25 ms·
This article is terrible. For all the numbers and percentages it throws around it just doesn't do the sums on the basics. From the article's facts: - 3 teache
by netcan 11y ago
This article is terrible.
For all the numbers and percentages it throws around it just doesn't do the sums on the basics. From the article's facts:
- 3 teacher for 19 children - 6.3 children per carer.
- Cost = 15% of median income
- lets assume 1.5 children per family.
- 6.3/1.5 =4.2 child carers per family.
- 4.2 carers X 15% of median family income = a revenue of 63% of family income per child care worker.
Assuming overheads, profits, etc., .... you get the point. Child care is expensive and low paying for similar reasons. It takes a lot of teachers per student. This isn't a government conspiracy or a corporate one, it's just the reality of the requirements of caring for children.
- gluggymug 11y agoI don't think the article is terrible. If childcare businesses are struggling, there will be less and less of them. Which is why the article argues for some form of government intervention.
- netcan 11y agoThe logical conclusion is, in my opinion, that childcare is inherently costly because we need a high teacher/child ratio. I don't really have a problem with intervention, but I'd rather it be in the form of simple payments to the parents. Otherwise, we are paying Jill to take care of Jack's kid so Jack can go out and work making spoons. Why shouldn't Jack look after his own kid and Jill can make the spoons.
- plonh 11y agoBecause it can be more efficient for each person to consistently perform their specialist career for two decades