1066
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 169 points 1 day ago

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

[-] Dettweiler42@lemmy.dbzer0.com 76 points 1 day 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.

[-] _spiffy@piefed.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

We started by doing dual income as an optional lifestyle and the rich saw that they could make more money that way, and then it became mandatory.

[-] nutcase2690@lemmy.dbzer0.com 118 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 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.

[-] jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 63 points 22 hours ago

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

[-] Qwazpoi@lemmy.world 37 points 22 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 21 points 19 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.

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 12 hours ago

nurses, usually shouldnt have a problem, i think they are desperate enough to fill spots. but its likely things like mandatory hours or whatever is required.

[-] BossDj@piefed.social 2 points 4 hours ago

It's still the same as what they're saying.

Why do the hours suck and how can they fix it? Hire more full time nurses. Why are they denied sick and vacation leave? Under staffing.

Why can't/don't they? Broken system

[-] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org 6 points 18 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.

[-] BossDj@piefed.social 1 points 4 hours ago

Also because they need a person on standby when Roxy and Joe inevitably quit

[-] Zombie@feddit.uk 20 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 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 19 hours ago

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

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

agreed, if you look at specific industry, or different stem industry. its shortage, but its artificially caused one. its the underhanding gatekeeping by keeping out entry level and choosing people already magically having years of experience in a low level position. all sorts of things like ghost listings, "internal hire but make claims of "not being able to find candidates" on the job sites. or its academically suppressed, for CLS(clinical labs) very limited amount of universities teach this program(1 year grad program) but im hearing they have shortages. and where do you think people will try to apply(california, most of them zeroed in on norcal) and only 9 schools teacch it in cali, you are competing with out of the state people.

[-] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 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.

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 12 hours ago

or depending on the field, have these BS listing on the job sites, or if thier AI/software is even looking at a cv/resume at all.

[-] slaacaa@lemmy.world 23 points 21 hours ago

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

[-] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 8 points 18 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 21 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.

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 12 hours ago

probably bs things like admin, or managment fees.

[-] Bassman1805@lemmy.world 7 points 20 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 😓

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 11 hours ago

probably not as much as employee salaries, if they offer benefits. and managment or administration costs(they claim)

[-] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 4 points 19 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 2 points 20 hours ago

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

[-] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 48 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 13 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 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.

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 12 hours ago

yucky, just like with MDs/nurses, MDs are being snatched up by teledoc and PE firms. so there is less private or specialists out there. the only other "common" one is based on a scam condition(chronic lyme)

[-] Eheran@lemmy.world 17 points 23 hours ago

This is the only answer that is not just a hand waiving "investors bad".

[-] Town@lemmy.zip 2 points 22 hours ago

Are they required to provide for the more costly babies?

[-] 4am@lemmy.zip 19 points 22 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.

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 12 hours ago

im not surprised. thats why people dont want to join the services, why bother when you can make more at walmart, target,,,etc. and they have a higher min wage.

[-] sexy_peach@feddit.org 19 points 1 day ago
[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

mostly but its a cost-cutting measure to avoid paying MD, and RN prices.

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 9 points 23 hours ago

No, not really at all. Some of the more expensive ones are, but that’s only because there is a profit margin on the wealthiest kids and aged. The floor for cost of care is ridiculously high for both groups, so there’s no margin to be made at anything below the crème de la crème facilities.

[-] PhatalFlaw@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

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

[-] Mac@mander.xyz 1 points 19 hours ago

The responses:

most are

no not at all

🤔

[-] jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 10 points 22 hours ago

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 4 points 21 hours ago

What kind of things does the overhead go to?

[-] Rooster326@programming.dev 4 points 21 hours ago
[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 0 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

if its corporate is likely Large admin/managment fees. minus the staff salary, and benefits if they even provide it. other thing like maintaing the facilities.

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 7 points 23 hours ago

And, here’s the kicker, they’re not even very profitable. This is the case for both for the same reason caring for the elderly and the young is insanely expensive.

[-] Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world 6 points 23 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
1066 points (99.4% liked)

Work Reform

16483 readers
1344 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