Thursday, May 17, 2007

Increasing Your Child Care Costs

Firedoglake has a post cheering a decision in New York that allows in-home child care workers to unionize.

The providers care for the children of families transitioning from welfare to work, and many times their own situations are as difficult as the families they serve. The subsidies they are paid are based on the age of the child, $150 per week for a toddler, divided over a five-day week with hours from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., which equals $3 per hour (of course, if a parent is late, the hours are longer).

So, the state is paying child care providers $150 a week per kid? That doesn't include what the actual parents pay.

I understand that New York is much, much more expensive than Texas. Here, the same subsidy is about a third of what New York is giving (about $46.50 per week, according to this site). But here's what I wonder: how much will the price go up as the workers bargain for more money? And secondly, who is paying for it?

Well, we know the answer to the second question: the taxpayers. And this is one of those things that everyone--including people without children--end up paying for.

I understand the concern for the wages of child care workers. One of the reasons people use in-home child care is that it is cheaper (in my case, I liked the family atmosphere and thought it was more like home). People who run daycares out of their homes like the convenience of not having to go to work and not having to find day care for their own children. These benefits are supposed to offset the reduction in wages.

We know why the unions want to unionize in-home day care providers. The more people who are in a union, the better the bargaining power of the union when it comes time to negotiate contracts. In other words, a big reason unions push employees to unionize is self-serving. But I have to wonder why these people think one can raise wages without increases in prices (and taxes).