The Solution is Not More Childcare

In the most recent election in my county, there was a proposition on the ballot to subsidize childcare by raising property tax rates. I voted no, not because I hate mothers or am particularly worried about my family’s finances, but because subsidizing childcare will not suddenly make it affordable nor make women more likely to want kids. More importantly, it will incentivize mothers to stay away from their children, an unhealthy choice that leads to mentally ill kids.

Currently, childcare costs a substantial amount in the US, no matter where you live. It is likely that these premiums are a knock-on effect of the middle-class two-income trap and the subsequent housing affordability crisis that resulted from said trap. On the other hand, childcare — especially full-time daycares — ought to be expensive. We should not be scandalized at the price tag of maintaining a low carer-to-child ratio so that your infant or toddler can have all of their physical and some of their emotional needs met.

Bonnie Kristian points out that if you pay childcare employees not even minimum wage, add employee benefits, facility costs, taxes, and other business expenses, your full-time daycare may cost a minimum of $20,000 a year. And that’s with very thin margins on the part of the daycare center. The only way to drop costs — besides hefty subsidies — is by paying workers less or dropping the ratio of workers to babies. Both guarantee the care for the children will degrade. Just imagine how overwhelming it would be to take care of four screaming children by yourself, let alone seven.

From The New Yorker

In light of this reality, many parents are either taking on second jobs to afford childcare or they quit the job they have, according to Bloomberg. Let’s look at a quitting case from Austin, Texas where one mother described the struggle to find affordable childcare. She had just started her dream finance job to establish “security for my family and children” when suddenly, her company mandated in-person work again.

The search for childcare ensued. Despairingly, she found that childcare would have cost the equivalent of another rent and half of a car payment. When she looked into financial assistance programs, her family didn’t qualify as their household income exceeded the level that the programs required. According to the article, she felt she had “no other option” than to leave the job she loved, as she surmised that her children needed her at home.

She was not wrong — children aged zero to three do need their mothers at home. Childcare should be used as the absolute last resort for single parents who have no other options, not for dual-income parents who want to sacrifice their children’s well-being for the sake of more disposable income. In fact, if one really does care about their pocketbook, it would make sense to have one parent quit anyway. The Bloomberg article highlights that “an average family of four will spend more annually on childcare than they do on housing.”

But let’s imagine for a minute that money is no object and childcare is suddenly affordable for all. Then it would be a desirable option for mothers and babies, right? Wrong. Here are the facts: ages zero to three consist of the most important developmental stages for children. They learn how to securely attach to their parents, how to regulate their emotions, how to sleep, how to mitigate aggression, and how to speak. All of these important functions need to occur near the mother and in a peaceful environment.

Daycare centers are anything but peaceful environments, as evidenced by daycare kids’ high salivary cortisol levels. At daycares, there are usually too many children to care for, too many personnel changes, too much light, and too much noise. There will inevitably be neglect. Childcare workers, however attentive and loving they may be, physically cannot care about your child the same way you do. And as transient attachment figures, they can’t regulate a child’s emotions like a mother can.

In ultra-individualistic America, there is a misguided notion that mothers and young babies are separate entities. At an extreme, moms may even feel a certain revulsion towards their babies as they are dependent, weak, and an inconvenience, all things that rattle the American psyche. Meanwhile, the non-Western world understands that the mother-baby dyad should not be separated. They know that babies don’t fully understand that they are out of the womb, and they act accordingly. They wear their babies everywhere, sleep next to their babies, and don’t leave them on their own for hours on end.

Back in the West, moms and dads are worried about coddling babies too much. They want them to be independent as early as possible. They think leaving their children to “cry it out” is normal and healthy when the truth is that you can never be too kind or spend too much time with your baby. Young children need extensive positive touch and great interactions with their mothers so they can feel confident enough to explore their environments and play with their peers when the time is right. They do not need isolation and toughening up.

