Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

The Rising Cost of Child and Pet Day Care

legitster

A lot of the "regulations" baked into childcare aren't really going to move the needle - the inefficiencies are baked into the model. I don't care how lax your state is, you're not going to run a successful childcare center with 100 kids and 1 caretaker. So the cost of childcare is always going to be linked strongly to median prevailing wages.

While I think Baumol may have something to say here, I think we should listen to Henry George a bit more. The lion's share of overhead for a daycare goes towards its real estate costs. Similarly, it's a growing share of cost of living for both the workers and the customers. And as Henry George pointed out, the cost of housing goes up without creating economic value for anyone.

J_Shelby_J

The knock on effect of high housing costs is driving force behind price increases and declining quality of service everywhere.

It’s an absurd situation here in California, where we are some of the richest people in history, but because the cost of housing so high, the price of everything is driven to the breaking point… meanwhile, the important jobs required for a nicely ran country are too expensive to afford and so our transit, healthcare, service industry, etc is awful.

jjav

> The lion's share of overhead for a daycare goes towards its real estate costs.

Not really. Salaries are by far the highest cost.

BoiledCabbage

And the largest part of those salaries is again used to pay for housing.

Roughly one thirds of American incomes go to cover housing. Cheaper housing means lower wage demands.

bryanlarsen

Daycare is expensive even when located in places where they get free or heavily subsidized rent, like church basements.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF

> the cost of housing goes up without creating economic value for anyone

This is kinda wrong. It does create value for the people who are loaning out the money that the working class uses to purchase the houses. Of course, in this context that value goes straight to the hands of bankers and never leaves but it's worth noting that this situation that the working class hates happens to be rather beneficial to the capital class.

cced

> cost of housing goes up without creating economic value for anyone

The banks capture that in interest payments.

secabeen

Another important factor in many states is the drive towards living wages across the board. For decades, child care (and probably pet care) was done by low-status immigrants and women, often at wages not sufficient to live alone or raise a family on. In more recent years, we've pushed up minimum wages and allowed not just white men to seek and obtain jobs that do pay more. It's overall good that we shrunk the under-classes compared to 100 years ago, but that does mean that if your business model depends on taking advantage of low-status people, it's not sustainable anymore, and you have to raise prices.

8200_unit

We've lost the fundamental stability of a time when one income could comfortably sustain a family. There has been a systemic shift that undermines family well-being.

csa

> We've lost the fundamental stability of a time when one income could comfortably sustain a family. There has been a systemic shift that undermines family well-being.

I used to agree with you.

I currently believe that period of time (mid-20th century, esp. in the US) was a historical anomaly set up by a fairly unique set of circumstances, and we’re just on a long and slow path to reverting back to equilibrium/norm now.

I hope I’m wrong.

BoiledCabbage

> I currently believe that period of time (mid-20th century, esp. in the US) was a historical anomaly set up by a fairly unique set of circumstances

It was a period of high taxation on the highest incomes, large social welfare programs and by relative terms fairly low income inequality.

Finally productivity gains benefitted the labor class and not just the capital class.

That all halted in the 70s and 80s.

ponector

I'm quite sure if you spend money on the same goods like during that day - you can sustain a family. Small house with asbestos, little amount of home appliances, basic small car, no food delivery, no AC etc.

bombcar

I know a decent number of single income families and they even have A/C!

You do have to intentionally budget but you can raise five+ kids on a single salary if you want to.

robertjpayne

The primary cause of population decline has nothing to do with incomes. You see high income earners having a smaller number of children.

It's because women frankly have better options than motherhood and what stay at home parenting entails.

pempem

I just had this conversation with a friend today.

Yes - given a small number of rights that frankly we should have always had - women have found all kinds of representation in education, salaries and diverse paths in life. Paths not previously open to us and pursued at tremendously high cost.

But population decline frankly is occurring because society is uninterested in changing its relationship with child bearing and child rearing. Men have limited interested in stepping up, women are doing work at home, work at work, work in society. Corporations have less interested in flexibility where women are near continuously penalized or held back. Even in a "progressive" presidency there were more CEOs named John than women CEOs. There's disinterest even when the next generation of workers is on the line and the government...well they are actively moving to unwind the rights we've won.

lotsofpulp

That stability existed due to half of the population (women) not having the option to attain high paying jobs.

8200_unit

While it's true that women's professional opportunities were limited in the past, I disagree that this was the sole or even primary reason for single-income stability. My grandparents' generation, for example, often saw one parent (usually the father) working a manufacturing or union job that paid enough to cover a mortgage, raise several children, and afford basics, even with the mother not working outside the home. The purchasing power of those wages was simply far greater.

clove

Now they don't have the option to be housewives unless they actively seek out a rich husband. Who benefits? (There is only one correct answer):

1. Families. 2. Women. 3. Corporations.

BobaFloutist

Not having the option of being a housewife is a low cost for having the option to be literally anything but a housewife.

lotsofpulp

Women who wanted financial freedom so that they have negotiating power benefited.

Tadpole9181

The workforce saw an explosion of productivity, and women added upwards of 100% more members of the workforce.

