Also, sorry this is grim, but the pandemic has also killed hundreds of thousands of people. Many of them were workers.

Take COVID stats with a huge grain of salt - the reporting around them has been (and still is) grossly politicized :p

Real estate is much of the cost keeping childcare high, particularly in big cities, which is to say left-leaning cities, and some movement is afoot to address this problem: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/19/opinion/supply-side-progr....

If cost of housing for the workers themselves is high, they'll also be forced to demand higher wages to compensate: https://www.worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-e...

One super obvious thing the government could do, that many other governments do successfully, is to simply run child cares. First grade used to be the first year of schooling then kindergarten was introduced, and now pre-K is common in a lot of places. Just keep going down a few more years, and boom, child care problem solved. This would solve a lot of the disincentives to having children, so you would think the people complaining about the low birth rate in the US would be in favor of it, and yet ..

John Taylor Gatto (iirc) advised keeping kids out of school as long as possible, as nothing important is learned in the first few grades that wouldn't be learned anyways, or couldn't be learned more efficiently later. http://johntaylorgatto.com/

If the government were to extend school-as-childcare, it could be done in a way that restores the ability of children to learn from the real world. I don't know what 4, 5, 6 and 7 year olds should be learning, but imho Pre-K, K, 1st and 2nd grade "classrooms" are stifling.

Gatto's essay, Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, is all over the interwebs.

What did Native Americans teach their 4 year olds?

When caring for a newborn for more than a few weeks means one becomes unemployed, no wonder families decide to not play that game until kids are a bit older. Otherwise, you look for a job just to risk needing a leave that can result in loss of this job if the kid gets sufficiently sick.

Restructure child care to account for pandemic. Smaller group sizes, no intra-mingling, contact tracing, nordic style outdoor classes, etc.

Ya, it costs more. Whatever. Investing in childcare is LONG overdue.

lack of childcare -> smaller available labor pool -> disproportionate difficulty hiring in childcare (because it doesn't pay well) -> continued lack of childcare

We could actually be looking at a bistable system, in which (because childcare jobs are towards the bottom end of the pay spectrum) you don't get available childcare unless you have surplus labor, and until you have available childcare you will have a labor shortage.

The solution would be the pay more for childcare, but that money has to come from somewhere, and a lot of people who require it cannot pay a lot more. A conundrum...

This is an age old mechanism that mostly alleviates two problems simultaneously - old age care, and the two working parents situation.

The other option (which also works nearly as well) is what other commentators mentioned - European style subsidized childcare/old age support.

The USA shuns the first culturally (I get strange looks from people when I say I am happy working and living with my parents), and shuns the second culturally as well as politically. Some awareness/willingness to learn from history/other cultures would fix that, but I am not holding my breath.

Current life of young people look like:

  — Get expensive degree
  — Move to expensive city for jobs
  — Hard to find partner
  — Cannot afford to start family, postpone children
  — Have children without family support 
  — Get into high level of debt

  — People have less or no children. This lead to increased taxation and increasing retirement age in many countries. It often causes social unrest when governments try uncontrolled external immigration to fill the gaps. 
  — People try to live frugal lives, reduce spending and try to save for retirement individually. This disturbs housing market and stall country economy and destroy luxury brands.

I wish more people that pull out the moralizing "everyone should just" would understand that just maybe the rest of us don't have a life that looks like theirs, and not for reasons under our control.

Universal subsidized childcare like most developed countries?

I wonder who's going to provide it.

Being male, I don't know if I would even venture into the area. I couldn't imagine being interrogated by parents, and the whole vetting process. And yes--it might make more sence for a woman to open up a child care facility? The list of government regulation must get onerious too?

Where are we going to find all these babysitters?

Second--the money will come on the form of a federal tax credit. Why do I feel that money will end up going to other things a young family needs?

At this point, I'd rather see a Basic Income that goes to all low income Americans. They could use the money for anything.

If you apply this logic to other government subsidized programs, where we remove the subsidies and give people some cash, you'll quickly run into problems.

Look at how much money it costs to simply buy health coverage on the individual market for a family with one kid with no subsidies. It's $16k - $24k in yearly premiums, with $6k - $12k yearly deductibles, and $17k+ yearly out of pocket maximums. Almost all of the proposed UBI amounts would go towards just the premiums alone, without even getting into deductibles, out of pocket maximums, copays or out of network care.

The situation many families would face would be a choice between being able to see a doctor, receiving adequate and safe childcare, paying rent, etc.

We already have a very successful model of government provided childcare: the public school system.

That's the case in the US. In countries where family welfare policies exist and where governments incentive and support families: that's hardly the case. Childcare is pretty much free or does not cost as nearly as much as in the US.