The optimal way to raise a child is for said child to spend a large amount of quality time with a primary attachment figure at least until the age of three. Ideally, you have an extended family system nearby to cultivate secondary attachment figures besides mom and dad, such as an aunt, grandmother, or long-term nanny. Ideally, you do not leave the child for more than an hour or two, and only for three days a week or less. Less is more in this case.

I hesitate to lay out the ideal, because by the very discussion of it, some parents will be offended. This is natural, because ideals are challenging and can engender feelings of shame and guilt. But shame and guilt are helpful emotions. They point us to an injustice or a failing in ourselves that needs to be redressed. We have substantial duties of justice to our children and one should not have them if they do not intend to meet those duties head on.

With that being said, excessive shame terminating in paralysis is not helpful. I am specifically speaking to single moms and dads, widows and widowers, and the large swath of parents who are not in the financial position to have a primary attachment figure at home with the kids. For all of the folks in these situations, they need to know there are other options besides daycare.

We have already discussed how live-in nannies or other consistent attachment figures like grandmothers are a good option. But this is not always affordable or desirable. In those cases, a single mom could consider living with other single moms and splitting rent. One mom could work outside the home for part of the week while the other would care for the children, and vice versa. If a roommate situation is impossible, genuinely consider downsizing your living arrangement if you are able. Young children do not care what car you drive or where you live.

If you have to work, it is better to work half days, not full days. Three full days away can be distressing for children, five half days is preferable. Being there for the morning wake-ups and the nightly bedtimes is key for children to feel safe. If you’re going out for chores and cannot wear the baby out, cluster the errands together rather than coming and going three or four times. Importantly, act sad at the prospect of leaving your child and tell them when you will be home.

This last part is key. Your absence will be painful for the child and some reunions will not be happy. The child may even be angry at you. Instead of covering up this emotion with bubblegum excitement and wide open arms, meeting your child in their sadness and rage can be validating: “I missed you so much at work today. I thought about you so often. I’m here now and I’m sorry for leaving you.” We should not project the notion onto our children that they are always happy about the arrangements we put them in.

All of this is hard. To compound the difficulty, our governments and workplaces are not helping. Let’s face it; we need three years of half paid or fully paid leave enshrined into US law. Women should not be made to work up until their due date; they are busy making the future workers of our country. For divorced parents with children three years of age and younger, 50/50 custody arrangements should be banned. Stay-at-home parents should receive stipends. And most importantly, we must ensure that corporate workplaces do not discriminate against mothers and fathers.

Until we secure these rights and privileges, husbands and wives are having to use their intuition to make tough decisions on childcare. For mothers in particular, it is difficult to build up these maternal instincts without the support of extended family systems. I believe this is why so many moms go back to work, sometimes reluctantly, but just as often enthusiastically. Naturally enough, they are seeking intellectual stimulation, atta-boys, and a sense of competency and value that society does not afford to motherhood.

The fallout of this is that stay-at-home moms feel even more isolated from the cultural conversation. Daily mothers' groups can help stave off this isolation, but I wonder if it is a foolproof panacea for loneliness and postpartum depression (PPD), which is way up in the US. While traumatic births and hormonal imbalances do contribute to PPD, I think not feeling supported by nor connected to one’s spouse, family, and community post-birth comprises the lion’s share of the blame. It takes a village to raise a child, and the village is now gone.

Just because the village is depopulated does not mean jumping back into the corporate world is the answer. For now, the corporate world is made by men and for men, so we should not be surprised when it doesn’t work for us. For the woman who can squeak by financially and stay home for those first three years, you should. Mothering may make you feel inadequate at first. It may not be enough social interaction. But masquerading as an independent boss babe can be detrimental to the future of your children.

Further Reading:

1. “The Childcare Subsidies Will Increase Until Morale Improves” by

   Oren Cass

Key Quote: “The USSR heavily subsidized daycare, without which some families would have to “fend for themselves,” mothers would “quit their jobs in order to raise their children,” or some families might even “resort” to the “traditional” reliance on extended family.” Oh, the horror!

2. “The Ridiculous Idea That Daycare Is Perfectly Harmless” by Suzanne Venker