7 ms·

Has anybody noticed that the same politicians who are demanding "more babies" and decrying that millennials aren't having enough children are the same politicia

Has anybody noticed that the same politicians who are demanding "more babies" and decrying that millennials aren't having enough children are the same politicians that insist on allowing the free-market to dictate childcare costs? The lack of children being born in the US and other western countries is (partly) a direct consequence of the lack of good quality, subsidised childcare. More importantly, where is this money going? I know for a fact that the frontline workers who actually _look after_ children aren't seeing a marked increase in their pay. So it's just more profit for the private equity firms who own these businesses.

polski-g 3y ago
The free market isn't dictating the costs of childcare. The government is. Every state has maximums for employee to child ratios. Every state has zoning restrictions for facility locations. Some states have college degree requirements. If your state limits the ratio to 4 to 1, then the cheapest possible cost for coverage would be 1/4 of the employees' salary. If you want to bring costs down, then loosen these restrictions. Allow facilities to set their own ratios and charge accordingly and consumers to make the choice of the risk they tolerate
- maxehmookau 3y ago
  So we can reduce the cost of childcare by reducing the quality? Sure, but these are children, not screws, or planks of wood, or consumer electronics. The government is mandating minimum _safety_ standards for the people who are minding the next generation of humans. We really need to be asking where that money is going and why costs are so high. The government really is not the problem here other than that they're not subsidising it enough.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    It comes to general question of cost of living. Why is cost of living so high? Solve the cost of living and labour becomes cheaper and thus things like childcare come cheaper.
    - maxehmookau 3y ago
      I agree, mostly. Except in the case of childcare, in the UK anyway, average earnings for childcare workers hasn't increased in real-terms since 2008. So the cost of labour isn't going to come down, nor should it.
  - polski-g 3y ago
    > So we can reduce the cost of childcare by reducing the quality? Yes. Just like certain apartments are cheaper than others when the unit has no washing machine or microwave. Or like certain cars are cheaper because they don't have a backup camera. The cost doesn't disappear because you scream "Think of the children!"
    - maxehmookau 3y ago
      Except in one of the richest countries on the planet the cost can literally disappear if governments prioritise differently. The US prioritises other things, so childcare is more expensive than it otherwise might be.
      - polski-g 3y ago
        If the government subsidized childcare by $400/mo, then providers would raise costs by $400/mo. They already know what the market can bear. My cousin has several car dealerships. During the Cash for Clunkers program, the government was giving a $2000 new car tax credit. He raised the cost of every car on the lot by $2000 exactly. If you want something to come down in cost, then you must make it's input costs decrease in price.
        maxehmookau 3y ago
        > If the government subsidized childcare by $400/mo, then providers would raise costs by $400/mo. Then the government steps in and forces them not to. I understand that in the US the idea that the government could have the best interests of its citizens in mind is an alien one, but in much of Europe this is a solved problem. It requires political will. The costs of childcare haven't actually soared, it's a captive market. Reducing quality is dangerous (because, again, these are small humans who require high-quality care from qualified individuals), so regulation is the only option.
anon291 3y ago
> same politicians that insist on allowing the free-market to dictate childcare costs? I'm going to be honest. Im a republican voter living in Portland Oregon of all places. It's a high cost of living area. We go to a fairly traditional church where couples of all incomes are having 4-5 kids each and usually one spouse working. So basically, we go to church with other republicans living in a high cost of living area. I vote the way I do because I honestly don't understand child care. I was never put in child care the way people seem to do it now I'll be honest when I see my neighbors put their few weeks old babies into daycare I am simply filled with horror. Yet the parents seem to think this arrangement is great. Children should be at home with their mom or dad. I know many couples in this same area making it work. They have richer lives because having a spouse at home leads to greater community involvement and better neighborhoods. Moreover, when I talk to my neighbors about finances, it is dubious whether they're actually making more. They're also not taking into account basic costs that inevitably crop up. For example because my wife stays at home, we have one car. Because my wife stays at home, our entire community will get fed when they have a new baby because the mom's have arranged meal trains amongst themselves as a standard 'benefit'. Because of how close the mom's are after seeing each other day in and day out, we often 'share' money. If a family is having a tough time, money is just shoved onto them. This means things like emergencies are much less scary. Again, these are all costs those families would have to incur if they both worked and couldn't take part in the community. Even childcare for things like date night can be arranged pretty easily. It's amazing and I estimate we save thousands upon thousands per year because of it. Elizabeth Warren of all people covers these hidden benefits of staying at home extremely well in her book 'The Two income trap'. I highly recommend it. Now going back to politics. I would venture that many more republicans have my arrangement. Thus when we see calls to subsidize daycare, we see people wanting our tax money for less desirable outcomes. Children raised at daycare instead of parents. Parents too stressed out that they the report they have no 'village'. Lack of community in our cities and towns and rural areas, etc. Lonelines. All these things are symptoms of the continued financialization of the nuclear family, the extended family, and the neighborhood. And yes I'm very much against that.

