6 ms·

Always surprised that more US tech companies don’t offer childcare, which is probably the biggest constraint on employees’ time at the office. In addition it is

Always surprised that more US tech companies don’t offer childcare, which is probably the biggest constraint on employees’ time at the office. In addition it is a huge tax win to pay childcare from top-line revenue rather than having parents spend post-tax income.

Balgair 2y ago
It would be a complex situation in the US at least. The issue is the Right to Work states. If your childcare is tied to your employment, and you can lose your job at any time, you then can lose your childcare at any time. That sets up incentives that become rather ugly rather fast. Add in that there are typically long wait lists for childcare, the emotional ties, childcare workers' incentives, and the costs that are universal for the US. It's not even close to a simple decision for anyone. Personally, I wouldn't use such childcare if it were comparable to other providers. It would have to be significantly cheaper or free to consider it.
- naming_the_user 2y ago
  It’s not clear to me that this is ugly at all? You don’t need childcare if you have free time due to not being at work..?
  - Balgair 2y ago
    And how are you supposed to take interviews and have the time to apply for jobs with a sick screaming toddler in the room? I'll add that about 40% of children are born to unwed mothers in the US. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276025/us-percentage-of-births-to-unmarried-women/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276025/us-percentage-of-... And, again, many daycares have moths/years long waiting lists. Daycare is a super local thing in the US and, in my experience, not really all that tied to CoL standards. I've personally been in year+ lists and have had friends where you can pretty much walk in and get started. It's quite variable.
- nojvek 2y ago
  How is this ugly when healthcare is tied to employment already. All the arguments about you can lose your job then you lose X at any time apply.
  - psadauskas 2y ago
    Yes, we should stop doing that too, its a horrible system.
- up2isomorphism 2y ago
  How is something ugly just because you don’t want to lose it?
in-pursuit 2y ago
Childcare is very personal, especially for those with means to access a wide variety of childcare options. US tech companies don’t offer childcare because it’s not something desired by the employees. There are a few reasons for this: 1. Everyone wants the “best” for their kids. When I think of the “best” childcare, I imagine some specialized program with excellent caregivers and a multitude of enrichment opportunities. I don’t think of a company-run daycare. 2. Many people don’t live near work. You want your kids’ friends to live nearby. 3. You want to provide stability for your kids. Tying daycare to your job is antithetical to that goal.
- up2isomorphism 2y ago
  This is not true in most cases . First, it is logically impossible for everyone to get the ‘best’ thing. Secondly, how many people remember their daycare friends? And people change jobs anyway. Third, how offered something free tied you up? Why providing you free commute credit not tying you up ?
  - in-pursuit 2y ago
    > First, it is logically impossible for everyone to get the ‘best’ thing. You’re assuming two things: 1. The “best” thing is scarce. 2. Everyone agrees on what the “best” thing is. People want to send their kids to the best place within the framework of their own opinions on what “best” is. Just because two people work for company X doesn’t mean they’re likely to agree on what a good daycare is. > Secondly, how many people remember their daycare friends? How is that relevant? When your kid wants a playdate, you want their friends to be nearby to facilitate that. > Third, how offered something free tied you up? Nothing is free.
    - up2isomorphism 2y ago
      Let I agree with you, Why “nothing is free” ties you up? You buy a coffee, does that ties you up?
      - 2y ago
riku_iki 2y ago
is it qualified tax deduction for corp?
- caseyohara 2y ago
  There's a tax credit (IRC Code § 45F) that is capped at $150k/year. It's really meant for small businesses. > If you provide childcare services to your employees, you may be eligible for this general business credit. It covers qualified expenditures for a childcare facility and for childcare resource and referral. > The Employer-Provided Childcare Credit offers employers a tax credit up to $150,000 per year to offset 25% of qualified childcare facility expenditures and 10% of qualified childcare resource and referral expenditures. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/employer-provided-childcare-credit https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
nine_zeros 2y ago
> US tech companies don’t offer childcare, which is probably the biggest constraint on employees’ time at the office. As a rule of thumb, US companies don't care about workers. Employees are considered an expense to be tolerated. Before someone tries to present a contrarian view, I implore you to run a thought experiment with your employer - if share price/margin/profits drop tomorrow, what will they do? Layoffs/cuts or ask shareholders to accept lower returns for some time?
- huijzer 2y ago
  Costco is probably a counterexample. But yes counterexamples are hard to find so I agree with you.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  >As a rule of thumb, US companies don't care about workers. In which countries do you think companies actually care about workers? I live in Europe and none of the companies I worked for ever cared about the workers beyond the bare minimum they were mandated to by regulations and even there they were trying to weasel out of some (unpaid overtime, etc) because "the economy is bad" and "we're not competitive with cheaper countries". The moment I got a longer sickness I've been laid off. Sure, some companies have more perks like Kindergartens for employees and pension plans but that's because they want to attract more competitive workers, not because they actually care about those workers. Their care about you is limited to the amount of added value you bring in, not on some moral or ethical grounds. Otherwise those same companies wouldn't be using sweatshop workers in the far east. We're economic cannon fodder everywhere. The private sector exists only to provide innovations and return on investment to shareholders or owners, not to care about workers, that's the government's job.
- xbmcuser 2y ago
  This I believe is because shareholder return has become the be-all and end-all. So unlikely to change in current companies. And with the way current systems are if you try to build something different you are unlikely to be able to get much financing/funding to grow.
  - 2y ago
norir 2y ago
This is why the natalism of certain oligarchs rings so hollow. If they were really serious, they would do everything they could to make it easier for their employees to have children, but they don't. Meanwhile, I know several people limiting their family size due to economic constraints.
- lawlessone 2y ago
  >If they were really serious, they would do everything they could to make it easier for their employees to have children, but they don't. They want the benefits of it without paying. It's the same as hiring/training juniors/apprentices (in all kinds of jobs not just tech) etc. Companies want experienced people but don't want to pay to train them, in that case the workaround is to poach someone after they've gotten experience. Of course when every company is poaching and nobody is hiring juniors you start to see shortage of experienced people. edit: maybe this is why everyone is trying rush LLMs into some roles.
david38 2y ago
I disagree. The less a company is involved in my life. Bad enough my health care comes from them. Companies should not be what holds up society. It gives them too much power. It also amplifies the divide between haves and haves not.

