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

121–130 of 522 posts

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#121

Post by iguy »

cortesoft wrote: post #100
ng12 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes perfect economic sense: it's a simple supply and demand curve. Increasing the number of workers decreases their value. The only confounding factor is whether the increase in workers increases the speed at which the economy grows/ I'd guess it probably does, but not enough to offset the downward pressure on wages.

It is pretty well accepted fact in economics that a growing workforce is a good thing for economic growth. > it's a simple supply and demand curve. Increasing the number of workers decreases their value. You are leaving out a crucial factor - the wages that the 'new' workers earn are going to be spent in the economy, growing the economy as a whole. This is increasing the 'demand' side of that supply and demand curve.…

The most solid argument in this direction (IMHO) is that quite a lot of the extra spending seems to have gone on positional goods, like housing. It's mostly a bidding war, and once every family has two earners, the winning bid is much higher.

And, making that worse: Once you have two careers to plan for, it's much harder to move to a smaller cheaper city to escape. Perhaps both of you can find good jobs in the big city, and in 5 smaller places... but not the same 5! So you have to pick the big center.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#122

Post by balfirevic »

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…

> I am not going to say that I am much better off for not having a dog.

But why not? It doesn't diminish dogs or other people who have dogs in any way, it just means that for you personally disadvantages outweigh advantages. So not having a dog will, on balance, make you... well, better-off.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#123

Post by sol_remmy2 »

georgeburdell wrote: post #19

As the article notes, the reason is regulation and women entering the workforce. Honestly I don’t see a problem. We as a society have decided that we would rather be 100% safe rather than accept risk for lower cost, so we enforce strict ratios on children to caretaker ratios, license people, make in-home sprinklers mandatory, etc. $16k per child per year in Massachusetts is that cost. For what it’s worth, none of my…

> For what it’s worth, none of my friends put infants in daycare due to the cost. They either got foreign au pairs or hired someone under the table for cash (very common in immigrant communities)

I'm hoping your friends are libertarians who disagree with the current political zeitgeist in Massachusetts.

It would be very depressing to hear that your friends are Liberals who publicly support these daycare laws and then privately flaunt them by 1) favoring non-American workers and 2) paying them in cash to avoid taxes

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#124

Post by shantly »

vturner wrote: post #21

This may be somewhat off-topic, but I'm often surprised that leftist policies like the article advocates are often proposed at a national level? Why is this? Why not propose a state-sponsored child-care system in a leftist state - California, Washington, Massachusetts, etc. I'm not trying to start a war here, simply genuinely interested why people on the left push national social programs versus propose them in very…

The free rider problem is usually the reason We Can't Have Nice Things at the state level.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#125

Post by ecoled_ame »

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…

My antagonism is not needless - in fact it serves my purpose. I want to see family values annihilated.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#126

Post by jperras »

F_J_H wrote: post #104
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…

"pays for itself...via increased income taxes"? It's a "nit pick" for sure, but in my understanding, something that "pays for itself" is not dependent on government subsidies. Quebec has some of the highest income taxes in the country - you pay for such services one way or another. Plus, according to the linked article, there is not enough space in the subsidized program to meet demand, so there are private options a…

> It's a "nit pick" for sure, but in my understanding, something that "pays for itself" is not dependent on government subsidies. Quebec has some of the highest income taxes in the country - you pay for such services one way or another.

The subsidies that are required are offset by the increased labour force participation that occurs as a direct result of said subsidies. Conversely, if the subsidies disappeared, then there's a good chance that many of those currently employed parents would have to make a choice – do I remain in the workforce and pay $1-2k/month for childcare, or do I quit my job and raise my child/children?

I've had relatives that live in Ontario that had to make this choice. Daycare in Toronto is $1600/month, and can be around $2500/month if you have two children. If one of the parents is pulling in $50,000/year (net pay of $38,979), and you have to drop close to $30,000 for childcare, for 2-4 years, is it even worth staying at your job?

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#127

Post by cortesoft »

ChaosDegenerate wrote: post #110
JauntTrooper wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So true. We have two kids under 3. I am far more drained taking care of them for a day than I am after a day in the office. We pay $42,000 a year in childcare (2 kids, $1,750 /month, which is one of the cheapest options in our area). After taxes its 90%+ of my wife’s entire salary. It doesn’t make financial sense for her to work, but she’s good at her job, and she’s in a career where taking years off is punishing (la…

women these days... having kids is too much work, let someone else take care of them. I feel bad for you brother.

Men these days... having kids is too much work, let someone else take care of them.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#128

Post by ChaosDegenerate »

ng7j5d9 wrote: post #106
ChaosDegenerate wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, somehow the society at large has no problem with exactly opposite generalization: that women prefer to work over staying home with their kids. It is an individual matter, I agree. With most women definitely having the preference of staying at home. But for that the right partner is needed, i.e. one who provides enough resources for her and her kids. If this is not present she will go to work. We decided as a so…

>Women define male attractivness based on his socio-economic status. Of course if you don't want your wife (and other females and society at large) to look down at you, you will eventually go back to work and work your ass off. Yikes, what is wrong with me? One of my best friends quit his job to become a stay-at-home dad because his successful lawyer wife made more money and wanted to keep working. I've been supposed…

You think his parents, his dad specifically don't look down at him? You think people, some people, don't laugh behind his back? And final, really important point: Do you think his wife finds it sexy that she supports her stay-at-home hubby? You alone don't define it. His parents, his mom-in-law, his kids (nice male model for his boy if he has one, btw, pathetic), neighbors -- this is where the pressure builds. The looks. The remarks. Him asking money her for a nice car he always wanted. Him asking her for vacation as he's tired after months with kids. I mean, you might find it OK, but somehow most people won't. I feel bad for him. For you too, as your only argument is pretending you don't get it. What, you're a five year old now, not knowing how adult partnerships work?

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#129

Post by jgon »

F_J_H wrote: post #104
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…

"pays for itself...via increased income taxes"? It's a "nit pick" for sure, but in my understanding, something that "pays for itself" is not dependent on government subsidies. Quebec has some of the highest income taxes in the country - you pay for such services one way or another. Plus, according to the linked article, there is not enough space in the subsidized program to meet demand, so there are private options a…

It's also hard to pry apart what "pays for itself" and what doesn't. Quebec doesn't just have incredibly high taxes, they are subsidized by the rest of the productive provinces in the country to the tune of about 10% of their yearly budget. A 10% cut in spending would be classified as incredibly harsh austerity in most cases, and so taking any sort of predictive value from the success of programs run by Quebec is very hard. It should also be noted that for all of these efforts to give incredibly generous benefits to Quebec parents, their birthrate is still among the lowest in Canada and buoyed up only by immigration. So it isn't even really helping people have more children.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#130

Post by glofish »

balfirevic wrote: post #122
glofish wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I am not going to say that I am much better off for not having a dog. But why not? It doesn't diminish dogs or other people who have dogs in any way, it just means that for you personally disadvantages outweigh advantages. So not having a dog will, on balance, make you... well, better-off.

Because as I pointed out it is already implied and serves no other purpose just antagonize and rub it into someone's face.

As a matter of fact it is not even clear that I am better off, I may just think I am, mistakenly. So why reiterate.

Finally, the traits that keep me from having a dog are not necessarily virtues, most likely not traits that make a better person.

Post reply on HN