Why Child Care Is So Expensive • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#211

Post by OnlineGladiator » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #182

OnlineGladiator wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are all valid points, but aren't those all (edit: mostly) examples of women being forced to work instead of choosing to work? Also I'd say those are exceptions to the rule, not the norm. If anything I'd say you bolstered the top comment's argument (I do not know your stance and am not trying to be combative).

Aren't majority of men forced to work instead of choosing by that definition? These are examples women people living real lives. Wast populations. There was such a thing as idle lifestyle of aristocracy in places where the situation allowed that to male aristocrats. Spending most of their time socializing with each other. Also, overall they easily make majority of population. Combination of family farms, non-aristocr…

> Aren't majority of men forced to work instead of choosing by that definition?

Yes, I never said or implied otherwise. I don't know why you think I'm fighting with you.

My entire point is people work because they have to more than they want to, and gender is irrelevant. What I originally said:

> I think it depends on the individual more than the gender.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#212

Post by F_J_H » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #188

jstanley wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do I remain in the workforce and pay $1-2k/month for childcare, or do I quit my job and raise my child/children? That the program "pays for itself" in increased taxes implies that the additional tax burden is at least the $1-2k/month required to pay for the childcare. So if you just cancelled the childcare and reduced the taxes you'd end up at the same place on average, except you wouldn't have non-parents subsidis…

I understood it as it would "pay for itself" in increased tax revenue in the future as the children who had access to better child care become more productive citizens. That sounds like how any other investment works, you pay now for a better situation in the future. If you argue that you don't want to pay now because you won't benefit in the future because you'll be dead, I assume you're not willing to support any o…

>children who had access to better child care become more productive citizens.

From the article:

But young Canadians who were eligible for the program experienced, as teenagers, “a significant worsening in self-reported health and in life satisfaction” relative to Canadians from other provinces. So, did the Quebec child-care experiment “work”? Yes, for parents and public financing. Perhaps not for the kids.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#213

Post by avgDev » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 9:27 PM UTC

ChaosDegenerate wrote: post #6

The thing with female workforce participation: isn't it just symptom of the society getting poorer. My wife worked her ass off. I was making about 130k / year. She was making about 60k / year. Then we not only moved from the US to Poland (where live is just so much cheaper). But I also started making about 330k / year. All the willingness to work evaporated on her part :-) Instead we have another kid. She stopped tal…

Wait...were you making 330k in Poland? Because that would be insane.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#214

Post by com2kid » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 9:27 PM UTC

pfortuny wrote: post #57

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 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…

> 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 have, and of course, caring for the family is not a proper job.

First off, what if someone doesn't want to be a stay at home parent? Why force traditional values on them?

But, in terms of pure economics, let's put it at an extreme.

Child-care is too expensive, a woman who would otherwise go on to make breakthroughs in medical science stays at home.

The lost value to society is in the literal millions.

This scenario only has to be repeated a few times before it becomes economically irresponsible to not offer subsidized child care.

And, given how large the population is, this situation will happen.

The ideal of capitalism is that people are rewarded for their contributions to society overall, by providing value for others (ideally increasing net happiness!) people are reimbursed.

Now I'm not going to even try and say that is what always happens, obviously things have gotten a bit off kilter, but by and large I'd say that for many jobs out there, that is still true.

And the thing is, some people have an outsized impact, potential is on a curve, and if a single person on the far end of the "can help out humanity' curve is not enabled to do all that they can do to help out, then we all lose out.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#215

Post by Digory » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

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."

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#216

Post by cardiffspaceman » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #171

wklauss wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are, even at a more local level. New York City, for example, has a free pre-k (4yo) program. But in order to be effective, some of these policies need to be applied nationwide. In other cases, state budgets are simply too constrained for them. Like someone said in the comments, this is a program that could paid itself with the income tax from both parents working, but in the US the majority of income tax goes to…

> Like someone said in the comments, this is a program that could paid itself with the income tax from both parents working That's a bit of a weird point to make, though. That income tax is already going toward paying for government programs. If you divert some of that to pay for early child care, some other programs will be left under- or unfunded.

Unless the subsidy enabled workers to work instead of mind children, and thus pay more income or consumption tax. NOT APPLICABLE IN STATES WITHOUT SUCH TAX.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#217

Post by mindslight » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 9:29 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #29

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #2

Women's introduction to the workforce was the right thing to happen but it fundamentally hurt labor and the "middle class". You can't double the supply without changing anything in the system and inflationary effects of dual income are ridiculous.

This doesn't make economic sense.... 'doubling supply' is what economic growth is.... producing more should be balanced out with people consuming more, which is what a healthy economy does. This is like arguing that the invention of the assembly line caused inflation because you could produce too much. You contradict yourself by saying 'double supply' and 'inflationary effects'... increasing supply of a commodity (in…

The economy isn't something to optimize unto itself, but rather a system that is supposed to serve humans. Additional labor is "being produced", and sure it is also "being consumed" - what this really means is we're all working more, and to what end?

The childcare discussion cuts to the heart of this, because the language of economic optimization cloaks its real world results - the addition of ever-more third-party intermediaries to raise your own kids, such you can keep on performing the most system-legible labor possible.

What should have really happened is that "full time employment" should have been redefined to 30 hours per week, a few decades ago. By now we should be at 20-25 hours per week. We're in the age of the greatest technological progress in history, yet rather than success, the treadmill is turning faster than ever! All to produce more layers of bureaucracy, overpackaged fast food, or junk that ends up in a river. And then we do our penance lamenting about "sustainability", when the simple answer is to stop overproducing in the first place.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#218

Post by nathan_compton » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 9:29 PM UTC

ChaosDegenerate wrote: post #88

nathan_compton wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd interpret these results with a grain of salt. They are, after all, culturally (and circumstantially) bound. If making money wasn't so important to raising kids, then women might express quite different preferences in partners. I believe there is some evidence for this if you look at mate preference in nations with more social support. Just anecdotally, women seem to be interested in men who excel in some area, no…

Please keep in mind, I said socio-economic status. But, homeless looking, constantly drank, smelling of urine Charles Bukowski had plenty of young, attractive and willing lovers. My point being exactly his high socio-economic status. We're talking about one of the best American poets. How many of these you get to meet? Hey, he might even write a poem about feeling he has for you if he likes you. That's what was so da…

Right, but what you are saying now borders on tautological: women like those with high socioeconomic status. But socioeconomic status is just the combination of all things which makes people like you.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#219

Post by silveroriole » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 9:30 PM UTC

scruple wrote: post #190

nilkn wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter-point: my anecdotal observations suggest that folks are so intent on competing for housing that in the decades since dual incomes became commonplace the main effect has been to simply dramatically inflate the price of housing. In other words, the extra money may not be making it into the general economy much and it may instead just be supporting higher home prices. Of course, home prices are not completely is…

> In other words, the extra money may not be making it into the general economy much and it may instead just be supporting higher home prices. This was the topic of conversation this weekend between my wife and I and 4 other couples that we are friends with, each of us with young children. We live in SoCal. We have young kids. We basically can afford to live here, despite having high-paying, dual-income households. T…

You have a house and multiple cars but you can’t go to Disneyland as often as you’d like? Such hardship... barely living...

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#220

Post by buboard » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 9:32 PM UTC

Why then don't one of the parents choose to stay at home or work at home (excluding single parents of course)? Either childcare is not a big expense , or there's some kind of societal taboo against raising your own kids at home? Is this part of the bigger bubble that makes raising kids so effortful and costly in time, that people just end up not having them?