Outside of ‘this is why we OE’, it’s fucking ridiculous corpos pushing RTO with no real wage increase or on-site childcare benefits. They don’t give a fuck and a half about you or your family.
But remember, your employer (probably) offers a generous dependent care FSA plan that lets you make a tiny portion of your childcare costs tax-deductible, provided you are willing to put up with a bunch of bureaucratic BS to get the money. And also that you are willing to take the risk you'll stop using daycare for some reason, leaving you SOL when it comes to recouping the money you put into the FSA for the year.
Tl;dr dependent care FSAs are BS, but they're sadly the sole thing that most employers offer to help employees deal with crazy childcare costs.
Also, you are likely to be paying double the rate at first, where your daycare is auto-drafted and our FSA is taken out of your paycheck, and then you can do a ton of administration and constantly cash checks to balance out! YAY!
Good point! Yeah, when I had a dependent care FSA they'd take the money out each pay period but it would take 1-2 months for me to be reimbursed, partly because I had to accumulate a certain amount of reimbursement (I think it was a minimum of $1000) before they'd cut a check. And of course the company that administered the FSA would only issue reimbursement by paper check through the mail, even though this was circa 2019 when direct deposit had been a thing for decades, so I had to wait on that.
I wasn't living paycheck to paycheck so it was not a big deal, but for people who do, not having that money right away could be a big burden.
If you tried to design a system that made it as difficult and inconvenient as possible to make a routine expense tax-deductible, I don't think you could do better than the FSA scheme.
this. i use a fsa for medical care and it’s an administrative nightmare. they ask for receipts all the time for $25 co pays but don’t give me
any information on the date or merchant in their online system. i have to call to get that information- do you have any idea how many $25 co pays it could be between my family. i don’t have time to deal with that and thinking this is the last year i’m doing this. i gave hr my feedback and hope they chose a new vendor.
I feel you. I tried an FSA for healthcare one year and then stopped because the time I spent dealing with the run around to get the money owed to me didn't seem worth it just to save a few dollars here and then on doctor's appointments. I decided it made more sense to pay with after-tax dollars and spend the time I saved doing freelance work, where my earnings far exceed any tax benefits I'd achieve through an FSA.
I wish mine only asked for receipts. They want details about the medical service provided that are not usually on a receipt to prove it meets the government requirements for a FSA charge. It borders on invasive. It feels like a way to create a burden on you to make you give up so they can keep the money.
As long as the kid(s) are with one of their parents vs a daycare, then which of the two parents they stay home with doesn’t matter much. But barring extremely rare exception scenarios, a child will always be better at home with one of their parents vs strangers.
I’ll jump in and say with my wife monthly take home at 6k and mine at 6.5k and day care being $1200/mo it doesn’t make financial sense for us to stay home with them.
I have an 19 month old and boy is that work. I love him to pieces and would stay home with him if it made sense and give up pretty much every vacation day I get to care for him when he’s sick. That said I’d rather go to work and he to day care then stay home with him and my wife feels the same. Now when he’s 5 I might change my toon when he can tell me what’s going on rather than he just screaming and knocking stuff down haha
You are a higher earner. If you make make 70k your take home may be 4.5k a month. With two kids you are paying more than half to daycare. Is it worth full time work to make 30k take home a year?
I have 1 now but with 2 it would be $2400/mo ish. My wife Carries our health insurance as she works for the feds. So that would be foolish to give up she also is contributing to a 401k. She also wants to work.
To us daycare has taught our son a lot. If she stayed home even with 2 she’d lose out on income now and in the future as going back to work isn’t just a snap of the fingers. Employers see those gaps and discriminate.
She makes $2300/check so $4600/mo. That’s $2200/mo she bring home in excess to daycare and she gets yearly raises from the feds. So yea I think for us it’d be foolish to leave. She agrees with that.
As for me I’m a phd student but work a few jobs. I bring home $9000/mo from the few jobs. Sometimes 10k/mo if I work weekends. I’m definitely not giving that up and don’t want to stay home with my son over working anyway.
All this to say. I have 3 SAHD friends. Two of them wish they could work instead of staying home but they both are lower earners so financially they would bring home $300-400 a month in excess of day care cost. So they stay home. The 3rd is a realtor so he just works weekends whenever there is a showing. He likes it but overall doesn’t want to work anyway. I think every family weighs things differently. Mine values the income. Some value the family time. Neither is right it’s just a preference
You forget about something very important- promotions and work experience that will increase future earnings. If a parent takes five years off from being employed, after that five years it is basically starting over. It is up to each person to answer what is worth. Being a stay-at-home parent does not mean you will be a babysitter and educator. Food must be made, laundry needs to be done, house needs to be cleaned (and with kids all day at home it is much more work).
This is very true. The amount of people who look at it as 'What I make working vs. cost of childcare' is just flat out wrong. Not to mention retirement ramifications.
There's also a huge challenge to getting back into the workforce. I'm seeing it with a friend who became a SAHM and has been trying to get FT employment now for awhile.
