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

Is there a market failure in child care?

arnoldkling.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 127 posts

Re: Is there a market failure in child care?

#111

Post by chii »

serf wrote: post #106
mfer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the situation where stay at home parents, in a two parent household, being unfeasible a majority of the time a market failure?

I think the choice to have children without ample time for child-care is a failure, but i'm not wholly convinced that it's the market that drove it completely -- more like it's driven by a poor decision making process by the parents. Historically day-care has been a service used by very poor single parents so that they can maintain a work schedule, or the affluent that want some free time away from the kids. With tha…

> after thousands of years of parents' raising kids without a third party involvement.

historically, the extended family like grandparents, are the ones taking care of children while working age parents go out to actually work (the fields).

Historically, this works, because you tended to live with the grandparents, at least for a while - the household is multi-generation.

The recent "privilege" of buying your own separate home away from your own parents, before having children, is new. And if these people aren't rich enough to afford child care, it's because they've overstretched - they ought to really live with their parents imho (and make sacrifices like the old generations did).

Re: Is there a market failure in child care?

#112

Post by chii »

mcherm wrote: post #60
denimnerd42 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people do work to break even or even worse. You only need childcare for 4 or 5 years until the kid is old enough to go to public kindergarten. If you are 25 and take a break from the workforce for 5 years you are going to obliterate your career. meanwhile if you had been working at say 25 in NYC at 100k/year and kept working w/ the support of childcare then by 30 you could be making 150 or 200k/year. If you h…

Now THAT is a market failure. Create a company staffed with parents who have a gap in their resumes. Pay them slightly less than market rate. In theory, that should be very profitable. In practice there are too many confounding issues and I doubt this would be successful, although I do think the companies can do quite well by disregarding explainable gaps in one's resume.

> I do think the companies can do quite well by disregarding explainable gaps in one's resume.

i dont believe it is the gap, but more that a company would prefer to hire someone younger (and thus, cheaper?) if they both have the same experience.

Re: Is there a market failure in child care?

#113

Post by Beaver117 »

mlsu wrote: post #77

With nearly any of our social ills, the answer is housing. - The people taking care of children at daycare make pennies; most of the revenue goes to a landlord. It's very expensive because you can't just move the daycare 1.5 hours out to the outskirts of town; you actually need to pay for real estate near where people live. - Grandparents, extended family cannot afford to live near their working children. - Anyone wi…

But if everyone has access to housing how will the poor landlords get their passive income?

Re: Is there a market failure in child care?

#114

Post by xyzzy123 »

chii wrote: post #111
serf wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the choice to have children without ample time for child-care is a failure, but i'm not wholly convinced that it's the market that drove it completely -- more like it's driven by a poor decision making process by the parents. Historically day-care has been a service used by very poor single parents so that they can maintain a work schedule, or the affluent that want some free time away from the kids. With tha…

> after thousands of years of parents' raising kids without a third party involvement. historically, the extended family like grandparents, are the ones taking care of children while working age parents go out to actually work (the fields). Historically, this works, because you tended to live with the grandparents, at least for a while - the household is multi-generation. The recent "privilege" of buying your own sep…

Also, if you are in a place not divided by roads and have a critical mass of kids who can find each other, they are suddenly a lot less work. They tend to find each other and keep each other amused.

I suspect many modern parents may have never experienced this.

Re: Is there a market failure in child care?

#115

Post by BirdieNZ »

Balgair wrote: post #103
billconan wrote: post #28

While I don't have children of my own, my ex-girlfriend used to manage a daycare center. The fees charged to parents were quite high, while the salaries of the teachers, including my girlfriend's, were surprisingly low. It appeared that the primary expense was the cost of renting the property. In my opinion, the government should provide financial support to these facilities, particularly in the form of reimbursement…

Why wouldn't a landlord just raise rates for just a daycare then? If support were to be given, I'd imagine you'd have to be very careful on how the laws were written.

In New Zealand, the government subsidises up to 20 hours of Early Childhood Education (basically preschool/daycare). However, daycare providers usually only allow you to take 6 hours of subsidized daycare a day, and charge an excessive sum for the 7th-8th hours, essentially double dipping. Most people will pay the extra hours because they work ~8 hours a day and need daycare for all or most of it.

