15 ms·

Yeah its really insane. The child care space has been legislated into un-affordability. Between licensing requirements, staffing ratios, building codes, and a l

by ch4s3 4y ago

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.

jmole 4y ago
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.
- lupire 4y ago
  You think $2000/month after taxes is a good price?
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    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.
    - setr 4y ago
      Childcare (specifically thinking of daycare) strikes me as a low-skill job, so labor volume should be fairly high -- excluding I guess things like extra-filtering for background. And as far as I can think of, there's no substantial upfront costs outside of the normal elements -- building, room setup, initial training, etc. It also strikes me as something that can be done with some scalability -- a decent sized group of children can presumably be supported by relatively few adults. At least proven by schools, which can have like a 1:16 - 1:24 teacher:child ratio. So it seems strange to me that each child would cost ~$15/hr -- the full cost of a single low-skill resource, 1:1 with children; You're not seeing the scalability of groups kick in. Unless there's some overhead per-child I don't understand, it seems clear this isn't simply supply/demand. There are many who want childcare, but there are many more who should be capable of supporting it. There are also of course difference in popularity/quality which will contribute to a price gradient, but if you're seeing $2k/mo/child as your "basic daycare" costs, there's something up -- there's no inherent reason to the job that I can think of that would stop someone from undercutting that price point.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Why are you assuming a job that is presumably low skill has a high supply of people willing to sell their time to perform that low skill job? > Unless there's some overhead per-child I don't understand I would start with liability costs, it must be massive for a professional daycare facility given how emotionally invested people are with their kids. Next would be redundancy of employees. Babies and toddlers transmit tons of germs, and so the adults around them would get sick too. Plus legally mandated ratios means there has to be adequate coverage for vacations, sick days, emergencies, turn over, etc. And the population of working age people continues to decline, so I would not associate low skill with high supply of labor. I have never heard anyone tell their child to aspire to become a daycare employee. I also would not describe managing multiple babies and toddlers properly as low skill, or at least not low effort. It seems to be very strenuous, and I do not think I could do it.
        bombcar 4y ago
        Low effort certainly not! Low skill, yes - perhaps not for the life-saving training needed, but I suspect most any able-bodied adult can be trained how to care for an infant or toddler in a week or so (after all, parents get zero training beyond "you need a car seat" when sent home from the hospital). Whether there are people able and willing at the price listed, I don't know. It seems a job that could be done by teenagers (at least as assistants, supervised) but I suspect they are prohibited.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Teenagers are usually in school at the same time kids are in daycare.
        setr 4y ago
        > Why are you assuming a job that is presumably low skill has a high supply of people willing to sell their time to perform that low skill job? Because there’s a low barrier to entry, people want money, and unless it were particularly horrible or life-threatening, if you’re going to find a high supply of labor anywhere, it’s going to be in a low-skill job? > I have never heard anyone tell their child to aspire to become a daycare employee. I have never heard anyone tell their child to aspire to become a McDonald’s employee, or a bank teller, or a pool cleaner, or a gardener, yet I seem to find quite a few of them. It’s low-skill — you don’t need a 4-year degree and aspirations to get into it. You just need to want money, and have no better options. > I would start with liability costs, it must be massive for a professional daycare facility given how emotionally invested people are with their kids But that’d be the same with anything taking responsibility over handling kids — eg summer schools, camps, extra-carriculars, etc. I’m sure they have good margins (parents throw money at anything supporting children), but I don’t think they’re getting barraged by insurance premiums for it. Legal ratios might help explain it, but that’s part of the “something is going on outside of labor supply/demand”.
  - conductr 4y ago
    Nitpick but it's tax deductible in the end, but yes after taxes up front
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Only $7k per kid per year is tax deductible, and that only went into effect starting 2021.
  - newshorts 4y ago
    We were paying $3k or higher per kid when we lived in the Bay Area. Some people might be coming from a very different perspective on what constitutes a good price.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  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.
poulsbohemian 4y ago
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.
- ndriscoll 4y ago
  I guess it's a matter of social networking, but I would think essentially any stay-at-home mom could still take in a few kids. It wouldn't even occur to me to check whether that's "allowed".
  - hollywood_court 4y ago
    In addition to taking “in a few kids” they would also take on a great amount of liability and risk. I’m a stay at home dad or at least I was until my son started pre-k a few months ago. There’s no amount of money that would make me feel comfortable also taking care of someone else’s children in my home. Just not worth the trouble or the risk.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Yeah, I'd be leery of it even from friends and family, because nothing blows up like injury to children. Of course, the poorer people have no choice and make it work, but I'm certain they get "caught" now and then.
    - ndriscoll 4y ago
      Maybe I just think we still live in the 90s, but when I was growing up, I know my mom babysat, and I remember one of the neighbors regularly watching us. Liability probably worked about the same way back then, but I don't think anyone ever really asked or thought about it. I doubt anyone was licensed if that even existed. If one of us got hurt, we'd probably get in trouble for doing something we weren't supposed to. I guess I assume that if you have a rapport with a neighbor, you can trust that they won't be out to screw you if a kid gets hurt, but maybe that's naive. Or maybe my parents were just lax; I remember my grandparents let us ride around on a moped that could do ~35 mph when I was probably under 10, and we'd go wander around in a forest near their house, or me and the neighbor kids would go play in the desert near my house growing up when I was probably ~6. Probably never more than .5-1 miles away, but still pretty much only "supervised" by older kids.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
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.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  In New York the ratio for children 2 and under is 1:2.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    In NY, it is 1:3 up to 6 weeks and 1:4 after 6 weeks for day care centers. See page 22: https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/418-1-DCC.pdf https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/418-1... The 1:2 ratio is for “family daycare”, whatever that means. That is on page 19 of this document: https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/417-FDC.pdf https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/417-F...
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      It has to do with facility type, I believe. I think operations run out of homes are “family daycare,” but I’m not 100% sure.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        > Family day care home shall mean a program caring for children for more than three hours per day per child in which child day care is provided in a family home for three to six children. From 413: https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/413-Definitions.pdf https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/413-D... In general it usually refers to a family taking on a few extra kids vs a schoolroom/office taking on kids. Requirements are usually different for the family care ones, not necessarily less.
Analemma_ 4y ago
It’s genuinely not legislation. Labor is expensive, which combined with the reality that anything beyond a 4:1 child-caretaker ratio is pretty bad for children pretty much guarantees that child care can never be cheap in a rich country with rich country labor costs. EDIT: I should've said "infants" and not "children" here, where the necessity of a 4:1 ratio really applies. As children get older this ratio can get higher. I recommend https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/the-iron-mathematics-of-day-care/ https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/the-iron-math..., from someone who just assumed that child care costs were because of government intervention, and then did the math and found out this isn’t the case.
- newshorts 4y ago
  Genuinely wondering how anything beyond a 4:1 ratio is bad? My kids are in daycare in TX with well over a 4:1 ratio and seem like they are doing fine. What sorts of downsides are you referring to?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    It greatly depends on age! Having six kids ranging from 1-12 is a lot different than having six infants, who will likely all explode at the exact same time. Because it's hard to exactly define "daycares shouldn't have more kids than they can take care of" they institute fixed ratios.
- gambiting 4y ago
  UK is as expensive as it gets, but full time nursery(5 days a week) is "only" £800 a month for us. American costs seem to be completely absurd, despite much worse employment protections and benefits.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    government subsidized?
    - gambiting 4y ago