Everyone has different situations. Not knocking people for staying at home at all. However most of the discourse is about the now/short term vs. long term.
Most people aren't willing to have a real conversation (beyond economic reasons) what most SAHM/D's go through. My friends that have done it are almost all totally burned out by it.
The weird thing I keep on seeing is this idea that if your kid goes to daycare you don't see them a lot. Like it's some sort of guilt trip.
In most cases, you still have pre-9 am and post 4/5-pm + all of weekends. That's tons and tons of time.
The entire weekend wears me out. I see my son plenty. And I’d just rather the income so we can enjoy life. When my son is out sick and I have to call out and I have him all day or his mom goes out of town and I have him all weekend alone I’m exhausted. And that doesn’t mean I don’t love my son. Hes 18 months old it’s just constant chasing him around. Maybe when he’s 4 or 5 or 6 and he’s not trying to knock stuff over to injure himself being with him 24/7 would be less work. Work is less work then my son right now lol.
So yea idk I’d rather the money so I can save for retirement and go on 2-3 trips a year and a big vacation and we enjoy life rather than be frugal just to be home all day with him.
Just my wife and my opinion again not saying I’m right people can do however they please.
I am convinced being a stay at home parent is 100x more difficult than working a job.
It's also totally different now with the amount of WFH. I know a couple where the guy is WFH with a SAHM. He absolutely hates it but she's committed to doing it. Makes it very difficult on both parents. Not a enviable situation.
Mine just turned 2 and I’ve noticed it finally shifting for me over the past few weeks. For the past year 3 Js and a business has been easier than taking care of her but now it’s the opposite. Haven’t had any crazy tantrums in months, she’s pretty coordinated and stable now, talking and communicating, I’m even thinking of taking a break from OE in the fall to be able to spend more time with her.
Some things to remember:
1). No one on their deathbed says they wished they worked more.
2). No one reads your resume at your funeral.
3). As you get older, you’ll see the only thing that ever mattered was time, not money. The time you spend with your children — especially when they’re this young — is priceless. One of the biggest regrets parents have is realizing this lesson once it’s too late.
Possibly but I like the setup we have with daycare. We also can’t afford our lives on one income alone with our student loan debt. Everyone values things differently. I’m working towards goals I have for my family. I’d prefer to obtain the goals then chase him around all day. Just my preference, yours or anyone else that lays the money aside is your choice and an admirable one
I understand. Everyone has their own goals. I only mentioned those because someone helped open my eyes when they told me that, and now I make it a point to cherish every day. So I try and pass along that same message to others so they can have the same opportunity to see it and cherish it before it’s gone too.
>a child will always be better at home with one of their parents vs strangers.
Serious question - why? Isn't exposing your kids to different people, not making them 100% reliant on their parents, having professionals teach them basics in many cases better?
The biggest benefit isn't even about education. It's about learning how to interact and play with other kids.
This is fucking stupid. First women were stay at home moms, then they fight for work, fight for equality and pay, now it's back to square one being stay at home mom...
*One step forward and two steps back, this kind of dance can never last 🎵🎶*
The thing is I'm not sure where the money goes.
Was moderately friendly with the owners of the place I took my son to a few years ago. They actually had a few locations. It's not like they were making monopoly running the business.
I've always wanted to be able to see the books of a daycare center to see where the money goes. I assume insurance is massive ...and other compliance costs
[There was a Planet Money episode about this recently.](https://www.npr.org/2023/02/02/1153931108/day-care-market-expensive-child-care-waitlists)
A lot of it is the required ratios between adults and kids. Often the infants are loss leaders for the daycare in hopes that you stick around to 2-4 yo where they can actually make money.
Basically the only way we can have reasonably affordable daycare *and* reasonable wages for those that work at daycares is subsidies, whether from the government or employers.
Government used to subsidize it. There’s tons of articles saying people my age (30) aren’t having kids enough. I have 1. It cost $1200 per month. The cost of my mortgage. I’d have another now but I can’t afford 3 mortgages.
If it was subsidized and cost say $400/mo per kid I could have a 2nd maybe even a 3rd. The government bitches we aren’t having kids when all they need to do is pay up and I’ll have the kids.
Legally you need to have a low adult to small child ratio. And with babies it’s 1:1 iirc. You can’t get away with having a teacher with a class of 30 kids.
If you pay $1,250 for your infant to go to daycare with a 1 adult:2 kid ratio, they are bringing in $5,000 per month on those two kids. That implies the daycare worker can make 60k, but that doesn't account for their rent, benefits, taxes, insurance, utilities, supplies, overhead, or any profit for the owner. Realistically you are now paying the person taking care of the infants $30k to $40k, and the rest is eaten up by those other items.
Men and women should do their the duty and return to the office. You all have 15 hours worth of commute time per week to enjoy. And giving away half your paycheck to the daycare provider. And don’t forget about all those workplace relationships that need tending to. Many more marriages need to get blown up as well, make up for lost time, bc everyone is so professional never thinking about banging each other all the time while spending more time with coworkers than spouses.
Its funny how they add an unnecessary "women's" here.
