It seems to me this is another case of government interference causing vast increases in cost, especially the caretaker to child ratio: 1:3 = $15,000 1:5 = $5,0

It seems to me this is another case of government interference causing vast increases in cost, especially the caretaker to child ratio: 1:3 = $15,000 1:5 = $5,000. And what does the author advocate? More government meddling! Higher standards! Good intention policies with bad economic outcomes / unintended consequences needs to stop. Yes we know if every child had 1:1 care from someone with a Ivy league child psych degree we would all be better off. Unfortunately that's not the society we can afford even in the affluent west. Save it for the elite who have the cash to burn. Don't force lower income folk into your preferred world view. You cripple them economically and then cry for more intervention because you crippled them. Sure, its one thing to enforce safety standards, its another thing entirely to enforce that every 3 children has a surrogate "parent" of the highest standard. Imagine if they imposed this ratio on grade school education. And no I'm not saying 1:100 is fine. Obviously not. But I knew people who watched 1:10 kids growing up in their own home, a mix of low income and middle class. While not ideal they all lived normal lives and everything turned out just fine for those children in the end.