Hacker News Reader

Comment by cperciva | Hacker News Reader

They're not exiting the workforce. They're switching jobs -- moving into a field which is in high demand and in many cases pays more.

View on HN

Yeah, it's not like these parents vanished into thin air. They are doing work that produces real value, we simply can't capture the output as a clean number in GDP or, maybe more importantly, tax dollars.

I'll preface this by saying my wife is a full-time parent for our two children so I am very supportive of full-time parenting, but from a raw economic perspective a 4-1 staffing ratio (at a daycare) or 10-1 at a preschool would be a lot more efficient as the current two children we have.

In theory yes but the 4-1 has lots of overhead plus extra facilities plus taxes. Is probably closer to 3:1 after overhead and 2.5:1 after transactional taxes

I'll grant the overhead but the taxes are not a loss from a GDP perspective, that's just money shuffling, goods are still produced, services are still rendered.

In-home daycare is also common too, and then there's not a ton of facility cost.

I thought we were talking economic output. GDP isn’t a good metric to use when you compare work that generates no GDP output. Someone already mentioned that taking care of your own kid generates a net gdp loss of 1.x your income where x is the ammount you would pay to a child care facility.

Well that's sort of a separate question, my point is that if I pay $5 for someone to cook me a hot dog, 1 hot dog is produced whether sales tax is 0% or 50%, and that's what GDP is measuring.

The gdp measures the hot dog and the transaction costs of the hotdog so you buying the hotdog adds both hot dog, cart vendor and health inspector and permit office into the mix.

Depends on whether the outcomes are the same. If it's just about keeping them alive, sure, but if more individualized attention and family bonding results in better adults (or better behaved/cheaper to educate students) down the line, there's a price for quality that needs to be accounted for.

Exactly. A child is a future contributor to the workforce. If outcomes are different then this is an investment.

It’s an empirical question, to be sure, but it is theoretically possible the outcomes are different.

Not exactly. I'm not sure about the age of your kids, but it's not uncommon to see parents shopping and doing other chores with kids. I definitely remember being taken to the post office, grocery store, etc. When parents are taking care of kids they're not totally unproductive.

I don't mean for this to sound judgemental, I'm also very supportive of full-time parenting for those who want to do it.

But I do feel like daycare/preschool brings us closer to the traditional "it takes a village" model of raising a child, rather than the isolated 1950s suburban housewife model.

So it's not all about economic efficiencies, but also the value that society gets out of it. A child is socialised with other kids, and learns from adults other than their parents too.

The research is pretty clear that under 2 years, parental separation massively increases cortisol levels and is net negative. So we're not doing daycare at all.

Our 2.5 year old does 4 hour preschool 2 days a week for social exposure etc. And other activities throughout the week.

> rather than the isolated 1950s suburban housewife model

I'll note, people give the 1950s crap, but actually my parents in the 50s spent the entire day outside running around the neighborhood with friends. Kids in the 50s were vastly healthier socially than kids today.

> Kids in the 50s were vastly healthier socially than kids today.

No they weren't. Your parents just lived in a location where their socio-economic status and urban planning supported running around and playing all day. Their parents decided to build suburbs without sidewalks, mass transit availability, or stoops/porches. They did this to keep those people out. Your parents got to enjoy better urban planning as children than you and your kids.

> Kids in the 50s were vastly healthier socially than kids today.

depends on your race, if we're being blunt. certain other neighborhoods were "running around the neighborhood" in a completely different context.

social aspects aside, sure. I wouldn't mind the pendulum shifting away from the helicopter parent spectrum, but it really depends on your location. It could work in my current locattion, but not at most of my previous residences.

Yeah, after adjusting for taxes, my wife made more money than I did (in opportunity costs anyways) the years we had 4 kids at home.

We came to a similar conclusion and my wife wanted to stay home with the kids. Her income, when taxed at our full marginal tax rate, would have otherwise been nearly completely consumed by childcare and other costs we could avoid if she worked on the household.

So, we lost 5 years of her 401k contributions in exchange for her getting what she preferred, what the kids enjoyed, and a lot more meals at home as a family. That trade was well-worth it.

I agree - they are exercising the principle of opportunity cost. While most parents probably would make more than the $700 / month, the value might simply not be worth it.

I remember a study that concluded that in reality, there is a cap on how much additional money improves your day-to-day life. And if a family is already past that on one income, why do you need two?

> $700 / month

That cant be right. I am in a LCOL area and its almost double that for 1 kid. And its one of the cheapest options.

It says the average is 700 per household. Perhaps it counts households without kids?

Has to; from my own anecdotal experience. More than double that in a LCOL area here as well.

The exact number doesn't really matter. The point is that the difference between the cost of childcare and what a parent may make as a second earner has a significant opportunity cost that may not make working outside the home a good deal.

Can’t put a price on those years. They're just incredibly precious. I can’t imagine people send their kids off to daycare because they want to. It’s just such a loss you can’t ever get back.

0-4 years kind of suck 5-10 though yeah those are gold

My two year old is awesome and says/does new funny things every single day. She's been a hoot since maybe 1-1.5. I'm super lucky to get to spend all day with her right now while on leave for my 1 month old. Being able to pop out of my room and see her during the day is also one of the best perks of remote work. She's only recently started to notice/take interest in other kids, and the other day we went to the park and the playground was empty, and she goes "Where's my friends? FRIENDS!!!!! My friends are hiding." She's also decided our cats' names are mama meowy and dada meowy (they're both male).

The 1 month old is not so fun yet, granted.

Yeah, kids start to become significantly more fun once they can talk. Watching a child's personality emerge is probably one of the most rewarding parts of having kids.

The countless hours of a little loaf of bread asleep on my tummy as I worked were some of the most priceless moments for me.

Seattle is 2200-2500 for young kids. That’s post tax money so add 30%+ to account for that. 70k a year is what you would pay at a private equity run child care facility

Reply on news.ycombinator.com