> The U.S. economy loses an estimated $122 billion a year when parents leave work or reduce their hours in order to stay home with young children, a February st

> The U.S. economy loses an estimated $122 billion a year when parents leave work or reduce their hours in order to stay home with young children, a February study from ReadyNation found. If this is the market value of childcare, and those children are being cared for, then can we say that the value has been transferred rather than lost? Following the link to an article about the study suggests the figure is an aggregate of a few other estimates: > The report found that not having child care — or enough child care — costs individual parents more than $5,500 a year, or more than $78 billion in total. And businesses lose $1,640 on average for each working parent due to lost revenue and hiring costs because of insufficient child care, totaling $23 billion annually. And the government loses, too — about $21 billion in lost income and sales tax revenues a year, or $1,470 less per working parent because parents without enough child care earn less and therefore consume less in their communities. I suppose this assumes that the level of care given to the children is approximately equivalent in both cases. In which case, I presume the argument is that more efficient childcare (fewer carers per child) is better.