Yeah its really insane. The child care space has been legislated into un-affordability. Between licensing requirements, staffing ratios, building codes, and a litany of other requirements its a service that can basically only be provided to upper middle class families if not HEAVILY subsidized.
Legislation has nothing to do with it. Staffing ratio minimums are 6:1 in California, which means $2000/child can get you pretty far. The costs are the same as any other service industry - you have to pay more for higher quality teachers and you have to pay more for a location in more expensive areas.
You think $2000/month after taxes is a good price?
Not having kids I didn't realize how insane childcare costs had gotten. Someone posted an article to a local reddit that says people are pre-registering unborn children for childcare because there are so few slots available. Others responses indicated that it's running around $1500 to $2000/month for childcare. Add in housing costs and no wonder people are hesitant to have kids now.
Yeah its really insane. The child care space has been legislated into un-affordability. Between licensing requirements, staffing ratios, building codes, and a litany of other requirements its a service that can basically only be provided to upper middle class families if not HEAVILY subsidized.
Even if subsidized, if there aren't providers it doesn't actually fix the problem. Here in WA we have the Fair Start act to provide subsidies, but where it gets weird now is... does government step in and also start state-funded care facilities to cover the gap? Or does government create incentives to bring more private care providers into the market? As you point out, there's also a question of whether we've created a kind of rent-seeking if only corporate entities can meet the regulatory standard rather than the bad old days when essentially any stay-at-home mom could take in a few kids.
"If the lights and the T.V. are out, it kind of sets the table for romance . . . But, if you're running for your life, you can't make babies." - https://www.cargenerator.com/blogs/news/is-the-blackout-baby... Baby booms have previously been positively correlated with blackouts, snowstorms, hurricanes and power outages. Now, remote work is a covariate as well. We're heading into a prolonged 2023 recession, coupled wit…
Agree with that but have a question...you'd think logically with children being a major expense that economic downturns != more babies. Is that not the case?
Not having kids I didn't realize how insane childcare costs had gotten. Someone posted an article to a local reddit that says people are pre-registering unborn children for childcare because there are so few slots available. Others responses indicated that it's running around $1500 to $2000/month for childcare. Add in housing costs and no wonder people are hesitant to have kids now.
Yeah its really insane. The child care space has been legislated into un-affordability. Between licensing requirements, staffing ratios, building codes, and a litany of other requirements its a service that can basically only be provided to upper middle class families if not HEAVILY subsidized.
Typically, infants are at 1:4 ratio and toddlers 1:7 and at 3 year olds, 1:10. (Massachusetts has a 2:7 infant ratio).
Having managed 1 infant myself, even 1:4 seems like a lot of responsibility. I would not want my infant or toddler to be watched over by more lenient ratios.
Yeah its really insane. The child care space has been legislated into un-affordability. Between licensing requirements, staffing ratios, building codes, and a litany of other requirements its a service that can basically only be provided to upper middle class families if not HEAVILY subsidized.
Legislation has nothing to do with it. Staffing ratio minimums are 6:1 in California, which means $2000/child can get you pretty far. The costs are the same as any other service industry - you have to pay more for higher quality teachers and you have to pay more for a location in more expensive areas.
Staffing ratios differ by state and municipality. In NY the ration is 1:2 for children 2 and under, for example and there are group size caps per facility. As I mentioned there's also a whole licensing regime that is quite expensive to obtain and maintain.
Legislation has nothing to do with it. Staffing ratio minimums are 6:1 in California, which means $2000/child can get you pretty far. The costs are the same as any other service industry - you have to pay more for higher quality teachers and you have to pay more for a location in more expensive areas.
You think $2000/month after taxes is a good price?
There is no such thing as a “good” price. It might just be that the supply of labor to enable the price that people desire for childcare does not exist.
Yeah its really insane. The child care space has been legislated into un-affordability. Between licensing requirements, staffing ratios, building codes, and a litany of other requirements its a service that can basically only be provided to upper middle class families if not HEAVILY subsidized.
Typically, infants are at 1:4 ratio and toddlers 1:7 and at 3 year olds, 1:10. (Massachusetts has a 2:7 infant ratio). Having managed 1 infant myself, even 1:4 seems like a lot of responsibility. I would not want my infant or toddler to be watched over by more lenient ratios.
In New York the ratio for children 2 and under is 1:2.
It's election season and I've been out talking to voters, who share their life stories... what I would say is that there are many women who are choosing WFH because they either can't afford or can't find day care, which may lead to deciding that hey, they might as well have another baby if they are now committed to this employment model. I've spoken to several women who were over-qualified for the jobs they had taken…
We had two kids largely because my wife was resigned to her career already being destroyed, so why not?
"If the lights and the T.V. are out, it kind of sets the table for romance . . . But, if you're running for your life, you can't make babies." - https://www.cargenerator.com/blogs/news/is-the-blackout-baby... Baby booms have previously been positively correlated with blackouts, snowstorms, hurricanes and power outages. Now, remote work is a covariate as well. We're heading into a prolonged 2023 recession, coupled wit…
Agree with that but have a question...you'd think logically with children being a major expense that economic downturns != more babies. Is that not the case?
Making babies is one of the least logic-driven decisions you will make in your life.
I wonder what percentage was fueled by a dual income household being forced to single income and realizing that they could handle it well enough - and the non-working spouse deciding to not bother returning to the workforce?