622
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 125 points 9 hours ago

Daycare is a crazy one. Insanely expensive, yet the workers are damn near indentured servants.

[-] slaacaa@lemmy.world 18 points 6 hours ago

It’s almost like somebody pays the workers much less than the revenues and pockets the difference

[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours 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 2 points 6 hours 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.

[-] Bassman1805@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

Cleaning supplies alone are a huge consumable. Arts & crafts materials. Toys are basically consumables because kids play rough. Same for books. Some daycares include breakfast, lunch, and snack. First aid supplies, kids hurt themselves all the time.

But yeah, definitely also lots of diverting profits up to the CEO 😓

[-] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 2 points 5 hours ago

I appreciate your realistic assessment here.

When we consider all that reasonably goes into running such a service, we can rationally figure out how much is being diverted to the wrong pockets and make it better.

[-] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

i assume its for some type of insurance but I also don't run a day care.

[-] Dettweiler42@lemmy.dbzer0.com 56 points 9 hours 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 76 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Don't let the media force you to twist your words-- it is not a labor shortage, but a wage and cost of living crisis.

"Nobody wants to work anymore" == "I pay so shitty wages that no one can even afford to come work for me."

[-] Qwazpoi@lemmy.world 22 points 7 hours ago

I've run into dozens of people who are complaining about how they have applied to literally everything and never heard back or get rejected for things like gas station cashier and yet those places always put up the help wanted signs. Shortage seems like a fabrication when these places hire nobody and keep the ad up

[-] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 10 points 5 hours ago

When I.T and nurses are complaining that they keep getting ghosted and can't find work? That feels like a major economic failure signal to me. It's freaking mad.

[-] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org 3 points 3 hours ago

they keep the ad up sothat when roxy and joe walk in in the morning, the employer can tell them "uhm, unfortunately we can't find any other hire, so you 2 people will have to do the work of 3", effectively cheaping out of paying another person's wages.

[-] Zombie@feddit.uk 12 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

You know what your life is when you are out of work; and when you do have a job, how the fear of losing it hangs over you. You are also aware what a danger the standing army of unemployed is to you when you are out on strike for better conditions. You know that strikebreakers are enlisted from the unemployed whom capitalism always keeps on hand, to help break your strike.

‘How does capitalism keep the unemployed on hand?’ you ask.

Simply by compelling you to work long hours and as hard as possible, so as to produce the greatest amount. All the modern schemes of ‘efficiency’, the Taylor and other systems of ‘economy’ and ‘rationalization’ serve only to squeeze greater profits out of the worker. It is economy in the interest of the employer only. But as concerns you, the worker, this ‘economy’ spells the greatest expenditure of your effort and energy, a fatal waste of your vitality.

It pays the employer to use up and exploit your strength and ability at the highest tension. True, it ruins your health and breaks down your nervous system, makes you a prey to illness and disease (there are even special proletarian diseases), cripples you and brings you to an early grave — but what does your boss care? Are there not thousands of unemployed waiting for your job and ready to take it the moment you are disabled or dead?

That is why it is to the profit of the capitalist to keep an army of unemployed ready at hand. It is part and parcel of the wage system, a necessary and inevitable characteristic of it.

It is in the interest of the people that there should be no unemployed, that all should have an opportunity to work and earn their living; that all should help, each according to his ability and strength, to increase the wealth of the country, so that each should be able to have a greater share of it.

But capitalism is not interested in the welfare of the people. Capitalism, as I have shown before, is interested only in profits. By employing less people and working them long hours larger profits can be made than by giving work to more people at shorter hours. That is why it is to the interest of your employer, for instance, to have 100 people work 10 hours daily rather than to employ 200 at 5 hours. He would need more room for 200 than for 100 persons — a larger factory, more tools and machinery, and so on. That is, he would require a greater investment of capital. The employment of a larger force at less hours would bring less profits, and that is why your boss will not run his factory or shop on such a plan. Which means that a system of profit-making is not compatible with considerations of humanity and the well-being of the workers. On the contrary, the harder and more ‘efficiently’ you work and the longer hours you stay at it, the better for your employer and the greater his profits.

You can therefore see that capitalism is not interested in employing all those who want and are able to work. On the contrary: a minimum of ‘hands’ and a maximum of effort is the principle and the profit of the capitalist system. This is the whole secret of all ‘rationalization’ schemes. And that is why you will find thousands of people in every capitalist country willing and anxious to work, yet unable to get employment. This army of unemployed is a constant threat to your standard of living. They are ready to take your place at lower pay, because necessity compels them to it. That is, of course, very advantageous to the boss: it is a whip in his hands constantly held over you, so you will slave hard for him and ‘behave’ yourself.

from Now and After, by Alexander Berkman, Chapter 5: Unemployment. Available to read for free here.

[-] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 3 points 5 hours ago

A perfectly apt analysis. Thank you for the link. Anarchist Library has some good gems in there!

[-] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

it's not a crisis. companies have to pay more if they want to find employees. that's higher wages.

that is if there was an actual labor shortage. sadly, there is not.

[-] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 39 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours 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.

Edit: Ah, here it is: Baby's first market failure

[-] Quokka@quokk.au 8 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

They may require 1-on-1 interaction, but generally the ratio for 0-2's is around 1:4.

And many childcare companies are owned by huge multi-billion dollar investment firms because they are cash generators.

[-] Town@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 hours ago

Are they required to provide for the more costly babies?

[-] 4am@lemmy.zip 14 points 7 hours 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.

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 5 points 6 hours ago

What kind of things does the overhead go to?

[-] Rooster326@programming.dev 4 points 6 hours ago
[-] sexy_peach@feddit.org 16 points 9 hours ago
[-] Mac@mander.xyz 1 points 4 hours ago

The responses:

most are

no not at all

🤔

[-] PhatalFlaw@lemmy.world 8 points 9 hours ago

Most are, the investors need to make their money too! /s

[-] Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours 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

this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
622 points (100.0% liked)

Work Reform

16483 readers
779 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS