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

261–270 of 522 posts

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#261

Post by ben7799 »

yanslookup wrote: post #248
ben7799 wrote: post #194

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 pr…

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.

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

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#262

Post by godot »

dobleboble wrote: post #196
pfortuny wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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 hav…

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

(Admittedly I only skimmed through the article, but) Isn't the article saying that because of the program, child care is reduced to costing $10/day, but otherwise would cost much more?

For example, in lower COL places in the US, it usually costs the range of $100/day for a nanny that works 8 hours a day, and for higher COL places (e.g. Palo Alto) it could even be say $300/day. Daycare (with groups of children) can be a bit cheaper, for sure.

But the point being, to have tax credit that matches that kind of effect, we'd need at least tax credits of $90/day/child for stay at home parents, to make sense, and including weekends too (i.e. 365 days a year).

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#263

Post by thu2111 »

legitster wrote: post #41

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.

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?

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#264

Post by buboard »

glofish wrote: post #99
ecoled_ame wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

There is nothing wrong with not wanting kids. Makes sense. That being said I would recommend toning down the rhetoric of how much better you're off for not having kids - it rings fake and forced as if you needed to convince yourself repeatedly and it is needlessly antagonistic. The analogy is that of having a dog. I'd like to have a dog. I think it is fun to have a dog. Alas, dogs are not for me, they feel the kind o…

> That being said I would recommend toning down the rhetoric of how much better you're off for not having kids

We could also entertain the reverse: that too much emphasis and pressure is being put on someone being a parent. There is a very widespread self-congratulatory element to being a parent (to the point that many people list it as a job title). But having children is something that people have been doing quite easily and nonchalantly from the beginning of time until these last 2 generations, which spend twice as much as before with their kids (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/27/parents-...). There is a parenting bubble that is scaring people away from having children, and maybe it should be addressed as a problem.

Edit: Also, i feel a lot of people have dogs because there are no societal expectations about how to raise your dog. They are much easier to have than children.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#265

Post by intrepidhero »

strbean wrote: post #207
maerF0x0 wrote: post #77

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 cleanin…

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…

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.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#266

Post by aidenn0 »

bdamm wrote: post #172
xamuel wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's as if they read in "Brave New World" about the abolition of the family unit and they took that as an instruction guide.

That happened some time ago. In fact, one of the issues with so many women in the workforce is that in the 50's that same class of women were providing community networking functions, allowing for local problem solving and support that is somewhat extinct now. Frankly I am unsold on the benefit to society of women in the workforce. Did we gain women's freedom at the cost of strong and good families? It's a taboo, now…

If you go further back, it's easy to argue that the dissolution of the extended family in favor of the nuclear family as part of the western industrial revolution caused even more problems that were hidden by the high rate of economic growth during this time.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#267

Post by ZeroGravitas »

klipt wrote: post #197
darawk wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 valu…

Why is subsidized daycare necessary in these cases though? In America if daycare costs X and you earn Y much greater than X, then obviously you'll make more money going to work and sending your kid to daycare than being a stay at home parent. The people who choose to stay at home often either have multiple kids (higher X) or earn little enough (lower Y) that it's not an economic advantage for them to work. But those…

Because markets aren't perfect (in the economic sense).

If they were lots of things wouldn't need to exist, like companies and employees. You could just hire someone on the open market for 5 minutes to type up a letter and it would be perfectly efficient so you'd know that if you couldn't afford to hire someone then it wasn't economically worthwhile.

That doesn't work in reality, and neither does expecting every young parent to negotiate childcare while putting them in a catch-22 regarding finding work when they can't work without childcare and they can't afford childcare without work.

Markets are a great tool, but they're not the only way to resolve co-ordination problems to maximize economic prosperity.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#268

Post by axaxs »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #145
Miner49er wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

That's the outlier, though. Most states tend to hover in the 5% range. A few states have 0 income tax, but typically make up for it with property tax. But nowhere close to the Federal tax rate...

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#269

Post by godot »

decebalus1 wrote: post #249
pfortuny wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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 hav…

> 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…

> 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..

But here's the opposite view point: as parents, both my spouse and I would rather have either myself or my spouse be a full time carer of our baby, than sending her off to daycare and have both of us working.

What do you suggest is the solution then; other than making enough money / hitting the startup lottery jackpot and retiring before having kids?

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#270

Post by novok »

factsaresacred wrote: post #258
mrlala wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

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.

The deal gets a lot harder when you move to new york or another country for a better job.
Post reply on HN