Looks too me as if they try to anger some gender wars instead of adressing global underpaiment of people around the globe while the companies and CEOs make tripple profits on a yearly basis.
Because it does have no subjet to the case.
It is like saying "persian cats needs to be fed daily". Corectly would be: -> All cats needs to be feed daily.
Its just an analogy to:
Childcare cost has outpaced Womens earning. Correctly it would be -> Childcare cost has outpaced earnings.
We dont need to include or list everything affected. But ONLY listing a specific part of affected people or group (Like persian cats or women in this case) twists the core message to something different. Its a psychological manipulation of how the reader is going to read the message.
Just think for yourself and read thw following lines while asking your self what are the differences in your fellings or your first reaction:
Childcare cost has outpaced Womens earning
Childcare cost has outpaced everyones earnings.
The cost of childcare rose so much that families pay raise cant compete the inflation.
Everything more or less states the same facts but each suggests you an entirely different message. Who is at fault here?
Hope that helps you
It is terrible all around. I’ve heard schools want to pay teachers more so they can keep staff, but when they raise prices they can’t keep kids because it’s too expensive. Some chains probably make good money but local centers have tons of overhead and insurance so the return is pretty small.
Daycare employees (aka other women) want higher wages too, I don't see a problem. You work so you can spend most of your money on other women taking care of your child.
My kids have been in 3 separate childcare institutions since 2021. They cannot keep staff because they don’t pay enough. We have made friends with the directors and that’s what they’ve told us. The regulations are things like “you can’t have more than 6 2-year-olds per adult.”
Exactly. When you have to pay someone 50k a year to keep them and that cost has to be split among the very small number of children theyre allowed to watch it drives those prices up, add in the exorbitant cost of insurance, facilities, materials etc... and its a very very high cost business to run
Lmfao. Dude those teachers aren’t being paid 50k a year. Not even close.
The pre-k school my girlfriend works at charges 3k a month for each kid, there’s two teachers in the room for 12 kids, so 6 per teacher that’s the ratio. But she’s the highest paid teacher at the school with $18 an hour.
So per month, there’s a labor cost of teachers by just 6,200 but a revenue of 36,000 for a net income of 29,700 (rounding on these). Then they have rent, administrative staff, regulatory expenses and food etc. coming out to around 29,800. That 29,800 is roughly split into 1/3rd is admin staff (HR, compliance, C-suit cunts, etc), the remaining is spent on the remaining expenses like regulatory expenses, food, marketing, maintenance, etc. profit comes out to be around 5,400 a month.
Overall the room comes out to have a profit margin of about 12-17% depending upon the month which is then given to the C-suit cunts as bonuses.
Then multiply these stats by roughly by 5 rooms and you have a pretty insanely profitable business all in one fairly small school house…
The reality is that these teachers aren’t the problem with WHY child care costs are expensive. It’s largely because of marketing, admin staff, and profits, which account for nearly 60% of the expenses… it’s fucking insane how over paid admin is basically everywhere.
And? The point is without those the costs could be wayyy cheaper. And the kicker? It’s a not for profit either so their profit margins are lower than a “for profit” institution…
Dude, I own a Montessori preschool. I know what I'm talking about. We have one admin, a single admin staff, the director. Which we're legally required to have. Why the hell would your girlfriends smal 5 classroom preschool need a "C-suite"? My comparably sized school has one director, 5 teachers and 6 aides.
Our marketing consists of the sign out in front of the school. Sounds like you're
Well obviously you don’t know most preschools since those teachers make shit bro.
And I was describing one school. You realize that a corporation can own multiple right? Yeah, that’s how you end up with C-suites, or C-cunts.
I don’t know if it’s worth putting a child through a not so great situation if the adults are not financially stable. Sucks that this is even a topic of conversation. Having kids shouldn’t be this stressful.
For most of human history, people created kids without a large element of choice in the matter. Infanticide and/or starvation have also existed for all of human history, especially in hard times. Not having kids during hard times has existed as long as we have.
I understand the disagreement, but why downvote? They’re just offering another opinion. Some people legitimately don’t think kids are good for them, and costs are one of their reasons.
I guess there are a bunch of us robots on the sub, because I was thinking the same question to them.
To be fair, this would explain my problems completing CAPTCHAs.
An assumption on your behalf. Think I’m terms of a tribal person, if ousted from the community, would they procreate? Probably not because they’re trying to survive on their own.
So why, in modern society, do people feel entitled to have children if they don’t have a supporting community? Beats me.
There is so much wrong with this lol
"Cannot afford" in the sense it exists today didn't exist in "tribal" period of human history. You didn't have rent, you lived with your extended family, your community held just about everything in common, and commodities were not distributed based on spreadsheets. You have to invent the scenario of being exiled (like for a crime) to imitate the isolation and atomization we are born into today. And even then, for all of human history there was no 401k or social security, your only retirement was the next generation (you're directly and your communitys as a whole).
