Live data from Hacker News

Why Child Care Is So Expensive

theatlantic.com

511–520 of 522 posts

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Substitute whatever antisocial behavior you want, it's beside the point.

And do you have any reason to think that countries with subsidized childcare have more antisocial behavior than those without to support your claim?

That wouldn't support my claim very much at all, really, because there are too many confounding variables and too few countries to support any kind of causitive claim. I don't know if countries with subsidized childcare have more antisocial behavior, and I don't think it would shed any light on the situation. The subsidization is only relevant insofar as it increases utilization of childcare.

The only thing that can shed light on the question of whether childcare is harmful to children is scientific research with large sample sizes that carefully control for confounding variables.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#512

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…

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

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.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#513
post #241
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you care if the country's population drops dramatically? I'm sure many people are fine with that, but if you're a country looking to stay strong economically the math says you'll need to incentivize childrearing somehow. I think subsidized daycare is a great idea as long as it isn't too much of a disincentive for those who want to stay home with their kids. When I was looking into childcare I noticed there were a…

>Do you care if the country's population drops dramatically?

Given our resource utilization rates and sustainability problems, isn't this a good thing? Yes, some social changes will have to happen to account for the change but this is mostly handled by automation.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#514

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…

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.

One thing to account for this is the social pressure in which way people marry in respect to their own economic condition. Why this exist is an entire other discussion, but it has lasting impacts.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#515

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…

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.

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

They can, and often do. I know of several executives where I work who have stay at home husbands. This arrangement may not be as common as the traditional one, but it's more common than you think

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think encouraging them to be homemakers rather than encouraging them to be in the workforce would make them happier, generally, and that we should strongly prioritize catering to the majority. Do you think women are happier now than women in previous generations? Because all of the polling I've seen says no. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl... for instance. You can always blame it on the…

You keep coming back to whether women were happier in the aggregate before. That's a great link, but I don't draw the same conclusions you do from it. We're in a transition period. Women who work still have to do the majority of housework and childrearing at home, due to their male partners' lack of participation. You exalt domestic virtues in women, so surely you must agree that these men should do more to make thei…

>We're in a transition period.

You can say that, I guess. There's no particularly compelling reason to believe that getting through the transition period to the promised land is possible or that the grass in actually greener on the other side.

>You exalt domestic virtues in women, so surely you must agree that these men should do more to make their homes warm and loving places

If that's what will make quality of life better for them and their families. I don't know of any compelling reason to believe it should.

>Or is that not the same thing?

I don't know, for sure.

>You make society strong with rules that are fair for everyone.

I think there's a lot to be said for that, in general, but is it really fair to women or to their families if the pursuit of achieving this ideological vision of total fairness and equality between the sexes ends up reducing their quality of life?

>I think your preferences unfairly limit the viability of one choice and tilt the scales toward the choice you like better, and your assertion that it's for their own good just serves to infantilize them.

We know from data that they did like it when the scales were tilted toward that choice better than what they have now. There's no compelling reason to believe that they'll like the "fair playing field", if it's possible to get there, better than they'll like what they had before.

I don't know for a fact that most of them won't like it, but I think there are good reasons to guess that they won't, and, if your goal is to increase their life satisfaction and that of their families, it seems insane to me to push an entirely ideologically motivated set of changes onto our entire culture all at once without having pretty damn good reason to believe your end goal is achievable and actually desirable.

The science is still out on whether men and women are genetically predisposed toward different average behaviors and preferences. The idea that they are seems completely reasonable to me, given the simple fact that men produce thousands of gametes per second for their entire post-pubescent lives, while women produce one per month for 20-30 years. Reproductive and child-rearing behaviors are obviously vitally important to how we turned out because we only descend from the people whose succeeded in reproducing and keeping their children alive. I don't know for a fact that our brains are hardwired to help us out differently as a consequence of our different relevant anatomy but I think it's totally reasonable to guess that they do, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary.

