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

401–410 of 522 posts

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#401

Post by bradlys »

awad wrote: post #373
bradlys wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you have riches beyond imagination - this is not feasible in a modern economy... My SO is a prime example of this. She grew up in the bay area but she herself could never afford a home here cause homes be $2m now. Her parents never bought a home - so she will never inherit a fortune either. Even if they did - she wouldn't inherit it until they were dead (and thus unable to help take care of the children). So,…

It's not very popular in the US but multi-generational housing has existed for thousands of years in other parts of the world and solves for this, even while renting.

I don't think it "solves for this"... Those types of units are not cheap where I am and they're rare. It's not like you spend $100-200k and suddenly you have a suitable multi-generational home. Where I am - it's going to be at least $1m-2m extra. The kids can't afford that in a mortgage - let alone cash that a remodel would require.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#402

Post by readhn »

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.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#404

Post by JustSomeNobody »

kelnos wrote: post #329
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No one is claiming that paying that is easy for everyone, merely that taking care of someone for 9 hours a day, including meals, for $40/day is actually ridiculously cheap. I can't think of many (any?) services I could pay for that would cost a mere $4/hr for labor+materials.

Shame the person earning that can’t afford their own childcare.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#405

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway100773 wrote: post #349
jdbernard wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a dismissive comment and misses the main point. The main point is that these are presumably upper-middle class families. You would expect that with their higher-than-average incomes they would have greater amounts of discretionary income that they would be spending and that their expenses would be spread out across more of the economy, supporting many other businesses and services. Instead the high salar…

The comment is dismissive, but the point stands. The grandparent comment comes off awfully entitled considering all of life’s basic needs seem to be covered and they outright own multiple vehicles in perhaps the highest cost of living area in the United States. Not to mention, the higher proportion of income going toward housing is likely the consequence of protectionist measures to keep the riff raff out and maintai…

[deleted]

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#406

Post by nilkn »

throwaway100773 wrote: post #349
jdbernard wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a dismissive comment and misses the main point. The main point is that these are presumably upper-middle class families. You would expect that with their higher-than-average incomes they would have greater amounts of discretionary income that they would be spending and that their expenses would be spread out across more of the economy, supporting many other businesses and services. Instead the high salar…

The comment is dismissive, but the point stands. The grandparent comment comes off awfully entitled considering all of life’s basic needs seem to be covered and they outright own multiple vehicles in perhaps the highest cost of living area in the United States. Not to mention, the higher proportion of income going toward housing is likely the consequence of protectionist measures to keep the riff raff out and maintai…

I think you really are missing the point, though. You may have found the comment entitled, but I don’t think there was anything fundamentally offensive about it, and your reaction reflects more about your discomfort with the existence of the upper middle class than it does about the actual topic under consideration. No one is asking you to feel sorry for them — they’re just illustrating a point about where money gets spent in the US economy.

Dual income families are — and for decades have been — spending their extra second income on housing rather than the rest of the economy. The comment you’re referring to is therefore very relevant because it shows that trend in action. Housing — and other opportunities in life it enables, like access to schools, (real life) social networks, safety, etc. — supersedes everything else in importance for many families, so second incomes are just spent on what is ultimately a bidding war over housing.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#408

Post by novok »

xyzzyz wrote: post #347
novok wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like a lot of this labor is generated by the fact that most kids in america can't go run out and play with other kids in the neighbourhood anymore. Your 7 year old would not be asking for you to endlessly watch her cartwheel and interact with her out of bordem. They would be out playing 24/7 in the local forest, come back for food and boo-boos, be back before dark and be in bed a couple of hours after dinner /…

Kids were not meant to be a lot of work, our society makes them a lot of work. I think you’re right: in the past, each kid was much less work than they are today. The difference is that you also used to have 6 of them, and used to expect that not all of them might survive to adulthood. This is clearly not acceptable approach in today’s society.

Kids could play outside alone in the 40s, 50s and 60s too, and child mortality wasn't 1800s they might all die levels. And in some developed countries like germany and japan it still is possible today [0]. Everything that jedberg described wouldn't probably happen.

Around the 70s the workload ratchet started going up, with each decade adding more and more restrictions. Look at stranger things, today it's a bit iffy to let 12 year olds go out biking by themselves to see their friends. In the 80s you could!

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/reader-center/free-range-...

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#409

Post by novok »

tptacek wrote: post #380
novok wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like a lot of this labor is generated by the fact that most kids in america can't go run out and play with other kids in the neighbourhood anymore. Your 7 year old would not be asking for you to endlessly watch her cartwheel and interact with her out of bordem. They would be out playing 24/7 in the local forest, come back for food and boo-boos, be back before dark and be in bed a couple of hours after dinner /…

Virtually none of the labor Rayiner is describing is a consequence of his kids not being able to go out and play. As he related, and as anyone who's parented a 15-month-old knows in their bones, keeping them from killing themselves or destroying the house is indeed a full-time job.

I was talking more about the 7 year old than the 1 year old. Also grandparents, the village, other house spouses, etc helped with that early workload too.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#410

Post by jdbernard »

nilkn wrote: post #406
throwaway100773 wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment is dismissive, but the point stands. The grandparent comment comes off awfully entitled considering all of life’s basic needs seem to be covered and they outright own multiple vehicles in perhaps the highest cost of living area in the United States. Not to mention, the higher proportion of income going toward housing is likely the consequence of protectionist measures to keep the riff raff out and maintai…

I think you really are missing the point, though. You may have found the comment entitled, but I don’t think there was anything fundamentally offensive about it, and your reaction reflects more about your discomfort with the existence of the upper middle class than it does about the actual topic under consideration. No one is asking you to feel sorry for them — they’re just illustrating a point about where money gets…

And I would like to emphasize your point and add that the dismissive observation really isn't helpful because the main point is especially true for those who really do struggle.

If the highest-earners of the middle-class have their discretionary income locked up in housing costs, how much more difficult is it for those who don't have the same level of income. Housing then eats into non-discretionary expenses.

Post reply on HN