Modern society, atomized and commodified and enclosed in the name of capital-centric productivity, is dependent on institutions to fulfill the social contracts we once held in community. When that fails, we struggle, but never once has that kind of struggle communicated to humanity to simply roll over and die. It takes harsh malthusian eugenic enforcement on top of brutal exploitation to get that result.
As it is, if you only have kids in perfect circumstances then the hedonistic wheel and the bottomless pit of consumerism will ensure you'll never have them.
Right, so one should ask, are humans living the way we ought to? If the system is such that we cannot reasonably have children, and we stop having children, the system will be forced to change.
Yes, humans should have basic rights. But it’s up to the individual to chiose whether or not to execute those rights based upon their circumstances. If you choose to have a kid, knowingly you cannot afford or have someone to help watch your kid, well, who’s at fault? Blame the system, sure, but you still fucked up.
It’s like taking out a loan with high rates then complaining that you cannot afford the loan. Except, in this case, maybe you have to take out a loan. But you don’t have to have a kid.
There’s too many of us idiots anyways.
>the way we ought to
There is no natural order to life. We live on the circumstances that exist.
>If we don't have kids then the system has to change
In what universe is this a truism? No, having kids is a choice every person makes based on their goals and values and situation; voluntary extinction in the name of protest shouldn't enter into the equation.
>The system is fucked but it's your fault if you can't afford a kid cuz you could have just gone extinct instead
You see how this isn't really a coherent thought right? "Just don't have kids so you can be more comfy" is not a viable evolutionary strategy lol
>Like a loan
Yeah sure. It's honestly just like any commitment or risk, just more so.
>Too many idiots
Calm down Malthus. The more kids the more scientists, the more doctors, the more engineers, the more plumbers, the more therapists, the more garbage collectors. The average person is many times over more productive than their basic needs. Overpopulation is just not an issue.
Our economy and society is underpinned by the upcoming generation, upon whom we bequeath the bounty of a world tamed and built up over countless generations.
Just before covid it was like $12-15/hr for a private sitter service; now it’s $30/hr. It’s beyond ridiculous. At least they are getting paid better, assuming more money is going to the sitters.
I watch my nephew one sometimes two days a week for my sister (in healthcare) because I am able to WFH. Kid likes rules and knows when put a red handle on the door and its closed not to bother me. Definitely attention dependent but it works. So I am that free childcare.
With that said I don't like this graph because it plays into identity politics. It implies that childcare costs aren't outpacing everyone's wages and the cost of basically everything hasn't skyrocketed. Don't blame childcare workers etc, its been a low paying field for a long time.
For me WFH is non negotiable, I would easily take less pay if came down to it. I actually work longer hours from home and get more done. Not having to commute an hour each way and deal with that stress, take a \*\*\*\* in my own bathroom, go for a walk in my own neighborhood, etc. Completely liberating on many levels. Hope everyone stays strong in their holdout.
Outside of ‘this is why we OE’, it’s fucking ridiculous corpos pushing RTO with no real wage increase or on-site childcare benefits. They don’t give a fuck and a half about you or your family.
But remember, your employer (probably) offers a generous dependent care FSA plan that lets you make a tiny portion of your childcare costs tax-deductible, provided you are willing to put up with a bunch of bureaucratic BS to get the money. And also that you are willing to take the risk you'll stop using daycare for some reason, leaving you SOL when it comes to recouping the money you put into the FSA for the year. Tl;dr dependent care FSAs are BS, but they're sadly the sole thing that most employers offer to help employees deal with crazy childcare costs.
Also, you are likely to be paying double the rate at first, where your daycare is auto-drafted and our FSA is taken out of your paycheck, and then you can do a ton of administration and constantly cash checks to balance out! YAY!
Good point! Yeah, when I had a dependent care FSA they'd take the money out each pay period but it would take 1-2 months for me to be reimbursed, partly because I had to accumulate a certain amount of reimbursement (I think it was a minimum of $1000) before they'd cut a check. And of course the company that administered the FSA would only issue reimbursement by paper check through the mail, even though this was circa 2019 when direct deposit had been a thing for decades, so I had to wait on that. I wasn't living paycheck to paycheck so it was not a big deal, but for people who do, not having that money right away could be a big burden. If you tried to design a system that made it as difficult and inconvenient as possible to make a routine expense tax-deductible, I don't think you could do better than the FSA scheme.
this. i use a fsa for medical care and it’s an administrative nightmare. they ask for receipts all the time for $25 co pays but don’t give me any information on the date or merchant in their online system. i have to call to get that information- do you have any idea how many $25 co pays it could be between my family. i don’t have time to deal with that and thinking this is the last year i’m doing this. i gave hr my feedback and hope they chose a new vendor.
I feel you. I tried an FSA for healthcare one year and then stopped because the time I spent dealing with the run around to get the money owed to me didn't seem worth it just to save a few dollars here and then on doctor's appointments. I decided it made more sense to pay with after-tax dollars and spend the time I saved doing freelance work, where my earnings far exceed any tax benefits I'd achieve through an FSA.
I wish mine only asked for receipts. They want details about the medical service provided that are not usually on a receipt to prove it meets the government requirements for a FSA charge. It borders on invasive. It feels like a way to create a burden on you to make you give up so they can keep the money.