If they are predisposed toward different behaviors and preferences, then trying to socially engineer men and women to all be exactly the same is doomed to failure, and a whole lot of people are going to suffer for it, and indeed they already are, as we can see. And sure, some women would benefit from it while the majority suffered, but like I said, if you want a strong society, you make rules that work for the many, not the few.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The kids spend 70 hours sleeping and 40 hours at day care... That's still 58 hours to spend with their parents. That's plenty of time! Nevermind that the kind of unstructured play with other kids at day care is exactly what young kids need anyway.

No, it's really not 58 hours to spend with their parents. If both parents are working, the rest of the non-work hours are going to be consumed by cooking (if there is time for that, or else expensive prepared meals), cleaning, household chores, errands, and everything else people need to do to keep functioning. >Nevermind that the kind of unstructured play with other kids at day care is exactly what young kids need a…

Cooking is what, 1 hour a day? And it's something you can often involve your kids in, same with the other household errands (let's say that's another hour). That's 14 hours gone. We still have 34 hours left. So basically 5 hours PER DAY still to spend with your kids. That's still a lot!

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's really not 58 hours to spend with their parents. If both parents are working, the rest of the non-work hours are going to be consumed by cooking (if there is time for that, or else expensive prepared meals), cleaning, household chores, errands, and everything else people need to do to keep functioning. >Nevermind that the kind of unstructured play with other kids at day care is exactly what young kids need a…

Cooking is what, 1 hour a day? And it's something you can often involve your kids in, same with the other household errands (let's say that's another hour). That's 14 hours gone. We still have 34 hours left. So basically 5 hours PER DAY still to spend with your kids. That's still a lot!

>Cooking is what, 1 hour a day? And it's something you can often involve your kids in

If you want it to take three times as long, I guess. It's good to do with them sometimes obviously but most people are not going to have time for that on a regular basis.

>That's 14 hours gone. We still have 34 hours left. So basically 5 hours PER DAY still to spend with your kids. That's still a lot!

Assuming the child sleeps 10 hours per day, which is well below what's recommended for 0-3 year olds, and you magically get all household chores done in two hours per day as you suggest, 24 of those 34 hours are going to be on the weekend.

Parents who both work full time are essentially weekend parents, and the weekend is when the parents have to catch up on everything they couldn't take care of during the week.

Also, 34 is less than half of the hours they would have with a stay at home parent.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#519
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you care if the country's population drops dramatically? I'm sure many people are fine with that, but if you're a country looking to stay strong economically the math says you'll need to incentivize childrearing somehow. I think subsidized daycare is a great idea as long as it isn't too much of a disincentive for those who want to stay home with their kids. When I was looking into childcare I noticed there were a…

>Do you care if the country's population drops dramatically? Given our resource utilization rates and sustainability problems, isn't this a good thing? Yes, some social changes will have to happen to account for the change but this is mostly handled by automation.

I completely agree it's not necessarily a good thing, but from a government overseeing an economy perspective it's desirable. It's something Japan and a lot of other countries are trying to address. Managing population decline is complicated by not being uniform.

It was also an easy filter: who cares if child care is expensive if you don't care if the population grows?

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Minimum wage. High school diploma. No way! The training after high school for day care professionals in my country takes 4 years and is much better paid than minimum wage. If nothing else, I could never hope to beat them on experience. There are Nordic countries where a minimum of one day of day care a week is actually government mandated because it's been proven to be good for the kids.

>If nothing else, I could never hope to beat them on experience. That's fine. Unless you are emotionally stunted, they could never hope to beat you on love. >There are Nordic countries where a minimum of one day of day care a week is actually government mandated because it's been proven to be good for the kids. Starting at what age? Is this what you're referring to: https://theglobepost.com/2018/12/13/denmark-compuls…

Love is not a quantity linearly dependent on the contact hours I spend with them. Having other people involved in their upbringing does not mean they receive less love.

Mandatory day-care is in Sweden [1] (not my country), because interaction with other kids is good for them.

[1]https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/sweden-mandator...

Post reply on HN