My husband and I both work, and we both earn a good living. We pay a wonderful nanny to take care of our daughter. We pay her about as much as we can afford, but we have to consider that we want to have more children and therefore will need to account for giving her a hefty raise when we have another. We pay her approximately $35K (gross) per year, plus she has plenty of babysitting opportunities for us if she wants them, in which we pay her cash by the hour at her hourly rate.

I think this is generally a living wage, especially in my cheap city. But I wish we could afford more. She is so wonderful with our daughter. We have tried to make it up to her in other ways: we're flexible with her as far as time off, we provide museum and zoo memberships to give her something to do, there are almost no restrictions on where she can go with our daughter during the day, and we allow her to bring her grandson with her, to save on the cost of his daycare. I am realistic enough to know that only that last results in any financial incentive to her.

It makes me sad to think that these dedicated women work so much harder caring for many children and are paid so much less. I don't really know the solution: more government subsidies mean higher taxes, which means less money in my pocket to pay my share of child care costs. Yet the current free market system is also broken, as the article demonstrates. As we potentially face a move to a more expensive city, we are considering day care for our daughter, but this piece makes me face the realities of day care economics, which are unsettling at best.

I am interested in seeing the comments here on ways that the child care system might reasonably be improved in terms of the workers' lives and pay. (I sincerely hope, however, that it does not devolve into yet another tiresome referendum on my- or any parent's- choice or requirement to work outside the home.)

dwtintx:

But I wish we could afford more.

The people sending their kids to care centres are themsleves comparatively less well off.

The issue of child care is somewhat circular. Parent/s wants or needs to work, children require care. Or, dual income society, living costs rise, need to work harder/more, additional demand for child care.

To break the cycle some countries (eg. Scandinavians) ppl are entitled to paid parental leave. As a result comparatively few children are in insitutional care.

Loved these two posts, I posted on the sad discussion and got ripped apart for saying that our government should require a living wage for people. The people on the other post said that I just wanted to hand out welfare checks to people who shouldn't have had children in the first place. Nice to see that two people have a sincere and kind thought towards this subject. It's a hard fix like the first post said.

Yes, htra0497, you phrased the circular nature of the problem better than I did. I just can't think of a really good way to address it. Paid parental leave might solve a set of problems, but not others, i.e., that money is probably coming from the taxpayers, meaning that others who choose not to have kids (as someone else noted on a different thread here) are effectively subsidizing the care of others' children. It seems like every "solution" comes with its own set of tradeoffs and issues, and it is up to us as a society to decide which ones we are willing to live with.

What I really wish is that there was some way to increase the market value of the daycare workers themselves. It is facile to say, "Oh, we should value their time and skills more highly because they are taking care of our precious kids," because of the circular problem you noted. But I really wish there was some way to fix that. I'm sure every parent who has a kid in day care or other care than their own wishes they could truly pay what that person is worth to them.

'Loved these two posts, I posted on the sad discussion and got ripped apart for saying that our government should require a living wage for people.'

if the government does anything it should mandate that people should not have kids they can't afford. isn't that what abortion is for?

The conundrum is no different than other business models. It is essentially economies of scale. A one-on-one family nanny is the least efficient at generating income unless the family is absurdly wealthy.

The answer might be in boosting the service ratio ever so slightly. Allowing the same nanny to attend 3 to 4 children of close friends while alternating care locations would generate more income for the worker without impacting the wages paid and hopefully retain adequate level of care (or better).

irvingchang:

if the government does anything it should mandate that people should not have kids they can't afford. isn't that what abortion is for?

No, I'd say that's contraception is for (no reason to drag the whole abortion debate into this when it's not necessary).

Of course that does drag the whole pharmacies refusing to supply contraceptives issue into it ;-).