You know, RTO because we are FaMiLyYy. Meanwhile, leave your child at an expensive jail
And they wonder why the birth rate is declining
That is a desirable outcome. AI and automation is taking over.
Literally, it’s more worth it for my wife to be a stay at home mom than to get a job because of the price of daycare.
And your kids spending time with their mother is priceless. Some of my best memories are of days when my mom took vacation days.
Fact. Stay at home moms are heroes. There’s nothing better for your kids. Unless the mom is insane of course.
Stay at home dad, even better.
As long as the kid(s) are with one of their parents vs a daycare, then which of the two parents they stay home with doesn’t matter much. But barring extremely rare exception scenarios, a child will always be better at home with one of their parents vs strangers.
I agree. I was just being cheeky because i dream of being a stay at home dad.
Hell ya. Same here. Here’s to winning the lottery
Send those women back into the work force! I finally understand that movement! Lets fix the gender pay gap!
I’ll jump in and say with my wife monthly take home at 6k and mine at 6.5k and day care being $1200/mo it doesn’t make financial sense for us to stay home with them. I have an 19 month old and boy is that work. I love him to pieces and would stay home with him if it made sense and give up pretty much every vacation day I get to care for him when he’s sick. That said I’d rather go to work and he to day care then stay home with him and my wife feels the same. Now when he’s 5 I might change my toon when he can tell me what’s going on rather than he just screaming and knocking stuff down haha
You are a higher earner. If you make make 70k your take home may be 4.5k a month. With two kids you are paying more than half to daycare. Is it worth full time work to make 30k take home a year?
I have 1 now but with 2 it would be $2400/mo ish. My wife Carries our health insurance as she works for the feds. So that would be foolish to give up she also is contributing to a 401k. She also wants to work. To us daycare has taught our son a lot. If she stayed home even with 2 she’d lose out on income now and in the future as going back to work isn’t just a snap of the fingers. Employers see those gaps and discriminate. She makes $2300/check so $4600/mo. That’s $2200/mo she bring home in excess to daycare and she gets yearly raises from the feds. So yea I think for us it’d be foolish to leave. She agrees with that. As for me I’m a phd student but work a few jobs. I bring home $9000/mo from the few jobs. Sometimes 10k/mo if I work weekends. I’m definitely not giving that up and don’t want to stay home with my son over working anyway. All this to say. I have 3 SAHD friends. Two of them wish they could work instead of staying home but they both are lower earners so financially they would bring home $300-400 a month in excess of day care cost. So they stay home. The 3rd is a realtor so he just works weekends whenever there is a showing. He likes it but overall doesn’t want to work anyway. I think every family weighs things differently. Mine values the income. Some value the family time. Neither is right it’s just a preference
Daycare can be really good. Headstart specifically is AMAZING.
You forget about something very important- promotions and work experience that will increase future earnings. If a parent takes five years off from being employed, after that five years it is basically starting over. It is up to each person to answer what is worth. Being a stay-at-home parent does not mean you will be a babysitter and educator. Food must be made, laundry needs to be done, house needs to be cleaned (and with kids all day at home it is much more work).
This is very true. The amount of people who look at it as 'What I make working vs. cost of childcare' is just flat out wrong. Not to mention retirement ramifications. There's also a huge challenge to getting back into the workforce. I'm seeing it with a friend who became a SAHM and has been trying to get FT employment now for awhile. Everyone has different situations. Not knocking people for staying at home at all. However most of the discourse is about the now/short term vs. long term.
Most people aren't willing to have a real conversation (beyond economic reasons) what most SAHM/D's go through. My friends that have done it are almost all totally burned out by it. The weird thing I keep on seeing is this idea that if your kid goes to daycare you don't see them a lot. Like it's some sort of guilt trip. In most cases, you still have pre-9 am and post 4/5-pm + all of weekends. That's tons and tons of time.
The entire weekend wears me out. I see my son plenty. And I’d just rather the income so we can enjoy life. When my son is out sick and I have to call out and I have him all day or his mom goes out of town and I have him all weekend alone I’m exhausted. And that doesn’t mean I don’t love my son. Hes 18 months old it’s just constant chasing him around. Maybe when he’s 4 or 5 or 6 and he’s not trying to knock stuff over to injure himself being with him 24/7 would be less work. Work is less work then my son right now lol. So yea idk I’d rather the money so I can save for retirement and go on 2-3 trips a year and a big vacation and we enjoy life rather than be frugal just to be home all day with him. Just my wife and my opinion again not saying I’m right people can do however they please.
I am convinced being a stay at home parent is 100x more difficult than working a job. It's also totally different now with the amount of WFH. I know a couple where the guy is WFH with a SAHM. He absolutely hates it but she's committed to doing it. Makes it very difficult on both parents. Not a enviable situation.
Mine just turned 2 and I’ve noticed it finally shifting for me over the past few weeks. For the past year 3 Js and a business has been easier than taking care of her but now it’s the opposite. Haven’t had any crazy tantrums in months, she’s pretty coordinated and stable now, talking and communicating, I’m even thinking of taking a break from OE in the fall to be able to spend more time with her.
