The government should subsidize childcare and I’m done pretending it’s a debate

I don’t know when childcare became a culture war topic. At some point, someone decided that wanting to afford to keep your kid alive and also hold down a job was a ‘political position,’ and now here we are, fighting about it on the internet like it’s some kind of abstract ideology.

It’s not abstract. It’s three thousand dollars a month for an infant in a licensed facility. It’s $36,000 a year — which, for a lot of people, is their entire salary before taxes.

I’m not here to change anyone’s mind about the role of government in general. I’m here to talk about the math, because the math is broken and I’m genuinely exhausted that we keep pretending otherwise.

What does childcare actually cost right now?

The average annual cost of center-based infant care in the United States is over $20,000, and in high-cost states it runs well past $35,000 — more expensive than a year of in-state college tuition at a public university, according to the Economic Policy Institute. That number isn’t a horror story outlier. That’s Tuesday.

And that’s for one kid. One infant. If you have two children under five, you’re potentially looking at a second mortgage payment every single month just to go to work.

The price has nothing to do with fancy curriculums or extra enrichment. It’s just what safe, regulated childcare costs when you staff it properly and keep the lights on.

Why do people act like this is a personal responsibility problem?

This is the part that gets me. The argument against subsidized childcare usually sounds like: ‘If you can’t afford kids, don’t have them.’ Which, sure, fine, philosophically. But that’s not actually what’s happening here.

People who had kids when they could afford kids are now finding out the price doubled. People who were promised a functioning economy are discovering that one income used to cover a household and now it doesn’t. That’s not a personal failure. That’s a structural collapse dressed up as individual choices.

When the system is broken for nearly everyone you know, the system is broken. That’s not anecdotal — that’s data.

Is subsidized childcare actually proven to work anywhere?

Yes. Full stop. Quebec implemented a $10-a-day childcare program in 1997, and economists found it increased maternal labor force participation significantly and generated more tax revenue than the program cost — the program essentially paid for itself over time, per research from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Scandinavia did it. Germany did it. France did it. These aren’t radical socialist experiments — they’re countries that ran the numbers and decided that keeping parents, particularly mothers, in the workforce was worth the investment.

The US has not done it. And the workforce participation gap between American mothers and their counterparts in countries with subsidized care is not a coincidence.

Okay but what about the people who think government shouldn’t be involved?

Fair. Here’s the strongest version of that argument: government programs are inefficient, they crowd out private options, and people should have the freedom to choose how they spend their money on childcare. That’s a real position held by real people in good faith.

I still disagree, and here’s why: the ‘private market will figure it out’ answer has had decades to work, and what it figured out was $3,000-a-month infant rooms. The market is not going to solve this because the economics of quality childcare don’t lend themselves to cheap at scale — you need trained adults in a room with small children at a safe ratio, and that costs money no matter who’s running the facility.

The choice right now isn’t ‘government program vs. free market paradise.’ It’s ‘government program vs. one parent — almost always the mother — leaving their career.’

What does this actually cost the economy when we don’t act?

The Center for American Progress has estimated that the childcare crisis costs the US economy around $122 billion a year in lost earnings, productivity, and tax revenue. That’s not the cost of a subsidy program. That’s the cost of NOT having one.

When parents — and again, statistically this lands harder on mothers — leave the workforce or reduce their hours because childcare is unaffordable, they lose wages, they lose career trajectory, they lose retirement contributions. And the economy loses their productivity and their tax dollars.

We are paying for this problem. We are just paying for it in the worst, most invisible way instead of the one that would actually fix something.

What would actually help?

Subsidies tied to income. Universal pre-K starting at three. Childcare worker wages that don’t require a second job to survive on. Any one of these things moves the needle. All of them together changes the entire picture.

But what do I know? I’m just someone who can read a chart and talk to other people who are drowning.

The thing is, this doesn’t have to be a right vs. left issue. There are conservative economists who support childcare investment because workforce participation and GDP growth are things conservatives also care about. There are libertarians who’d rather see tax credits than direct programs. There’s real room for disagreement about how to fix this.

There’s no room, as far as I can tell, for pretending it doesn’t need fixing.

I’m not asking anyone to agree with me on every policy detail. There are genuinely different ways to approach this and I don’t think anyone who disagrees is evil.

But I am asking us to agree on the basic premise: something is wrong when a country this wealthy has made it mathematically impossible for a huge swath of its workforce to afford to stay in that workforce after having a child.

That’s not a hot take. That’s a calculator.

📌 Pin this post