What’s funny in a sad-not-haha way, is that labor for caretaking of small human beings is the enormous untenable driving cost here.
Parents can’t afford the rates, daycares can’t afford living wages doe the caretakers. This is an endeavor, like many, that the Hand of the Market™ is OBVIOUSLY unsuitable for solving.
The “funny” part: Parents would gladly do this job for free as they have for centuries and millennia. This problem was already solved, and wouldn’t be an issue if every member of the household wasn’t forced into full-time 40+ hour work plus hunting for side-hustles, and being taken away from their loved ones for most of their waking friggin lives, just to survive.
How many generations deep are we now? Where so many kids spend so long in daycare from infancy that they never even get to form a decent bond with their own parents? How healthy is that, for anybody, much less larger society?
“Parenting as a Service” is peak capitalistic hellscape…
Skyrmir@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Daycare is a crazy one. Insanely expensive, yet the workers are damn near indentured servants.
Dettweiler42@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
It’s honestly a major contributor to the labor shortage. For anyone with a decent job, it’s significantly cheaper for the spouse to just stay home until the kids are old enough to take care of themselves.
nutcase2690@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Don’t let the media force you to twist your words-- it is not a labor shortage, but a wage crisis.
_spiffy@piefed.ca 3 weeks ago
We started by doing dual income as an optional lifestyle and the rich saw that they could make more money that way, and then it became mandatory.
SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 3 weeks ago
I read an interview, probably from NPR, but I can’t find it at the moment. The upshot was that caring for infants is insanely expensive, since they need one-on-one care pretty much continuously.
But parents can’t afford that cost, so, essentially, the price they charge for infant care is a loss-leader, and parents of older children (who need less supervision and thus more favorable staffing ratios) subsidize the cost of caring for infants. Daycare operators are barely keeping afloat.
Eheran@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This is the only answer that is not just a hand waiving “investors bad”.
Quokka@quokk.au 3 weeks ago
They may require 1-on-1 interaction, but generally the ratio for 0-2’s is 1:4.
And many childcare companies are owned by huge multi-billion dollar investment firms because they are cash generators.
alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Feels liké this would be solved with longer parental leave, but what do I know?
Town@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Are they required to provide for the more costly babies?
slaacaa@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s almost like somebody pays the workers much less than the revenues and pockets the difference
Skyrmir@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You would think, but for the most part daycare is a very low profit industry. The problem I think is that all the costs tend to scale with size. So having a lot more clients just means a lot higher costs.
There are exceptions of course, but all of those that I’ve seen also have some other luxury additions to basic care.
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
I can’t see it as being a high expenditure business. Majority of spending should be towards rent/mortgage and repair and maintenance. It’s not like there is a lot of consumables or anything. All that money has to go somewhere.
4am@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
My wife and I had to pay $1600 a month for daycare as things opened up after the pandemic. The teachers there would have made more working at the Burger King across the street.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
im not surprised. thats why people dont want to join the services, why bother when you can make more at walmart, target,etc. and they have a higher min wage.
sexy_peach@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Run by private equity?
Telodzrum@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
No, not really at all. Some of the more expensive ones are, but that’s only because there is a profit margin on the wealthiest kids and aged. The floor for cost of care is ridiculously high for both groups, so there’s no margin to be made at anything below the crème de la crème facilities.
PhatalFlaw@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Most are, the investors need to make their money too! /s
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
mostly but its a cost-cutting moeasure to avoid paying MD, and RN prices.
Mac@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
The responses:
🤔
jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I’ve served on the board of non-profit daycares and I [vaguely] know at least one person who actually owns a for profit daycare.
Only a complete idiot would think they were going to make any money on a daycare. The overhead is nuts – even when paying really shitty compensation – and the competition is relentless.
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
What kind of things does the overhead go to?
Telodzrum@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
And, here’s the kicker, they’re not even very profitable. This is the case for both for the same reason caring for the elderly and the young is insanely expensive.
Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s a weird one because it’s a huge expense but it’s also completely concentrated to a subset of the population for a subset of their life. I think it should have a public option. 2 toddlers, not infants, could cost us 50k/year