I think the US may be an advanced country for many aspects, but it is just ridiculously behind when it comes to healthcare and families.

College is easily five to ten times more expensive then when I went in the 90's - and the vast majority of that increase is from government guaranteed student loans. No risk on the part of the schools, so they jack tuition up with a bunch of amenities because they are getting paid, no matter what. Handing out $100K+ to people with little guarantee of getting it back? Where else can that happen but within our insane student loan system?!?

Articles like this is what brought it home to me: https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/tricked-college-campuses-wa...

Give me a break! I think that schools should be on the hook for at least half a loan if someone can't get a job and earn enough that will let them pay the loan back within a fixed time - say six years. That would tamp down a lot of this utterly unrealistic spending for degrees that have little chance of ever returning any meaningful value for what is paid out.

  > I don't know that there is much the government can do. Childcare facilities actually run on thin margins and turnover is high. State regulations are often aggressive towards child to caretaker ratios.

Except: 1) That was true BEFORE the pandemic, yet there was no labor shortage. 2) Salaries have gone up due to the (temporary) labor shortage, so it should be easier for more parents to justify childcare costs.

So I don't see that it has anything to do with the current situation.

Full time child care in Brooklyn, NY was $2000/mo for 1 child when I inquired earlier this year.

They weren't all the highest earners, but relinquishing their spots in the org chart freed up a lot for the frustrated younger people who put in 10-20 years but could never meaningfully move up, either by responsibility or compensation.

I remember the same thing happening in 2008 in the private sector then in 2010 in public but with the opposite effect. So many people that had put everything in the stock market and housing suddenly saw themselves pushing off retirement for another decade. A neighbor offered for me to take over the last 20% of a mortgage on a home because he'd sold his primary residence and had retired to Florida right before the crash, and I still don't know why I turned him down. It would have been a 800% return today, which is just stupid.

Funded, but not really funded so readily accessible.

It could definitely use an extra 30% of funding, but there is also a severe lack of trained staff for high quality childcare because people just don't want to deal with that.

We are waking up to the fact this model cannot work for the overall population. It has been promoted by those who would greatly benefit from having everyone at work, and echoed by those who would somewhat benefit, and echoed more times all the way down to those who had everything to loose.

The problem of childcare cost is unsolvable with women at work, it's as simple as that. At best the average working woman will pay the same as she earns to afford full time child care. But if tax is taken into account, then it won't cover it. Or we squeeze more staff per child.

I think it will take some more time for most of us to come around to the reality of a model doomed to fail.

> The problem of childcare cost is unsolvable with women at work, it's as simple as that.

What kind of nonsense is this?

One in six women never go on to have children, it's great news that these women's access to the labour market has improved.

Second, childcare ratios aren't 1 to 1. In fact they're about 1 to 4 for babies <1 year, 1 to 10 for 5 year olds, and 1 to 12 at school age. Suppose all women had children (they don't), society still greatly benefits from the efficiency of a childcare ratio as high as 1:12 as opposed to women caring for their child 1:1.

Third, children aren't permanently children, and certainly not permanently babies. The first few years requires a lot of parental or private childcare, but afterwards kids mostly go to school for most of the day. A woman will have at least 45 years between adulthood and retirement and most of that kids won't need constant parental care like the first few years. Making sure women stay active in the labour force (even part-time) will greatly help their chances in the labour market throughout their career.

Fourth, I see no reason why we're speaking about women rather than about parents. Providing income and childcare are shared responsibilities. It's fine to arrange it in your own family as you wish, but society shouldn't speak about these topics as if they should only apply to women.

I disagree with the ratio argument you've proposed, I'm sorry 1 carer for 12 toddlers is undeseriable. Ask any stay-at-home moms how it goes when they get their 3rd kid. And a carer will never care as much as a parent, so 1 to 12 is surely compromising on the children well being.

I would gladly consider parents rather than women, but for the vast majority of human history it appears that females have been rather focusing on taking care of home and children. Things can be arranged differently, but there are surely some deep rooted reasons as to the adoption of the role fulfilled by women for so long, and it must have shown superiority over having men take that role since it has survived across very different cultures.

We aren't hunter gatherers, we are even past the sedentary model that organised societies for millenia, so models can and better be questioned, but the childcare dead end needs to be looked at the way it is. It is not working.

Yes children grow up, I give you that. And of course it is natural for women who were mostly taking care of their own children to find an occupation, work is one. My comment was in the context of the child care chaos we've created. Not in the context of trying to hijack the thread into claiming women should not be in the workplace.

