The OECD
reports that while the United States has relatively high fertility levels compared to its peers, it also has
exceptionally high rates of child poverty and a disconcertingly large gender pay gap. In addition to the short-sighted parental leave policies
discussed last week, we're also a step behind in the provision of
free, or at least subsidized, high quality daycare. Americans
participate in childcare services for children under three years old at a relatively high rate yet no publicly-funded childcare is available until children reach the age of three. In other countries with similar or higher demand for daycare (Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Belgium), "
provision is mainly public topped up by parental fees which are off-se
t by tax credits, child allowances and so on." To be sure, the United States is not the only OECD country that relies largely on private provision of early child-care; 12 of the 30 member states, including the English-speaking bloc of Australia, Canada, Ireland, and the UK, have policies similar to the US, and two (Japan and New Zealand) provide no publicly funded childcare at all. Nearly all of these countries that don't provide early childcare have a relatively high percentage of women in the workforce. Notably, only two (Australia and the Netherlands) have a low level of child poverty and a small gender pay gap. As the OECD
notes, there
appears to be a correlation between shortsighted childcare policies, child poverty, and gender-based salary disparities. Working women with young children are forced to "
spend fewer hours in paid work . . ., while fathers sometimes increase hours worked, [contributing] to the persistence of gender pay gaps and 'glass ceilings'", or even worse, to pay for daycare that may push their family into poverty. If, as the OECD
finds, improved childcare policies can "
help reduce poverty, promote child development, [and] enhance equity between men and women," what are we waiting for?
The OECD reports that while the United States has relatively high fertility levels compared to its peers, it also has exceptionally high rates of child poverty and a disconcertingly large gender pay gap. In addition to the short-sighted parental leave policies discussed last week, we're also a step behind in the provision of free, or at least subsidized, high quality daycare. Americans participate in childcare services for children under three years old at a relatively high rate yet no publicly-funded childcare is available until children reach the age of three. In other countries with similar or higher demand for daycare (Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Belgium), "provision is mainly public topped up by parental fees which are off-se
t by tax credits, child allowances and so on." To be sure, the United States is not the only OECD country that relies largely on private provision of early child-care; 12 of the 30 member states, including the English-speaking bloc of Australia, Canada, Ireland, and the UK, have policies similar to the US, and two (Japan and New Zealand) provide no publicly funded childcare at all. Nearly all of these countries that don't provide early childcare have a relatively high percentage of women in the workforce. Notably, only two (Australia and the Netherlands) have a low level of child poverty and a small gender pay gap. As the OECD notes, there
appears to be a correlation between shortsighted childcare policies, child poverty, and gender-based salary disparities. Working women with young children are forced to "spend fewer hours in paid work . . ., while fathers sometimes increase hours worked, [contributing] to the persistence of gender pay gaps and 'glass ceilings'", or even worse, to pay for daycare that may push their family into poverty. If, as the OECD finds, improved childcare policies can "help reduce poverty, promote child development, [and] enhance equity between men and women," what are we waiting for?
