1087
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 49 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 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 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 13 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 1 day ago

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

[-] Town@lemmy.zip 2 points 23 hours ago

Are they required to provide for the more costly babies?

this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
1087 points (99.4% liked)

Work Reform

16483 readers
1294 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