The problem is that all of that wealth went to the billionaires and the rest of us got the bones in the scrap pile. Now we can't even raise our children because we need to work, but we cannot even not raise our children because it costs more than we make.

fsckboy

the Baumol effect isn't an effect, it just describes a narrow case of the Substitution Effect. Price of beef goes up, you substitute pork and chicken, and those prices go up. You may think of yourself as a Computer Programmer but if Ditchdiggers get paid 3x as much in your area, you'd put Ditch Digging on your resume. To get you to program computers again, they'd have to pay you more.

goda90

> Many explanations have been offered for rising child care costs. The Institute for Family Studies, for example, shows that prices rise with regulations like “group sizes, child-to-staff ratios, required annual training hours, and minimum educational requirements for teachers and center directors.” I don’t deny that regulation raises prices—places with more regulation have higher costs—but I don’t think that explains the slow, steady price increase over time. As with health care and education, the better explanation is the Baumol effect, as I argued in my book (with Helland) Why Are the Prices So Damn High?

While I agree regulation probably doesn't explain the whole price increase, I wonder if governments can do a better job preventing regulation from causing price increases without cutting corners on the regulation itself. Subsidize training for example. Make the child-staff ratios and group sizes a more dynamic factor based on age and needs. Maybe set aside funds to subsidize targeted special needs child care so the kids with fewer needs can be cared for more cheaply(I imagine this is controversial just like schools having separate special needs classes was).

Of course there's the catch all approach of adding childcare to the public schools budget and rolling the cost into taxes.

bglazer

The article makes very clear that costs are rising for "pet day care" just as quickly as for real day care for children. This can not be explained by regulation, as pet day care is far far less regulated compared to daycare for children.

lantry

> Subsidize training for example

This just spreads the cost across all taxpayers, instead of just the people consuming the service. Not to say that's a bad thing, just saying that it's not really "reducing the cost of regulation".

> Make the child-staff ratios and group sizes a more dynamic factor based on age and needs.

At least in my state, this is already the case. for infants, 1 adult per 6 children; increasing the ratio as they get older, up to 1 adult for 18 children when they're 4.

I don't think you're wrong that there are ways to reduce the burden of regulation, but I think we overestimate how much "low hanging fruit" there really is here. The common-sense, obvious, uncontroversial solutions are usually already in place

squigz

1 adult per 18 4-year old children seems... hectic.

egypturnash

I wonder how much of the need for both of these industries would vanish if more families had one stay-at-home parent.

showerst

We send our daughter to a daycare that has a number of families so wealthy that one or both parents wouldn’t have to work. They still do daycare because many people want careers, and/or because they think the socialization and environment diversity is good for their kids.

bombcar

Obviously you’re not going to meet the families that don’t use daycare … at daycare.

ponector

Daycare and basically all child non-entertainment services (health and education) should be heavily subsidized. It's a new taxpayer, all money will be repaid tenfold.

bombcar

Apparently much cheaper to simply import a fully grown taxpayer instead.

akimbostrawman

Infinite money glitch with no downside??? Simply never stop importing people I'm sure there won't be any issues at all!

donjoe0

Like running out of unskilled people to import, especially in these times of rapid emancipation of countries that used to be forcefully held down in an undeveloped state so they could be used precisely as reservoirs of natural resources and cheap labor, to be tapped at will. Witness the collapse of 200 years of "economic theory" in the White Racist West that was basically just some shiny wrapping over the doctrine of "well we will just rob all those other countries that can't defend themselves".

skeezyboy

wage increases not matching price increases... ah yes the american dream. simply put, youre poor, youre country has conned you, people live in better conditions all over the world.

soulofmischief

Who exactly is this comment directed towards? Americans can't help the fact that they were born in America. Also, you meant to say "your" and did not add an apostrophe to your contractions.

skeezyboy

umm, americans? its true though. how can there be so many people struggling financially in the richest country on the planet?

mschuster91

> Still, the basic truth remains: if we want more affordable day care—for kids or pets—we need to use less of what’s expensive: skilled labor. That means either importing more people to do the work, or investing harder in ways to do it with fewer hands.

Both has serious problems. #1 is politically untenable (unless, of course, continuing the status quo of turning a blind eye towards employers abusing undocumented people to drive down wages), and #2 is fundamentally impossible until we gain AGI. It's bad enough when bad AI deletes production databases [1] - I'd raise hell when an "AI cat care" provider would kill my cat, and probably engage in some sort of self-justice should an "AI child care" provider kill or maim my child.

[1] https://www.heise.de/en/news/Artificial-intelligence-Vibe-co...

nisegami

Perhaps the "barrel children" concept can be utilized within countries like the united states where the parents work in urban centers to provide for the children living in lower cost rural areas?

charlie90

weird, I thought the labor theory of value was "debunked".

dukeofdoom

Maybe property taxes. Cities keep bumping these up. But also the intersection of people that neet multiple sets of requirements approaches zero pretty quickly. I watched a guy that's a professional filmer, and he explained that actually the circle he's in is pretty small. So while the set of people that want to do his career is fairly large. That people that jumped through all the requirmeny hoops is like filter. So he has no problems finding work because of it