If women drop out of the workforce, are employers suddenly going to start doubling salaries so household income will stay the same? If not, then this isn't really a problem with gender roles, it doesn't seem.

It sounds to me like the thread of logic you're following is:

- Women have started working more, so child care is harder

- Child care costs went up during the pandemic, so more workers of all genders are staying home to care for their children directly

- Therefore, there's a labor shortage.

Well, the obvious conclusion from that thread of logic is that employers apparently need women to work in order for the economy to keep functioning, and if they stop working and stop sending their kids to daycare then there'll be a labor shortage.

If you don't have a plan to fix that problem, then complaining about gender roles seems kind of useless. If you're worried about the direction of childcare and you think more women should be in that role, then shouldn't you be happy that more people are staying home now to take care of their kids, and that this is forcing the market to adjust salaries to meet the new numbers of available workers?

You can't both have your cake and eat it, you can't be upset that women aren't staying home to look after their kids and upset that there are fewer available workers to hire once parents start staying home to watch their kids.

Taken in reverse, that's pretty much what happened when women entered the workforce in large numbers. It now generally takes two incomes to support a household, where it used to take one. (Yes, the standard of living and expectations in general are higher these days, but still.)

At least you got a few things right. Yes, women have been working "more" and it has created the difficulty to get their children proper care. It's rather logical. You can add to that it is not just women's problem. It's men's too. It is our problem : we have a model that cannot solve an absolute road block: if women work, and get equal pay, then childcare become out of reach to a large portion of the population. Unless you increase the kids to carer ratio of course, or build robots as carer. I think the issue with the work arounds are rather obvious. Or maybe not since I've only commented with simple logical critics but many won't cease to conceive a society with women taking care of their children until a proven solution comes along.

I don't have a plan to fix that problem, no. That's why I blame the dogma that introduced the problem in the first place. And I refer to the previous model that worked for millenia, which is a gender based role system. It doesn't have to be that way, but sure let's consider any way, but I don't see why criticising today's model and referring to one that worked is useless.

It seems like it's directly addressing a problem you have with the current state of child-rearing, and that in order to move to the model you prefer, businesses necessarily need to get used to the fact that fewer people are going to apply for jobs and that they'll have to pay workers more.

This should be a good thing as far as you're concerned, right?

Women have two heavy drivers for leaving the workforce - pregnancy/early childhood (age 20-35) and caregiving (45-60). This is a big deal, as when you lose a skilled attorney, engineer, or product manager, it’s difficult to replace them.

Offering work flexibility was projected to reduce this attrition by 30-50% depending on occupational category.

Certainly, my wife and I have ~semi-annual conversations on whether our lifestyle still makes sense (2 parents working, 2 kids under 5 in daycare:). There's definitely room to discuss that on societal level too. But there's no immediate assumption that my wife would necessarily be the one to quit work and spend extra time with kids - we're both engaged parents, both have our strengths and weaknesses, and once breastfeeding stage was complete both equally capable of parenting; and at the same time have both been career oriented and hold very successful positions.

in short:

"Are we as society on average supporting the model of two parents working" - a reasonable even crucial discussion to have.

"Should women be working" - hopefully settled a long time ago and anybody still questioning this will seem regressive at least, misogynistic more likely :-/

If I had to pick one point - it's that absolutely, yes, freedom is great, options are great. We HAVE the social and legal freedom to choose what lifestyle and combination makes the most sense for our family. And we weigh all the pros and cons and think of short and long term benefits and then have that discussion again few months later to see if anything has changed. We are lucky, blessed and privileged, on many different levels. So I don't feel picked on; I only wish more people here and around the world had the freedom, support and opportunities my wife and I have.

(as others have pointed out, daycare is not necessarily a bad thing. It's staffed by certified professionals who specialize in teaching kids - whereas let's be honest I'm just making it up as a parent. It's also great opportunity to socialize and make friends outside of their family. We don't see daycare as a downside - we see it as opportunity for our kids to get diverse experience between family and friends. As I said discussions revolve around all the many factors and options but certainly does not start from "daycare is bad" stance)

For what it's worth, everything I remember from daycare/preschool through elementary school was that it was a blast. Being home with just one parent instead of being/playing with other kids all day would've been way worse. Look at villages in developing nations: the young kids there run in packs, with free rein of everything, and are having an absolutely great time.

The only problem here is the ‘mediocre’ upbringing. My daughter is in a daycare where she is learning Spanish words/phrases in addition to English.

My daughter will be 2 in December and the daycare has her recognizing most letters, numbers, colors and shapes through dedicated practice. She uses tongs and spoons to practice picking up items and separating them by color or by number ‘grab 4 purple fuzz balls!’