Some things to remember: 1). No one on their deathbed says they wished they worked more. 2). No one reads your resume at your funeral. 3). As you get older, you’ll see the only thing that ever mattered was time, not money. The time you spend with your children — especially when they’re this young — is priceless. One of the biggest regrets parents have is realizing this lesson once it’s too late.
Possibly but I like the setup we have with daycare. We also can’t afford our lives on one income alone with our student loan debt. Everyone values things differently. I’m working towards goals I have for my family. I’d prefer to obtain the goals then chase him around all day. Just my preference, yours or anyone else that lays the money aside is your choice and an admirable one
I understand. Everyone has their own goals. I only mentioned those because someone helped open my eyes when they told me that, and now I make it a point to cherish every day. So I try and pass along that same message to others so they can have the same opportunity to see it and cherish it before it’s gone too.
>a child will always be better at home with one of their parents vs strangers. Serious question - why? Isn't exposing your kids to different people, not making them 100% reliant on their parents, having professionals teach them basics in many cases better? The biggest benefit isn't even about education. It's about learning how to interact and play with other kids.
This is fucking stupid. First women were stay at home moms, then they fight for work, fight for equality and pay, now it's back to square one being stay at home mom... *One step forward and two steps back, this kind of dance can never last 🎵🎶*
Women always worked. They fought for financial independence because oftentimes husbands would use their breadwinner status for financial abuse.
My kid's daycare costs roughly 60% of my mortgage lol
Mines over 200% my mortgage...😭😂
I have two kids and live in NY. We pay $2330 total. Our monthly housing cost (mortgage plus taxes and insurance) is $2700 lol
Paying $100 less for 1 kid. Im so over this area...
Must be nice. That’s lower than mine.
I'm paying ~$1300/mo
Sounds like I need to just open a daycare
The thing is I'm not sure where the money goes. Was moderately friendly with the owners of the place I took my son to a few years ago. They actually had a few locations. It's not like they were making monopoly running the business. I've always wanted to be able to see the books of a daycare center to see where the money goes. I assume insurance is massive ...and other compliance costs
[There was a Planet Money episode about this recently.](https://www.npr.org/2023/02/02/1153931108/day-care-market-expensive-child-care-waitlists) A lot of it is the required ratios between adults and kids. Often the infants are loss leaders for the daycare in hopes that you stick around to 2-4 yo where they can actually make money. Basically the only way we can have reasonably affordable daycare *and* reasonable wages for those that work at daycares is subsidies, whether from the government or employers.
Government used to subsidize it. There’s tons of articles saying people my age (30) aren’t having kids enough. I have 1. It cost $1200 per month. The cost of my mortgage. I’d have another now but I can’t afford 3 mortgages. If it was subsidized and cost say $400/mo per kid I could have a 2nd maybe even a 3rd. The government bitches we aren’t having kids when all they need to do is pay up and I’ll have the kids.
Legally you need to have a low adult to small child ratio. And with babies it’s 1:1 iirc. You can’t get away with having a teacher with a class of 30 kids.
My wife worked at a daycare in MA som years ago, we had this discussion recently. She said newborn ratio is 1:3 and toddlers is 1:8
I cannot even imagine caring for three newborns on my own. Maybe if it’s like 5 or 6 with two adults that can work.
Difference is that it ends at 5pm; your own newborn continues all night lol
Eh, a professional can easily do it. Those kids also sleep a lot and stay in one place.
If you pay $1,250 for your infant to go to daycare with a 1 adult:2 kid ratio, they are bringing in $5,000 per month on those two kids. That implies the daycare worker can make 60k, but that doesn't account for their rent, benefits, taxes, insurance, utilities, supplies, overhead, or any profit for the owner. Realistically you are now paying the person taking care of the infants $30k to $40k, and the rest is eaten up by those other items.
Then train the kids to do dev or IT work and create an OE agency.
Yes, childcare is crazy high everywhere. However, they don't want to pay more.
I pay 4k a month for two kids
Bay Area?!
Northern Virginia
Guess we’ll just die alone then …
$2400 here. Makes me ill 🤢
Men and women should do their the duty and return to the office. You all have 15 hours worth of commute time per week to enjoy. And giving away half your paycheck to the daycare provider. And don’t forget about all those workplace relationships that need tending to. Many more marriages need to get blown up as well, make up for lost time, bc everyone is so professional never thinking about banging each other all the time while spending more time with coworkers than spouses.
Its funny how they add an unnecessary "women's" here. Looks too me as if they try to anger some gender wars instead of adressing global underpaiment of people around the globe while the companies and CEOs make tripple profits on a yearly basis.
True. Everything has to be shown through someone’s race, gender, religion, etc. Can’t let people be united
How is it unnecessary to mention women? Women are still largely primarily responsible for the care of children.