polski-g 3y ago

The free market isn't dictating the costs of childcare. The government is. Every state has maximums for employee to child ratios. Every state has zoning restrictions for facility locations. Some states have college degree requirements. If your state limits the ratio to 4 to 1, then the cheapest possible cost for coverage would be 1/4 of the employees' salary. If you want to bring costs down, then loosen these restrictions. Allow facilities to set their own ratios and charge accordingly and consumers to make the choice of the risk they tolerate

maxehmookau 3y ago
So we can reduce the cost of childcare by reducing the quality? Sure, but these are children, not screws, or planks of wood, or consumer electronics. The government is mandating minimum _safety_ standards for the people who are minding the next generation of humans. We really need to be asking where that money is going and why costs are so high. The government really is not the problem here other than that they're not subsidising it enough.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  It comes to general question of cost of living. Why is cost of living so high? Solve the cost of living and labour becomes cheaper and thus things like childcare come cheaper.
  - maxehmookau 3y ago
    I agree, mostly. Except in the case of childcare, in the UK anyway, average earnings for childcare workers hasn't increased in real-terms since 2008. So the cost of labour isn't going to come down, nor should it.
- polski-g 3y ago
  > So we can reduce the cost of childcare by reducing the quality? Yes. Just like certain apartments are cheaper than others when the unit has no washing machine or microwave. Or like certain cars are cheaper because they don't have a backup camera. The cost doesn't disappear because you scream "Think of the children!"
  - maxehmookau 3y ago
    Except in one of the richest countries on the planet the cost can literally disappear if governments prioritise differently. The US prioritises other things, so childcare is more expensive than it otherwise might be.
    - polski-g 3y ago
      If the government subsidized childcare by $400/mo, then providers would raise costs by $400/mo. They already know what the market can bear. My cousin has several car dealerships. During the Cash for Clunkers program, the government was giving a $2000 new car tax credit. He raised the cost of every car on the lot by $2000 exactly. If you want something to come down in cost, then you must make it's input costs decrease in price.
      - maxehmookau 3y ago
        > If the government subsidized childcare by $400/mo, then providers would raise costs by $400/mo. Then the government steps in and forces them not to. I understand that in the US the idea that the government could have the best interests of its citizens in mind is an alien one, but in much of Europe this is a solved problem. It requires political will. The costs of childcare haven't actually soared, it's a captive market. Reducing quality is dangerous (because, again, these are small humans who require high-quality care from qualified individuals), so regulation is the only option.

anon291 3y ago

> same politicians that insist on allowing the free-market to dictate childcare costs? I'm going to be honest. Im a republican voter living in Portland Oregon of all places. It's a high cost of living area. We go to a fairly traditional church where couples of all incomes are having 4-5 kids each and usually one spouse working. So basically, we go to church with other republicans living in a high cost of living area. I vote the way I do because I honestly don't understand child care. I was never put in child care the way people seem to do it now I'll be honest when I see my neighbors put their few weeks old babies into daycare I am simply filled with horror. Yet the parents seem to think this arrangement is great. Children should be at home with their mom or dad. I know many couples in this same area making it work. They have richer lives because having a spouse at home leads to greater community involvement and better neighborhoods. Moreover, when I talk to my neighbors about finances, it is dubious whether they're actually making more. They're also not taking into account basic costs that inevitably crop up. For example because my wife stays at home, we have one car. Because my wife stays at home, our entire community will get fed when they have a new baby because the mom's have arranged meal trains amongst themselves as a standard 'benefit'. Because of how close the mom's are after seeing each other day in and day out, we often 'share' money. If a family is having a tough time, money is just shoved onto them. This means things like emergencies are much less scary. Again, these are all costs those families would have to incur if they both worked and couldn't take part in the community. Even childcare for things like date night can be arranged pretty easily. It's amazing and I estimate we save thousands upon thousands per year because of it. Elizabeth Warren of all people covers these hidden benefits of staying at home extremely well in her book 'The Two income trap'. I highly recommend it. Now going back to politics. I would venture that many more republicans have my arrangement. Thus when we see calls to subsidize daycare, we see people wanting our tax money for less desirable outcomes. Children raised at daycare instead of parents. Parents too stressed out that they the report they have no 'village'. Lack of community in our cities and towns and rural areas, etc. Lonelines. All these things are symptoms of the continued financialization of the nuclear family, the extended family, and the neighborhood. And yes I'm very much against that.