by ch4s3 4y ago

jmole 4y ago

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.

lupire 4y ago
You think $2000/month after taxes is a good price?
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  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.
  - setr 4y ago
    Childcare (specifically thinking of daycare) strikes me as a low-skill job, so labor volume should be fairly high -- excluding I guess things like extra-filtering for background. And as far as I can think of, there's no substantial upfront costs outside of the normal elements -- building, room setup, initial training, etc. It also strikes me as something that can be done with some scalability -- a decent sized group of children can presumably be supported by relatively few adults. At least proven by schools, which can have like a 1:16 - 1:24 teacher:child ratio. So it seems strange to me that each child would cost ~$15/hr -- the full cost of a single low-skill resource, 1:1 with children; You're not seeing the scalability of groups kick in. Unless there's some overhead per-child I don't understand, it seems clear this isn't simply supply/demand. There are many who want childcare, but there are many more who should be capable of supporting it. There are also of course difference in popularity/quality which will contribute to a price gradient, but if you're seeing $2k/mo/child as your "basic daycare" costs, there's something up -- there's no inherent reason to the job that I can think of that would stop someone from undercutting that price point.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Why are you assuming a job that is presumably low skill has a high supply of people willing to sell their time to perform that low skill job? > Unless there's some overhead per-child I don't understand I would start with liability costs, it must be massive for a professional daycare facility given how emotionally invested people are with their kids. Next would be redundancy of employees. Babies and toddlers transmit tons of germs, and so the adults around them would get sick too. Plus legally mandated ratios means there has to be adequate coverage for vacations, sick days, emergencies, turn over, etc. And the population of working age people continues to decline, so I would not associate low skill with high supply of labor. I have never heard anyone tell their child to aspire to become a daycare employee. I also would not describe managing multiple babies and toddlers properly as low skill, or at least not low effort. It seems to be very strenuous, and I do not think I could do it.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        Low effort certainly not! Low skill, yes - perhaps not for the life-saving training needed, but I suspect most any able-bodied adult can be trained how to care for an infant or toddler in a week or so (after all, parents get zero training beyond "you need a car seat" when sent home from the hospital). Whether there are people able and willing at the price listed, I don't know. It seems a job that could be done by teenagers (at least as assistants, supervised) but I suspect they are prohibited.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Teenagers are usually in school at the same time kids are in daycare.
      - setr 4y ago
        > Why are you assuming a job that is presumably low skill has a high supply of people willing to sell their time to perform that low skill job? Because there’s a low barrier to entry, people want money, and unless it were particularly horrible or life-threatening, if you’re going to find a high supply of labor anywhere, it’s going to be in a low-skill job? > I have never heard anyone tell their child to aspire to become a daycare employee. I have never heard anyone tell their child to aspire to become a McDonald’s employee, or a bank teller, or a pool cleaner, or a gardener, yet I seem to find quite a few of them. It’s low-skill — you don’t need a 4-year degree and aspirations to get into it. You just need to want money, and have no better options. > I would start with liability costs, it must be massive for a professional daycare facility given how emotionally invested people are with their kids But that’d be the same with anything taking responsibility over handling kids — eg summer schools, camps, extra-carriculars, etc. I’m sure they have good margins (parents throw money at anything supporting children), but I don’t think they’re getting barraged by insurance premiums for it. Legal ratios might help explain it, but that’s part of the “something is going on outside of labor supply/demand”.
- conductr 4y ago
  Nitpick but it's tax deductible in the end, but yes after taxes up front
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Only $7k per kid per year is tax deductible, and that only went into effect starting 2021.
- newshorts 4y ago
  We were paying $3k or higher per kid when we lived in the Bay Area. Some people might be coming from a very different perspective on what constitutes a good price.
ch4s3 4y ago
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.