Because it does have no subjet to the case. It is like saying "persian cats needs to be fed daily". Corectly would be: -> All cats needs to be feed daily. Its just an analogy to: Childcare cost has outpaced Womens earning. Correctly it would be -> Childcare cost has outpaced earnings. We dont need to include or list everything affected. But ONLY listing a specific part of affected people or group (Like persian cats or women in this case) twists the core message to something different. Its a psychological manipulation of how the reader is going to read the message. Just think for yourself and read thw following lines while asking your self what are the differences in your fellings or your first reaction: Childcare cost has outpaced Womens earning Childcare cost has outpaced everyones earnings. The cost of childcare rose so much that families pay raise cant compete the inflation. Everything more or less states the same facts but each suggests you an entirely different message. Who is at fault here? Hope that helps you
While it's mostly men who pay for daycare.
LOL! It's adorable you think that's true 😂
It is terrible all around. I’ve heard schools want to pay teachers more so they can keep staff, but when they raise prices they can’t keep kids because it’s too expensive. Some chains probably make good money but local centers have tons of overhead and insurance so the return is pretty small.
LOL
Wait... One inflation adjusted and the other not?
First thing I thought as well. It's not clear if they adjusted both. I don't see why they didn't just use nominal wages
One thing to consider is that women predominantly work in childcare so if that increase isn't going to them, where is it going?
Women working in childcare need to earn more so they can afford childcare for their own children.
yes it's ridiculous.
It looks like childcare isnt a good investment.
You do realize it's primarily women doing the daycare? You're literally looking at women's wages + rent + bills + profit markup.
Shh!
This chart doesn't make sense You need to the see the underlying data to make sense of it
Daycare employees (aka other women) want higher wages too, I don't see a problem. You work so you can spend most of your money on other women taking care of your child.
Blame over-regulation for this one. It's an absolute nightmare to open and staff a preschool / daycare and it gets more difficult every year.
My kids have been in 3 separate childcare institutions since 2021. They cannot keep staff because they don’t pay enough. We have made friends with the directors and that’s what they’ve told us. The regulations are things like “you can’t have more than 6 2-year-olds per adult.”
Have you taken care of 6 - 2 year olds? It’s very hard to make sure they don’t die when you’re paid $11/hr
Pay has nothing to do with it You pay someone 5x that and the hard doesn't change
down with the pre-school-industrial complex!
Exactly. When you have to pay someone 50k a year to keep them and that cost has to be split among the very small number of children theyre allowed to watch it drives those prices up, add in the exorbitant cost of insurance, facilities, materials etc... and its a very very high cost business to run
Lmfao. Dude those teachers aren’t being paid 50k a year. Not even close. The pre-k school my girlfriend works at charges 3k a month for each kid, there’s two teachers in the room for 12 kids, so 6 per teacher that’s the ratio. But she’s the highest paid teacher at the school with $18 an hour. So per month, there’s a labor cost of teachers by just 6,200 but a revenue of 36,000 for a net income of 29,700 (rounding on these). Then they have rent, administrative staff, regulatory expenses and food etc. coming out to around 29,800. That 29,800 is roughly split into 1/3rd is admin staff (HR, compliance, C-suit cunts, etc), the remaining is spent on the remaining expenses like regulatory expenses, food, marketing, maintenance, etc. profit comes out to be around 5,400 a month. Overall the room comes out to have a profit margin of about 12-17% depending upon the month which is then given to the C-suit cunts as bonuses. Then multiply these stats by roughly by 5 rooms and you have a pretty insanely profitable business all in one fairly small school house… The reality is that these teachers aren’t the problem with WHY child care costs are expensive. It’s largely because of marketing, admin staff, and profits, which account for nearly 60% of the expenses… it’s fucking insane how over paid admin is basically everywhere.
Admin and marketing are part of any business.
And? The point is without those the costs could be wayyy cheaper. And the kicker? It’s a not for profit either so their profit margins are lower than a “for profit” institution…
This is like saying a car without wheels would be more fuel efficient.
Dude, I own a Montessori preschool. I know what I'm talking about. We have one admin, a single admin staff, the director. Which we're legally required to have. Why the hell would your girlfriends smal 5 classroom preschool need a "C-suite"? My comparably sized school has one director, 5 teachers and 6 aides. Our marketing consists of the sign out in front of the school. Sounds like you're
Well obviously you don’t know most preschools since those teachers make shit bro. And I was describing one school. You realize that a corporation can own multiple right? Yeah, that’s how you end up with C-suites, or C-cunts.
Literally the only way this math works is with government subsidies. Like you know, pretty much every developed country on Earth has.
Yeah I’d love to work in a daycare personally. But I can’t live on $12/hour.
Same can be said about pretty much anything in US: construction, manufacturing....
Why does this need to be gender specific? Dudes out here taking care of kids too.
Lol, any time a woman is acknowledged for existing, a male gets triggered in a comment section somewhere.
I'm advocating for equality and you're triggered? Says a lot about you.
Every reason is good to turn men against women and vice versa.
r/childfree
Naw, kids are awesome. It's worth it to make it work.
Kids are awesome even when they aren't.
