possibly have all women having male provider. Plus, women were raped making them less viable partners.

5.) Take California gold fever - demographics very heavily skewed toward males (and very violent). That means, other places necessary lack males. There is no way for all women to be provided by males, social mores or not. Because males are not there, they are in California and anyway are killing each other. Not coming back. Some women were provided for by family and brothers etc, but the less rich family was the more they had to figure out how to make themselves some money.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#103

Post by WhompingWindows »

vturner wrote: post #21

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…

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.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#104

Post by F_J_H »

jperras wrote: post #7

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 lo…

"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.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#105

Post by jedberg »

tathougies wrote: post #85

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 ch…

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.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#106

Post by ng7j5d9 »

ChaosDegenerate wrote: post #39
cortesoft wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rais…

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 so…

>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.

Yikes, what is wrong with me? One of my best friends quit his job to become a stay-at-home dad because his successful lawyer wife made more money and wanted to keep working. I've been supposed to look down on him this whole time? Sorry society at large, I guess I missed that memo.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#107

Post by vibrio »

vturner wrote: post #21

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…

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.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#108

Post by tathougies »

jedberg wrote: post #105
tathougies wrote: post #85

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 ch…

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 ha…

> 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?

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#109

Post by josinalvo »

jedberg wrote: post #89
jawns wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

Think of it this way. Imagine if when you went to work, you only got to do the "fun stuff" for a hour a day, and the rest of the day you just filled out paperwork and moved things back and forth in a predetermined pattern. And work lasted from the time you woke up to the time you slept. Being a parent is the greatest joy I've ever known, but the joyful parts are the punctuation on the mind-numbing toil. That toil is…

Can you be more specific?

What is the nature of this toil?

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#110

Post by ChaosDegenerate »

JauntTrooper wrote: post #101
cortesoft wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rais…

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 (la…

women these days... having kids is too much work, let someone else take care of them. I feel bad for you brother.
Post reply on HN