Why Child Care Is So Expensive • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#301

Post by bdamm » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 10:46 PM UTC

blaser-waffle wrote: post #198

bdamm wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a hot take you've got there, and probably going to get downvoted to oblivion, but I'm curious about some of these points: > community networking functions, allowing for local problem solving and support that is somewhat extinct now What are you referring to in particular? Community booster orgs? The PTA? > Did we gain women's freedom at the cost of strong and good families? Were families really that better off…

> Community booster orgs? The PTA?

Yes, yes, and.. social networks. You know, the kind where people call each other and make plans like play dates and canning sessions. These days that seems to be only available to the upper middle class. All of it is still here, but weaker, less pervasive, and unavailable to many.

> Were families really that better off?

You're absolutely correct, and to answer that requires better and more data than I even know how to look at. The 50's is maybe not even the best time to evaluate since the suburban boom was creating some of these problems for the first time, too. How many families were really doing well, vs how many families were struggling? Perhaps the data would show that in fact it's better for families that women can choose either (or even in exceptional cases, both) paths. The good news is that this subject is not as taboo as I'd feared, the comment is not being obliterated.

> alcoholism

There is no evidence I can find that shows we are any better off now than we were in the 50's with regards to alcoholism. In fact, according to [1] and [2], we appear to be in a low point of per-capital consumption, similar to a low that occurred in the late 1950's.

[1] https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/30-38.htm [2] https://vinepair.com/articles/americas-consumption-beer-wine...

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#302

Post by paulcole » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 10:47 PM UTC

Digory wrote: post #215

umvi wrote: post #179

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, b…

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."

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.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#303

Post by briandear » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 10:47 PM UTC

unicornporn wrote: post #236

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…

> 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 o…

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.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#304

Post by lordgrenville » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 10:48 PM UTC

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...

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#305

Post by godot » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 10:51 PM UTC

decebalus1 wrote: post #276

godot wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

you're talking temporary solutions. I was responding to permanent solutions.

I don't really know what you mean. Can you elaborate?

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#306

Post by xsmasher » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 10:51 PM UTC

Dove wrote: post #296

abbadadda wrote: post #243

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…

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 eith…

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

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#307

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 10:52 PM UTC

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…

> Why is subsidized daycare necessary in these cases though?

Because of time effects.

> 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.

Yes, but if you would make on average, over the course of the years where a child would need daycare if you weren't at home, much more than the cost of daycare but the crossover point where working is an immediate advantage is several years down the line, and you don't have a financial cushion for the short term, you won't be able to afford to work initially, and by not working you’ll lose earning potential and push out (perhaps infinitely) that crossover date; it's a vicious cycle.

And two things that make that much more pronounced are that day care has a much higher cost for kids under about 18-24 months (there are fundamentally greater requirements for young kids which in most places are also reflected in more strenuous minimum regulatory requirements) and significant employment breaks have adverse effects on short-term employability outside of unskilled labor fairly quickly. (If you genuinely haven't lost skills you can mostly recover from that over time, but your initial return-to-work pay is likely to be far lower if you weren't already at the bottom and aren't returning to an existing job after a protected leave.)

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#308

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 10:54 PM UTC

tasogare wrote: post #63

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…

> 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 whe…

Japan has a paternalistic society that expects every woman to be married by age 30 and drop out of the work force. They aren't a model for other cultures to follow.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#309

Post by paulddraper » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 10:55 PM UTC

abbadadda wrote: post #243

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…

> 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

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#310

Post by AnimalMuppet » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 10:58 PM UTC

axaxs wrote: post #268

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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...

Most states hover in the 5% revenue compared to what the federal government collects in that state? I strongly disagree.

For example, Utah's tax revenue was $9.9 billion in 2018-2019. Federal was $3.6 trillion. But Utah only has 1% of the US population. So if the rest of the states taxed at the rate Utah does, that would be $990 billion, which is about 1/4 of the Federal take. It's way more than 5%. And Utah is not a high-tax state.