Balgair 2y ago

It would be a complex situation in the US at least. The issue is the Right to Work states. If your childcare is tied to your employment, and you can lose your job at any time, you then can lose your childcare at any time. That sets up incentives that become rather ugly rather fast. Add in that there are typically long wait lists for childcare, the emotional ties, childcare workers' incentives, and the costs that are universal for the US. It's not even close to a simple decision for anyone. Personally, I wouldn't use such childcare if it were comparable to other providers. It would have to be significantly cheaper or free to consider it.

naming_the_user 2y ago
It’s not clear to me that this is ugly at all? You don’t need childcare if you have free time due to not being at work..?
- Balgair 2y ago
  And how are you supposed to take interviews and have the time to apply for jobs with a sick screaming toddler in the room? I'll add that about 40% of children are born to unwed mothers in the US. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276025/us-percentage-of-births-to-unmarried-women/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276025/us-percentage-of-... And, again, many daycares have moths/years long waiting lists. Daycare is a super local thing in the US and, in my experience, not really all that tied to CoL standards. I've personally been in year+ lists and have had friends where you can pretty much walk in and get started. It's quite variable.
nojvek 2y ago
How is this ugly when healthcare is tied to employment already. All the arguments about you can lose your job then you lose X at any time apply.
- psadauskas 2y ago
  Yes, we should stop doing that too, its a horrible system.
up2isomorphism 2y ago
How is something ugly just because you don’t want to lose it?

in-pursuit 2y ago

Childcare is very personal, especially for those with means to access a wide variety of childcare options. US tech companies don’t offer childcare because it’s not something desired by the employees. There are a few reasons for this: 1. Everyone wants the “best” for their kids. When I think of the “best” childcare, I imagine some specialized program with excellent caregivers and a multitude of enrichment opportunities. I don’t think of a company-run daycare. 2. Many people don’t live near work. You want your kids’ friends to live nearby. 3. You want to provide stability for your kids. Tying daycare to your job is antithetical to that goal.

