Why Child Care Is So Expensive • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#321

Post by User23 » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 11:14 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…

It’s always struck me as strange. Working for a boss that doesn’t care about you past the next review is liberating, but working for a family that loves you more than anything is oppressive.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#322

Post by GordonS » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 11:16 PM UTC

abbadadda wrote: post #243

A lot of really good discussion in this article. I just wanted to add a couple of things: It is a true blessing if a mother or father can stay at home to raise their children. However, over time being a stay at home parent is incredibly isolating. Men are suseptible to depression, but women especially so post-partum. Also, many parents do eventually want to work either part time or full time. The longer one stays out…

> Men are suseptible to depression, but women especially so post-partum

Depression is actually much more prevalent in women, in general, need t just post-partum[0]. I've linked a single reference, but there really is a lot of evidence here (although I think men probably hide it more frequently than women, but that's just my unscientific opinion!).

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478054/

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#323

Post by GordonS » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 11:18 PM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #309

abbadadda wrote: post #243

A lot of really good discussion in this article. I just wanted to add a couple of things: It is a true blessing if a mother or father can stay at home to raise their children. However, over time being a stay at home parent is incredibly isolating. Men are suseptible to depression, but women especially so post-partum. Also, many parents do eventually want to work either part time or full time. The longer one stays out…

> I agree the lowest paying jobs should not be subsidized, but I think the benefits of taxpayer subsidized childcare would be overwhelmingly positive. I don't understand. What's the difference? You are using taxes revenues to subsidize uneconomical labor to be economical. What is so different about subsidizing a entry worker's pay or their child care bills? --- FWIW, the article makes no mention of it, but child care…

I have to agree - we are a society, not a corporation; should such decisions really be made on prospective income tax revenues?

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#324

Post by toasterlovin » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 11:18 PM UTC

chris5745 wrote: post #221

pfortuny wrote: post #57

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…

I understand the spirit of your position, but I think many or most people certainly value “homemaking” for lack of a better term. It’s not a “job” in the sense of monetary revenue, but it makes having a “job” possible for a partner, and has indirect monetary value in addition to the non-quantifiable value of the role itself. Like many “jobs”, homemaking is almost always thankless. I think instead of trying to get our…

> I think many or most people certainly value “homemaking”

There is definitely a good sized segment of America that views homemaking as occupying some position below earning a salary. My wife (a homemaker) encounters this routinely among a certain set of career aspiring women.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#325

Post by spookthesunset » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 11:18 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…

Not everybody has the choice to go single-income--many couples need two incomes to survive at all. Also there are single-parent households that have zero choice in the matter as well.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#326

Post by edoceo » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 11:19 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #303

unicornporn wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't have to be this way. No it doesn't. Rates for Stockholm, Sweden (PDF): https://forskola.stockholm/globalassets/forskola-och-skola/f... In short: FULL-TIME RATES Full-time rates apply to children in the ages of 1-3, who are in childcare for more than 30 hours a week. Child 1: 3% of household income up to maximum a fee of 1425 kr/month (roughly 149 USD) Child 2: 2% of household income up to maximum a fee o…

Sweden has a top marginal tax rate of 70% that kicks in at around $98,000. That $149 per month is deceptive when you are paying very high tax rates.

You're right! Taxing the high earners is a good idea, subsidized child care is just one of the many benefits.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#327

Post by HBKXNCUO » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 11:20 PM UTC

com2kid wrote: post #214

pfortuny wrote: post #57

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…

> 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 extrem…

>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.

This sounds like a fun game.

Child-care is subsidized. A child who would otherwise have been raised by a loving parent is raised by minimum wage daycare workers who don't care about the child.

The child consequently develops antisocial behavior disorders and shoots up a classroom full of children, one of which would otherwise have gone on to make breakthroughs in medical science.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#328

Post by buzzy_hacker » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 11:21 PM UTC

I don't understand the argument this article is making. It goes from establishing that the cost of child care has increased much faster than other goods/services, to advocating that the government pay for it. Where's the connection? Simply moving the costs from new parents to the US tax-base won't do anything to address the underlying causes of the high costs.

It seems to me that we need solutions to address the high cost in any case, and the question of whether the government should be more involved is an orthogonal concern.

Unless the argument is that there's not an effective way to control the costs, so the government should help pay for it to not overly burden new parents. But, I didn't see that point explicitly made in the article.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#329

Post by kelnos » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 11:22 PM UTC

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #195

giarc wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree... we pay a dayhome (a licensed childcare in someone's home) $875/month which includes 9 hours of care per day and 3'ish meals per day. That's like $40/day or like $4/hour. Where else are you going to get that value?!

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.

Re: Why Child Care Is So Expensive

#330

Post by hadlock » Mon, Dec 09, 2019, 11:24 PM UTC

abbadadda wrote: post #243

A lot of really good discussion in this article. I just wanted to add a couple of things: It is a true blessing if a mother or father can stay at home to raise their children. However, over time being a stay at home parent is incredibly isolating. Men are suseptible to depression, but women especially so post-partum. Also, many parents do eventually want to work either part time or full time. The longer one stays out…

Growing up, about 10 families all had kids within 18 months of each other, within a 3 mile radius. The parents all got together and worked out a time share agreement where all 10 kids would get dropped off from roughly 9-5 at one parent's house, then a different parent's house the next day, etc so that one house had 10 kids for an entire day, every two weeks. This happened from about age 0-3 pretty religiously. It worked out partly because all the parents were in the same age/ethnic/religious/income group, but it might work across wider groups. It didn't cost anything. We called it the "babysitting group" and 30+ years later I'm still pretty good friends with most of the kids in our group.

I think "modern" parents take their kids to the park to try and socialize with other parents/kids but the unstructured method doesn't seem as effective.