Prior to the last half century or so, there was never a period in human history where you, as a norm, had both parents working outside of the home. I don't think it's realistic to provide affordable childcare at scale. Why not? Because people who provide childcare need to make enough to live too, and ironically they often have their own childcare costs to pay.<p>I know the typical answer is, "the government should just provide it". But is that really an ideal we should aspire to? Pay $56,000 a year so someone can work a $50,000 a year service job while strangers raise their children? The whole thing seems fundamentally broken. We've structured society as if the highest and best use of everyone's time is be a W-2 wage-earner.
> The couple, who earn a combined $400,000 a year, are putting off big vacations right now. Rasool says if someone had told her a decade ago she’d feel financially overextended making this much, she wouldn’t have believed them.<p>If someone feels financially overextended at 400k, they are the problem<p>Also, the title is misleading, a full-time in-home nanny is a luxury and has been since I can remember. When the average reader sees "child care", I doubt this is what they have in mind
Society in general is being challenged by all the things that aren't scaling. Health care. Child care. Construction. With no clear way to boost productivity in any of these.