These are teaching programs I would never have thought of at her age. I’d just point to fingers and toes and count to 10 or sing the ABC’s.

My daycare printed out paper with every letter and asks her to grab the letters of her name. Or she has an image with lower case letters on it and she asks my daughter to match the upper case letters out of a pile.

Long story short, raising kids newborn to 5 is a specialized skill just like teaching 5 to whatever, and society can benefit from having better educators for our children than what random adults turn out to be.

It would be great if we could come up with a socially supported system that raised the standard of child-care, so that every child gets the same treatment as your daughter.

I think the debate hasn't been settled though. It wasn't so long ago that women were, for the most part, prioritising being a successful housewives rather than their careers. Surely they had little to no choice since society expected just that from them. I wouldn't argue that the pressure wasn't forcing their hands, but was a model where the roles were gender defined. The good thing with clearly defined roles for something as challenging as being a parent is that one can work towards developing the required abilities to become an adult well equipped when family comes around.

I do see your point though. Your parental situation is not a rarety any longer, a gender based role assignment can't de facto be most adequate.

I don't have a desire to regress. It does seem to me we have regressed though. We created created society of kids at day care then schools, and are only starting to see the contradictions that come with that.

If the norm was instead working 2/3 days a week for less pay, there would be less money to spend on houses, so prices would come down (because the money that's charged is what can be afforded)

But part time jobs are nowhere near as common as full time jobs - especially for professionals.

Having parents looking after kids is a far better solution than outsourcing parenting to an external company, but it's far less profitable, and reduces things like GDP and stock markets, which is bad.

I don't necessarily agree with this. If the people/company that is looking after the children can do a good job, then it's far more efficient to have multiple children per person (company) vs 1-2 per person (parent). Plus (some of) the people that work for the company generally have an education that supports good developmental growth for the children under their care.

We could have both parents work part-time, and make everyone happy. But we want the GDP to go up, not down, throw more people and hours into the system, at the expense of children (our future they say) well-being.

IIR from the Pew Research Foundation on Family in the United States, less than fifty percent of all children in the US have two married parents, across all demographics and education levels, minus the one-percent highest income bracket.

lots of people in the city here with children, almost entirely the women.. the men are out of the picture for lots of reasons.. a non-zero percentage of young children have not met their biological father. The dental hygenist told me a month ago she has five kids of various ages and their father "lost his green card" and is gone.. she was cheerful and matter-of-fact. A plain spoken man in his fifties told me he has five children with three women and he never married any of them. This is not "terrible" it is true in his own words, he complains about the women and changes the subject.

Thanks for pointing out the separation rates. It would be misogynistic to dare considering a correlation between women not prioritising being a housewives over a career and men getting less interested in sticking around.

No, but where there are 2 parents involved in the child's birth (most cases), we _should_ have the expectation that both of those parents contribute to raising the child, barring edge cases.

colleagues - different can mean really different. Even sophisticated people don't see it .. reality speaks in its own ways

Universal or managed childcare - like health care - is one of those things that is a massive drag on the economy if it isn't provided.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/childcare-a...

I do not know why, but they have a 2.4 fertility rate, could be related to an influx of women from poor countries (which in turn might not participate in the workforce, confirming what you state).

What should have been a great deal turned into a terrible deal. Unequal pay meant that initially, men didn't want to work any less when their wives started working, rising housing costs and child care ate up pretty much all the extra income, and stagnating wages meant that even as the pay gap closed, households still weren't getting ahead. We're overworked and underpaid, and employers just got more productivity for the same money as before.

We should go to a 24 hour working week.

It has nothing to do with genders - it has to do with the carrying cost of a household nowadays is tied to dual incomes (+ housing and health care costs have eaten up a lot of surplus income)

Statistics show you are right, evolutionary biology says you are right.

Statistics show the combined result of nature and nurture. How would you even begin to design an ethical study that could prove causation?

There's very little reason to think "statistics and evolutionary biology convergence" reveals any truths in this case. The only conclusion to draw here is that confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

At a cynical minimum it wastes tremendous resources. I want smart, competent, engaged women to have children. I also want them to choose how to direct their considerable energies as they see fit.

If you select childcare alone you bias towards those can easily have children which can foster resentment and opposition for tax based support. We already do this a bit where everyone pays for for public schooling regardless to if they have children or not and we also subsidize parents further by allowing them to be claimed as dependents.

Let's not keep this limited and make it so anyone wanting a child through a socially acceptable method be able to afford them long term since ultimately that's more generically what we're taking about.

So you're saying that the general progression away from the patriarchy wasn't evidence-based?