[Someone]

That basically is what the article says. I don't find it surprising at all.

Do the math: if parents want one carer for every N kids, they have to pay 1/N-th of the costs of a carer.

I guess that 10 is a conservative estimate for the value of N, taking into account holidays, sick days, and the fact that kids will be at the center for over 8 hours because parents have to do their own workday between dropping off and picking up their child.

Also, parents do not want to make daycare look industrial, daycare needs a kitchen, beds so that kids can rest in the afternoon, etc. That means parents effectively have to pay for about half a second house for their kids, an extra set of toys, etc. and they want it all from 8AM-6PM, so daycare providers cannot run shifts to more efficiently use their facility.

Edit: and don't forget income tax. Parents have to pay a daycare worker's income before tax from from their income after taxes.

For me, that makes it clear that, at current price level, daycare workers cannot have a middle class income. Also, if they had, lots of people couldn't afford child care.

And historically, child care wasn't a full time job. Housewifes also prepared food, cleaned the house, washed clothes, found time to repair clothing, went shopping, etc. Even with modern appliances, that adds up.

[jacalata]

>For me, that makes it clear that, at current price level, daycare workers cannot have a middle class income. Also, if they had, lots of people couldn't afford child care.

You're assuming here that the payment all has to come from the parents disposable income. Other countries (try to) address this with government or employer subsidies for childcare, eg in Australia http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink...

[e12e]

Doesn't most countries finance school for older children partially or entirely through taxes as well (primary school)?

Obviously, education is seen as a necessity both for (semi)functioning democracy, but also for any modern society to work. It seems odd that we're happy to take care of kids for free (or highly subsidized cost) from the age from 6 to 16 -- but somehow the years 1-6 needs to be paid for by parents? Are those 4 years really so much more expensive, that it wouldn't make sense to just roll that all up into one budget?

I actually need to look at the arguments around this in Norway -- free school from the age of 6 to 18, along with a free college education isn't really an issue - and full coverage of child care services also have broad agreement -- but somehow simply making said childcare free seems to be much more contentious. Or perhaps just overlooked.

I suppose one could make up microeconomic arguments along the lines of a solid education for all benefits all, while allowing all parents those extra 3-4 per child in the job market might not benefit all. Perhaps more interesting is the general trend that there's less work -- so having people spend some time off from work (with eg: pay from the government) might simply be a more efficient model going forward.

But if we accept that free primary school is a good thing, I don't see how we can argue that free kinder garden isn't too.

[crpatino]

It does come out of parents disposable income, eventually.

If the government subsidizes it, taxes will go up and disposable income goes down (though part of the cost gets externalized to childless taxpayers).

If most employers pays for it, cost of living will go down, and salaries will also go down (for everyone, so your childless coworker's salary will also go down and the difference will either go to the shareholders, or maybe the CEO will just pat himself in the back for his brilliant cost cutting ideas and give himself a big Christmas bonus).

All in all, it sounds like the only cases where it makes sense to subsidize is in countries with an aging population. Otherwise, it's fairer to pay living wages to workers and have each parent pay out of pocket.

[crpatino]

> ... daycare workers cannot have a middle class income. Also, if they had, lots of people couldn't afford child care.

I know this will sound terrible, but if you cannot afford to pay child care, maybe the economy is telling you that your marginal job is not worth be done or held. The reality in US and many countries following it's economic model is that unemployment is a chronic, ignored problem. Marginally useful jobs can exist because there is always a big pool of desperate people ready to take poverty wages. You will do yourself and everyone a favor by not competing in that race to the bottom.

As long as the child is being raised by a family with at least 2 adults, a stay at home mom or dad is perfectly capable of providing care while at the same time engage in all types of frugality and household economy activities that will extend the salary of the sole breadwinner beyond what is normally possible for a couple of overstressed careerists. They can also engage in education and creative activities that will allow them to pick up a career later, when the kids are old enough to attend school (which is a sort of mandatory daycare, anyways).

Also, it is important to recognize that a single parent raising children is a extraordinary and unsustainable situation (though sadly common through history). Subsidies, charity and informal help from extended family, friends and neighbors should be directed to this cases, instead of being spread out trying to benefit as many people as possible.

[vacri]

> Housewifes also prepared food, cleaned the house, washed clothes, found time to repair clothing, went shopping

These are all tasks that 'child care' includes, and some of them are magnified in difficulty when kids are attached.

[dragonwriter]

> Edit: and don't forget income tax.

At the income levels at issue, payroll tax is far more significant than income tax.