up2isomorphism 2y ago
This is not true in most cases . First, it is logically impossible for everyone to get the ‘best’ thing. Secondly, how many people remember their daycare friends? And people change jobs anyway. Third, how offered something free tied you up? Why providing you free commute credit not tying you up ?
- in-pursuit 2y ago
  > First, it is logically impossible for everyone to get the ‘best’ thing. You’re assuming two things: 1. The “best” thing is scarce. 2. Everyone agrees on what the “best” thing is. People want to send their kids to the best place within the framework of their own opinions on what “best” is. Just because two people work for company X doesn’t mean they’re likely to agree on what a good daycare is. > Secondly, how many people remember their daycare friends? How is that relevant? When your kid wants a playdate, you want their friends to be nearby to facilitate that. > Third, how offered something free tied you up? Nothing is free.
  - up2isomorphism 2y ago
    Let I agree with you, Why “nothing is free” ties you up? You buy a coffee, does that ties you up?
    - 2y ago

riku_iki 2y ago

is it qualified tax deduction for corp?

caseyohara 2y ago
There's a tax credit (IRC Code § 45F) that is capped at $150k/year. It's really meant for small businesses. > If you provide childcare services to your employees, you may be eligible for this general business credit. It covers qualified expenditures for a childcare facility and for childcare resource and referral. > The Employer-Provided Childcare Credit offers employers a tax credit up to $150,000 per year to offset 25% of qualified childcare facility expenditures and 10% of qualified childcare resource and referral expenditures. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/employer-provided-childcare-credit https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

nine_zeros 2y ago

> US tech companies don’t offer childcare, which is probably the biggest constraint on employees’ time at the office. As a rule of thumb, US companies don't care about workers. Employees are considered an expense to be tolerated. Before someone tries to present a contrarian view, I implore you to run a thought experiment with your employer - if share price/margin/profits drop tomorrow, what will they do? Layoffs/cuts or ask shareholders to accept lower returns for some time?

huijzer 2y ago
Costco is probably a counterexample. But yes counterexamples are hard to find so I agree with you.
Cumpiler69 2y ago
>As a rule of thumb, US companies don't care about workers. In which countries do you think companies actually care about workers? I live in Europe and none of the companies I worked for ever cared about the workers beyond the bare minimum they were mandated to by regulations and even there they were trying to weasel out of some (unpaid overtime, etc) because "the economy is bad" and "we're not competitive with cheaper countries". The moment I got a longer sickness I've been laid off. Sure, some companies have more perks like Kindergartens for employees and pension plans but that's because they want to attract more competitive workers, not because they actually care about those workers. Their care about you is limited to the amount of added value you bring in, not on some moral or ethical grounds. Otherwise those same companies wouldn't be using sweatshop workers in the far east. We're economic cannon fodder everywhere. The private sector exists only to provide innovations and return on investment to shareholders or owners, not to care about workers, that's the government's job.
xbmcuser 2y ago
This I believe is because shareholder return has become the be-all and end-all. So unlikely to change in current companies. And with the way current systems are if you try to build something different you are unlikely to be able to get much financing/funding to grow.
- 2y ago

norir 2y ago

This is why the natalism of certain oligarchs rings so hollow. If they were really serious, they would do everything they could to make it easier for their employees to have children, but they don't. Meanwhile, I know several people limiting their family size due to economic constraints.

lawlessone 2y ago
>If they were really serious, they would do everything they could to make it easier for their employees to have children, but they don't. They want the benefits of it without paying. It's the same as hiring/training juniors/apprentices (in all kinds of jobs not just tech) etc. Companies want experienced people but don't want to pay to train them, in that case the workaround is to poach someone after they've gotten experience. Of course when every company is poaching and nobody is hiring juniors you start to see shortage of experienced people. edit: maybe this is why everyone is trying rush LLMs into some roles.

david38 2y ago

I disagree. The less a company is involved in my life. Bad enough my health care comes from them. Companies should not be what holds up society. It gives them too much power. It also amplifies the divide between haves and haves not.