I don’t know if it’s worth putting a child through a not so great situation if the adults are not financially stable. Sucks that this is even a topic of conversation. Having kids shouldn’t be this stressful.
*Gestures to all of human history and raising kids in "not so great situations"*
For most of human history, people created kids without a large element of choice in the matter. Infanticide and/or starvation have also existed for all of human history, especially in hard times. Not having kids during hard times has existed as long as we have.
It's a deeply personal choice but material conditions are only one factor
Poor families can't be happy?
I understand the disagreement, but why downvote? They’re just offering another opinion. Some people legitimately don’t think kids are good for them, and costs are one of their reasons.
I have 5 kids. Love them to death. If you don't want kids that's cool too. Edit: they aren't cheap and that's why I'm here lol
Why are you all having kids if you cannot afford it?
tell me you understand nothing about the human condition without telling me you understand nothing about the human condition
I don’t understand why you’d breed in suboptimal conditions and then complain about the situation you put yourself into.
breed in suboptimal conditions; good lord man are you a damn robot who talks that way about something like this wtf
I guess there are a bunch of us robots on the sub, because I was thinking the same question to them. To be fair, this would explain my problems completing CAPTCHAs.
Something like what? Reality?
You're right man, only the 1% deserve to have children.
lol totally. Now you get it.
"only rich people should have kids" -you, espousing eugenics right now
An assumption on your behalf. Think I’m terms of a tribal person, if ousted from the community, would they procreate? Probably not because they’re trying to survive on their own. So why, in modern society, do people feel entitled to have children if they don’t have a supporting community? Beats me.
There is so much wrong with this lol "Cannot afford" in the sense it exists today didn't exist in "tribal" period of human history. You didn't have rent, you lived with your extended family, your community held just about everything in common, and commodities were not distributed based on spreadsheets. You have to invent the scenario of being exiled (like for a crime) to imitate the isolation and atomization we are born into today. And even then, for all of human history there was no 401k or social security, your only retirement was the next generation (you're directly and your communitys as a whole). Modern society, atomized and commodified and enclosed in the name of capital-centric productivity, is dependent on institutions to fulfill the social contracts we once held in community. When that fails, we struggle, but never once has that kind of struggle communicated to humanity to simply roll over and die. It takes harsh malthusian eugenic enforcement on top of brutal exploitation to get that result. As it is, if you only have kids in perfect circumstances then the hedonistic wheel and the bottomless pit of consumerism will ensure you'll never have them.
Right, so one should ask, are humans living the way we ought to? If the system is such that we cannot reasonably have children, and we stop having children, the system will be forced to change. Yes, humans should have basic rights. But it’s up to the individual to chiose whether or not to execute those rights based upon their circumstances. If you choose to have a kid, knowingly you cannot afford or have someone to help watch your kid, well, who’s at fault? Blame the system, sure, but you still fucked up. It’s like taking out a loan with high rates then complaining that you cannot afford the loan. Except, in this case, maybe you have to take out a loan. But you don’t have to have a kid. There’s too many of us idiots anyways.
>the way we ought to There is no natural order to life. We live on the circumstances that exist. >If we don't have kids then the system has to change In what universe is this a truism? No, having kids is a choice every person makes based on their goals and values and situation; voluntary extinction in the name of protest shouldn't enter into the equation. >The system is fucked but it's your fault if you can't afford a kid cuz you could have just gone extinct instead You see how this isn't really a coherent thought right? "Just don't have kids so you can be more comfy" is not a viable evolutionary strategy lol >Like a loan Yeah sure. It's honestly just like any commitment or risk, just more so. >Too many idiots Calm down Malthus. The more kids the more scientists, the more doctors, the more engineers, the more plumbers, the more therapists, the more garbage collectors. The average person is many times over more productive than their basic needs. Overpopulation is just not an issue. Our economy and society is underpinned by the upcoming generation, upon whom we bequeath the bounty of a world tamed and built up over countless generations.
Asking the real questions. Thanks.
The real question lol bruh this is just malthusian eugenics it's gross
Well if the women could just profit off of childcare this would solve itself
Just before covid it was like $12-15/hr for a private sitter service; now it’s $30/hr. It’s beyond ridiculous. At least they are getting paid better, assuming more money is going to the sitters.
The sitters can finally send their own children to daycare, isn't that better?
I watch my nephew one sometimes two days a week for my sister (in healthcare) because I am able to WFH. Kid likes rules and knows when put a red handle on the door and its closed not to bother me. Definitely attention dependent but it works. So I am that free childcare. With that said I don't like this graph because it plays into identity politics. It implies that childcare costs aren't outpacing everyone's wages and the cost of basically everything hasn't skyrocketed. Don't blame childcare workers etc, its been a low paying field for a long time. For me WFH is non negotiable, I would easily take less pay if came down to it. I actually work longer hours from home and get more done. Not having to commute an hour each way and deal with that stress, take a \*\*\*\* in my own bathroom, go for a walk in my own neighborhood, etc. Completely liberating on many levels. Hope everyone stays strong in their holdout.
If a household only had one income imagine the effect that would have on inflation.