Hacker News Reader

If you think about it, the "productivity revolution" is only needed because of how expensive it is to run a childcare facility in a place where there are lots of children. If you lower the intensity with which a facility in a city needs to produce income to carry the cost of parking minimums and housing for its employees, then that would eliminate the problem too.

In-home childcare that resembles a hobby is called "parenting" and in the absence of a commercial option one half of a couple often ends up spending all of their time doing this until the child is of age to be placed in school. I think a lot of the problems our society has come from not valuing this or denigrating it as "hobby" work.

> a lot of the problems our society has come from not valuing this or denigrating it as "hobby" work

Some people enjoy that work, but a lot of people don't. The empirical result of forcing it is people have fewer children.

I won't try to tell anyone what they should do with their time, but all I'm saying is that calling "keeping children in a home and raising them" a "hobby business" feels like it's denigrating that type of work when it's actually really important to having a functioning society. If you hire someone to change diapers and bottle-feed your child I'm not going to judge you for it. I've had similar conversations with my partner about our baby. Modern society is complicated and we're expected to live so intensely that it's hard to find time.

By "in-home child care hobby business" I assume what nocoiner means is: If San Francisco childcare costs are $25/hour why is anyone pouring coffees or flipping burgers if looking after three kids brings in $75/hour?

Obviously some people don't have the space - but many do. Surely it's lucrative enough that there shouldn't be a shortage of supply?

SF childcare costs are usually around ~20 an hour per child in 1:2 (under the table, where folks who can afford it get an indirect subsidy from the government via Medi-cal and dodging fica) nanny shares where the nanny goes in your home. It’s a vaguely healthy market from what my friends tell me.

Doesn’t work in the suburbs where you won’t find a family 3 blocks from your house with a similar age child. You would think it would be more common though given how much useless sqft folks in the suburbs have.

"in-home child care hobby business" means stay-at-home parent.

But in the non-urban areas around here there are in-home childcare setups, that have to follow specific laws. I assume something could be done similar in urban areas, but the size of house that is amenable to it may be limited in number.

Cannot wait to leave my children with some rando with excess space whose alternative career prospects are flipping burger for $25/hr.

/s

My parents did that for me and it was totally fine.

> Isn’t it more likely that the exorbitant cost of childcare is much more a function of Baumol’s cost disease than parking minimums or land use requirements?

If labour were the principle cost component of childcare, yes. That does not appear to be the case. (EDIT: Never mind, labour is the principle cost [1].)

Consider, for example, how the problem would be solved if people could (legally) run childcare out of their apartments.

[1] https://raisingnewyork.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/1...

This intrigues me, what is the principal cost?

Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly open to the argument that land use policies are a problem. And I am no fan of minimum parking rules. At the same time, I also know that parking doesn't cease to be a problem just because you don't want to build it. I've had the joy of going to a doctor's office where I couldn't figure out where to park within a 5 block radius of it. What was a convenient doctor when I lived within that 5 block radius turned into a miserable experience when I moved a bit further away. Same experience when dropping the kids off for a birthday party in some denser part of town. (At least there I can gripe to the kids saying they need to bike the 10 miles next time. Isn't that far, all told. :D)

Back to the question, labor strikes me as a thing that would be rather expensive for child care. Specifically, child care that isn't staffed by teenagers and has adequate staffing for the number of kids being cared for.

I thought it was real estate, but I was incorrect. Comment edited.

Fascinating paper that I'll have to dive on later. I don't know that I understand it well enough to consider the "out of their own apartments" claim. What page supports that? I saw the 70+% of cost is labor. I confess I was surprised not to see liability insurance in there.

Edit: Realizing I may be reading the original comment wrong. I don't remember the apartment claim on my first read, so I thought you added it with your edit. I'm guessing it was there and I just didn't remember it?

What percentage of the labor costs are being used to paying the laborers rent? How much is it in paying the laborers food? For healthcare? For education? How expensive are all of these things in San Francisco compared to other cities?

Now how correct are you?

I mean, we subsidize stay at home parents in the US today: you pay your daycare with after tax money, their employees pay taxes, the business pay taxes, health insurance. Stay at home parents get a huge tax break in the form of the doubling of tax brackets, it’s pretty scandalous.

This is a ridiculous take. I recently left my job to be a stay at home dad. We are worse off financially in every single way.

This is like complaining that you won’t want to have $1M of income every year because you pay more tax. You pay more because you make more.

Not everyone is in this situation though. My wife is a stay at home mom because there is no way any after-tax wage she could earn would exceed the cost of child-care. So it makes more financial sense for her to stay home.