Basically the subsidy doesn't really help parents, it just goes to the daycare's pockets (and subsequently, their landlord if they don't own their property).

Re: Is there a market failure in child care?

#116

Post by TheGigaChad »

harryf wrote: post #61
Eumenes wrote: post #2

The failure to me seems in outsourcing your child to a daycare, vs parents having flexible schedules to actually take care of your kid (either 1 with PT job or staying home FT, or both with flexible jobs). I understand this isn't popular in our culture these days, but I imagine it has many positive outcomes for the child and family.

With all due respect, you sound like someone who doesn't have children. Most of the argumentation for "parents should stay at home and care for their kids" is based a different world to the one we now live in - a throwback to times where we lived in small communities and child raising was more a group effort with grandparents and relatives helping out. Today 56% of the worlds population lives in cities. That means ch…

[dead]

Re: Is there a market failure in child care?

#117

Post by notenoughhorses »

mlsu wrote: post #77

With nearly any of our social ills, the answer is housing. - The people taking care of children at daycare make pennies; most of the revenue goes to a landlord. It's very expensive because you can't just move the daycare 1.5 hours out to the outskirts of town; you actually need to pay for real estate near where people live. - Grandparents, extended family cannot afford to live near their working children. - Anyone wi…

Or alternatively, to add to the list, working parents cannot afford to live near grandparents. They bought in the 1980s.

Re: Is there a market failure in child care?

#118

Post by ljf »

notahacker wrote: post #83
ljf wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree - but have seen many families have to make this choice, as having too big a gap in your CV (to look after their kids) will impact there employability down the line. It is also hard to stay current and to retain confidence in your ability when you are out of the working world. Don't get me wrong - stay at home parents have amazing skills and learn loads, but few employers see that as a benefit when you are loo…

> I agree - but have seen many families have to make this choice, as having too big a gap in your CV (to look after their kids) will impact there employability down the line. This is true, but does raise a couple of obvious points. First, if there are implied future earnings returns from working with young child, those ought to be factored into the calculations for returns to work in the OP (with appropriate caveats…

Very true - but even in 'low pressure' creative fields that I've worked in in the past, people would rather take a researcher who has just come off a job, than one who has spent 4 years looking after children. The assumption is that the 'current' person will be 'better'.

I think there is also a covert feeling that those with children (in particular women) will be less wedded to their role. People have been shocked when I've stayed home to look after our sick children, and my wife went into work.

This remains a gendered issue.

Re: Is there a market failure in child care?

#119

Post by hd95489 »

Balgair wrote: post #99
kube-system wrote: post #20

> Suppose that the parents have two children who need child care. That is $540 per week. The parent salary has to be at least $540 per week to make the choice of child care economical. But that does not take into account taxes. Even worse than that, it doesn’t take into account commutes, and the opportunity cost of not spending time with your own kids. If you make just enough money at work to pay for childcare, what…

$540/week for 2 kids is a steal where I am. Local costs are >$600/wk for two kids near us, and I have friends in other metros that are closer to $800/wk. Nannies are more like $1k/wk no matter the family size.

Ha I misread that as 540 a week for 1 kid which is right in line with Seattle rates

Re: Is there a market failure in child care?

#120

Post by throwawaygal7 »

chii wrote: post #111
serf wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the choice to have children without ample time for child-care is a failure, but i'm not wholly convinced that it's the market that drove it completely -- more like it's driven by a poor decision making process by the parents. Historically day-care has been a service used by very poor single parents so that they can maintain a work schedule, or the affluent that want some free time away from the kids. With tha…

> after thousands of years of parents' raising kids without a third party involvement. historically, the extended family like grandparents, are the ones taking care of children while working age parents go out to actually work (the fields). Historically, this works, because you tended to live with the grandparents, at least for a while - the household is multi-generation. The recent "privilege" of buying your own sep…

Many cultures had nuclear families by default including much of western and northern Europe. Especially after the plagues.
Post reply on HN