No, Irving, that is not what abortion is for. That is what our taxes are for. Everyone I know works and pays taxes, regardless of their income. Having children is not a luxury reserved only for the rich, or those with extended unemployed families. Quality child care should be accepted as an essential service, such as trash collection, sewage and highway maintenance. My own tax dollars support many charitable institutions, such as Halliburton and Enron corporations. If I can bite the bullet so can you. (And don't tell me to vote the cretins out of office. Many of us have tried.) The fact is, people like you are the ones with a sense of entitlement, who believe that only you decide where tax dollars go. Many of our legislators who control the budget are hopelessly out of touch with the citizens they represent, and they do tend to be wealthy.

We certainly can afford to provide safe, clean, responsible, quality child care for our many hard-working, tax-paying citizens. Many civilized nations manage to provide government sponsored child care and education, to the enormous benefit of all citizens.

'Quality child care should be accepted as an essential service, such as trash collection, sewage and highway maintenance.'

do the feds pick up my trash?

look. i understand that you are a liberal collectivist and need your hand held by the government. fine. please make it you city, state or county government that does the hand holding. if you want to tax the shit out of rich people for a statewide hand holding program, for the lazy and/or stupid, i say go for it.

if you want to prostrate yourselves down in front of the leeches and let them suck your blood, fine.

but please do it on a local level so i can stay away. that is all i'm asking.

I hope for your sake, irving, that you never, ever need help. And please don't think you're immune from asking for it. Unless you worked for Ms. Cleo and know exactly what's going to happen to you, you might want to consider a bit of compassion. I'm not saying to bleed for anyone and everyone with a sob story. I'm talking about making an effort to understand someone else's situation.

I don't have kids, but my property taxes support the local schools. I don't own a car, but my taxes pay for the roads in my area. I've never needed social services, but my taxes help folks who do. I'm not sure if I'll ever collect social security, but my taxes are making sure some ol' folks are eating today. I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but my taxes are suiting up and arming American soldiers. What I'm trying to say is that we don't live in a bubble.

And what I find interesting is that the lower income folks who have their kids in daycare are out working--hence, the need for daycare. If they weren't working, you would complain that they need to get up off their asses and find jobs. What's the problem? They're not working hard enough to earn a salary that you approve of?

like i said. the progressives in california with meathead reiner tried to pass state legislation that would do what you seem to want. it got defeated by the voters.

are you with me?

now the same progressives who can't get shit passed on a local or state level because they refuse to pay the taxes involved want me to pay for what they refuse to pay for on a fed level.

at least reiner tried to take care of biz in a state level and didn't demand the feds hold his hand. i respect the meathead for that.

the rest of you can blow me.

BTW-i have my own disability insurance and god knows i'd rather be dead that depend on the gubmint for 'help'.

Blow you? Is it really that distressing to having someone disagree with you? What's the point of debate? Are we not allowed to hold our own opinions (even though they may conflict with yours)?

You said:

And what I find interesting is that the lower income folks who have their kids in daycare are out working--hence, the need for daycare.

They should not be having children in the first place!!! Ever heard of adoption??? Every day this country is moving closer and closer to a socialist, thumb sucking, I'm entitled to free money, piece of shit, society! I was one of eleven kids, no twins mind you, my mother NEVER worked, and our family was FAR from wealthy. What it took was an INTACT family unit and a father that recognized he had to work his ass off to support us WITHOUT the help of government assistance. The problem with today's country is that our legislator's and leader's pander to those who are too lazy or don't think about the responsibilty of raising a child before they fuck each other!!!

You lost me with "Ever heard of adoption?" Adopted kids don't eat? They don't need shelter? What's the difference between biological and adoption? Or are you saying they should put their kids up for adoption?

Question: How old are you? And where did you grow up?

Listen, I'm not a fan of welfare either, but I'd much rather subsidize day care for poor parents who are making an effort to go out and support their responsibilities than handing someone a check to sit home and create more that s/he cannot handle.

And who says the bottom didn't fall out for some of these folks? How do you know that they weren't self-sufficient at one point and then lost their footing?

I'm a single woman with no kids, a decent paying job, a home that I dig tremendously, and a few degrees under my belt. Needless to say, I'm not looking for (or need) a hand-out. But, at the same time, I'm not going to paint everyone within a particular demographic with the same broad brush stroke--especially when I don't know his/her story.