The side effects are large. For one, you have the psychological effects on the wife of being "trapped" in the home and the family pressures that stem from financial difficulties. Economically, the poorer family falls further behind the economic curve: they spend several more years on one income, which delays the growth of their earning potential, which translates into fewer years of maximum earnings over the course of a lifetime. The poor get (relatively) poorer.
The bottom line: the lack of affordable child care helps keep families poor and serves to widen the wealth gap.
The issue isn't purely economic. I believe, all things being equal, that being raised by a stay-at-home parent is better than being plunked in child care. That's why my wife and I have rearranged our schedules to minimize the time our children will spend in child care. But child care is better than being raised by a parent who is forced to stay home because of economic disadvantages or societal expectations. And having a stable child-care arrangement is better than the stress and uncertainty of arranging an ad hoc patchwork of friends and relatives to look after children.
There are elements of personal choice here: number of kids, education decisions. But whatever one thinks of a family's own culpability in such a plight (and I can think of plenty of examples where such culpability is limited -- an unintended pregnancy, the death of one parent, single parenthood in general), there are two social effects that we as a society might wish to avoid: the effects on children of being raised by stressed parents who feel trapped in their roles, and the effect on social stability of having yet one more way to limit the economic prospects of people that aren't at the top of the ladder already.
Subsidized child care — the subsidy reasonable and based on income — thus strikes me as a worthwhile investment. Especially if part of the subsidy buys flexibility. It's very hard right now to find reliable part-time child care, so parents are faced with the choice of paying for full-time care or trying to cobble together a patchwork of relatives and friends.
Article comments
1 - DrPat
I grew up in a home with more than 10 children, in which Dad worked and Mom stayed home. No accident, my folks set out to have a dozen kids, and worked to get themselves in a situation where they could afford to do it on one income.
In my own family, my spouse and I both worked, but shared a home with another couple, one of whom worked at home -- so my kids had that same at-home parent support. We made that decision for the same reason, to allow us to give our kids what they need for healthy development, and yet have the income.
There ARE other options, including sharing your home with a stay-at-home relative (the old extended-family benefit that so many are missing now), finding a job that can be done from home, using flex-time so that the parenting time is shared, etc.
Finding a way to care for the children you choose to have is as much a responsibility of child-rearing as making sure you can feed, clothe and shelter them.