poulsbohemian 4y ago

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.

ndriscoll 4y ago
I guess it's a matter of social networking, but I would think essentially any stay-at-home mom could still take in a few kids. It wouldn't even occur to me to check whether that's "allowed".
- hollywood_court 4y ago
  In addition to taking “in a few kids” they would also take on a great amount of liability and risk. I’m a stay at home dad or at least I was until my son started pre-k a few months ago. There’s no amount of money that would make me feel comfortable also taking care of someone else’s children in my home. Just not worth the trouble or the risk.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Yeah, I'd be leery of it even from friends and family, because nothing blows up like injury to children. Of course, the poorer people have no choice and make it work, but I'm certain they get "caught" now and then.
  - ndriscoll 4y ago
    Maybe I just think we still live in the 90s, but when I was growing up, I know my mom babysat, and I remember one of the neighbors regularly watching us. Liability probably worked about the same way back then, but I don't think anyone ever really asked or thought about it. I doubt anyone was licensed if that even existed. If one of us got hurt, we'd probably get in trouble for doing something we weren't supposed to. I guess I assume that if you have a rapport with a neighbor, you can trust that they won't be out to screw you if a kid gets hurt, but maybe that's naive. Or maybe my parents were just lax; I remember my grandparents let us ride around on a moped that could do ~35 mph when I was probably under 10, and we'd go wander around in a forest near their house, or me and the neighbor kids would go play in the desert near my house growing up when I was probably ~6. Probably never more than .5-1 miles away, but still pretty much only "supervised" by older kids.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

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.

ch4s3 4y ago
In New York the ratio for children 2 and under is 1:2.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  In NY, it is 1:3 up to 6 weeks and 1:4 after 6 weeks for day care centers. See page 22: https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/418-1-DCC.pdf https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/418-1... The 1:2 ratio is for “family daycare”, whatever that means. That is on page 19 of this document: https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/417-FDC.pdf https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/417-F...
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    It has to do with facility type, I believe. I think operations run out of homes are “family daycare,” but I’m not 100% sure.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      > Family day care home shall mean a program caring for children for more than three hours per day per child in which child day care is provided in a family home for three to six children. From 413: https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/413-Definitions.pdf https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/413-D... In general it usually refers to a family taking on a few extra kids vs a schoolroom/office taking on kids. Requirements are usually different for the family care ones, not necessarily less.

Analemma_ 4y ago

It’s genuinely not legislation. Labor is expensive, which combined with the reality that anything beyond a 4:1 child-caretaker ratio is pretty bad for children pretty much guarantees that child care can never be cheap in a rich country with rich country labor costs. EDIT: I should've said "infants" and not "children" here, where the necessity of a 4:1 ratio really applies. As children get older this ratio can get higher. I recommend https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/the-iron-mathematics-of-day-care/ https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/the-iron-math..., from someone who just assumed that child care costs were because of government intervention, and then did the math and found out this isn’t the case.

newshorts 4y ago
Genuinely wondering how anything beyond a 4:1 ratio is bad? My kids are in daycare in TX with well over a 4:1 ratio and seem like they are doing fine. What sorts of downsides are you referring to?
- bombcar 4y ago
  It greatly depends on age! Having six kids ranging from 1-12 is a lot different than having six infants, who will likely all explode at the exact same time. Because it's hard to exactly define "daycares shouldn't have more kids than they can take care of" they institute fixed ratios.
gambiting 4y ago
UK is as expensive as it gets, but full time nursery(5 days a week) is "only" £800 a month for us. American costs seem to be completely absurd, despite much worse employment protections and benefits.
- em-bee 4y ago
  government subsidized?
  - gambiting 4y ago