"Affordable Childcare"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2k childcare that's the problem right there

Look DC and other major cities are nuts from real estate prices to childcare costs etc

Subsidizing isn't the solution though. Look at healthcare you are taking from the middle class to give the lower class stuff for free.

The reality is if you aren't upper middle income you shouldn't be living in a high COL area. There are plenty of other palces around the country where you can survive on 10-15 bucks an hour

Rent is less than 700 for a nice big 1br and daycare is around 700 a month in many places around the country

Is there an award for the most elitist post ever on DCUM? And you want a family to live in a big 1 BR? I suspect PP was ditch delivered by a drab and raised by wolves.

FIne make it a 2br I don't care

Point being noone deserves to live anywhere or free healthcare or free childcare. Its called responsibiltiy and choosing an area where you can afford to live (of which there are plenty across the US) and/or making choices working hard/education to make more income to then afford to be able to live in higher COL areas. Call me elitist all you want. It's what normal people have been doing for generations instead of whining or demanding government do stuff for them

Agree.

Disagree. DC used to be affordable. Why should lower income people be forced to relocate because of gentrification? Say good bye to teachers, postal workers, florists, gardeners, cashiers, waiters, construction workers and (OH YEAH!) childcare workers if that's your attitude.

A couple things

1. People should have bought instead of rented and they could benefit from the real estate side of gentrification and more importantly their rent or in this case actual mortgage wouldn't incraese to the point where they could no longer to live in the area
2. Overall wages should go up to reflect the higher cost of living (this is happening)
3. The real thing that is screwing alot of people over is the two income trap. That's the real issue. You went from an economy running on one income to an ecnomy running on two. Those households not having dualincomes are going to be locked out of areas. At the same time this is supply and demand and the only fair thing. It's natural that a single income situation won't be able to afford an area that is a nice as a dual income situation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an economist

Government has screwed up by putting in affordable housing minimum wage etc. All these artifical floors that keep lower class people dependent and screw over the middle class

Now before you call me heartless here is what should happen

1. You get rid of affordable housing and the minimum wage
2. You let the market work..... wages and housing will adjust based on supply and demand.

DC is screwed up because of 1. If you were able to get rid of that you would have 2 where wages would actaully increase or real estate would decrease to an equlibrium point to allow for service workers to have a reasonable wage, reasonable housing and reasonable healthcare. It's all supply and demand. People will only take jobs if they can afford to live in an area. If noone takes the job then you either increase wages or automate

Again there are plenty of other places across the country with lower cost of living

P.S. the third thing you have to do is reform immigration. All the wages being paid under the table is screwing the system as well. Yes illegal immigration totally hurts the law abiding lower class.

The first time I ever agreed with an economist, particularly on point 3. Germany allows the immigrants because they need the labor supply. We do not. I work in the housing industry and everyday I see the undercutting of pay by illegal immigrants. It is interesting that the legal immigrants I work with are voting for Trump. They see him as lessening the competition for their jobs and increasing their pay. Maybe this will also mean that Americans will stop by too big houses and too much junk to stuff into their houses. They will have to use their money more wisely than on impulse shopping of junk and food to make themselves feel better.

Same here. I'm in early childhood education, newborn to kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm an economist

Government has screwed up by putting in affordable housing minimum wage etc. All these artifical floors that keep lower class people dependent and screw over the middle class

Now before you call me heartless here is what should happen

1. You get rid of affordable housing and the minimum wage
2. You let the market work..... wages and housing will adjust based on supply and demand.

DC is screwed up because of 1. If you were able to get rid of that you would have 2 where wages would actaully increase or real estate would decrease to an equlibrium point to allow for service workers to have a reasonable wage, reasonable housing and reasonable healthcare. It's all supply and demand. People will only take jobs if they can afford to live in an area. If noone takes the job then you either increase wages or automate

Again there are plenty of other places across the country with lower cost of living

P.S. the third thing you have to do is reform immigration. All the wages being paid under the table is screwing the system as well. Yes illegal immigration totally hurts the law abiding lower class.

Real estate would only "adjust" to house the highest bidders. No way in hell would it "correct itself" to enable people of all income brackets to be housed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But is it better for society that you stay home? Probably not

You do know that is quite debatable? I had my children very late and worked until then. Then, I made the choice to stay home--which, gratefully, we could afford. DH made a decent middle income salary. Of course, we gave up things. Nice house--but not fancy. Made do with old furniture. No fancy trips except to visit grandparents and a couple of trips to Disney. There are a lot of local excursions. Few restaurant dinners--but lots of youth sports.

I am grateful we could afford to do this. DH had long hours--I do not see how we could have managed had I been working outside the home.

Kids are grown now--and, I have no regrets.

No criticism here of women who choose to work--but, please don't tell me it is better for society. Maybe, because I worked for years before I had kids, I did not feel that pull to work. I'd been there and done that.

Eh. I had my kids in my early twenties and went back in my early forties when they were in hs/ms. Been working for 10 years and have already hit the 6 figure mark. I'll probably work until my early 70s which gives me a thirty year career plus 15 years spent taking care of my children.

There is no one "right" way of doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it means subsidizing it, I am dead set against it. Many childless folks choose to forgo children because they know they can't afford to pay for daycare and still live the lifestyle they want (with vacations and eating out and so forth in the budget). If you choose to have a baby, that $2000 daycare bill is on YOU and no one else. And don't bother with the "who will pay for your retirement" argument. It's old and tired and bullshit anyway. We all know SS will be bankrupt by then anyway.

Screw pay for your retirement? Who is going to wipe your a$$? probably not many with your attitude

I'll pay a private nurse. I'll be able to afford it since I'm childless and not an idiot spending hundreds of thousands on my special snowflake who is just like every other kid.

+ 1

[Anonymous]

I see childcare as an extension of free K-12 that we already have. I personally think that free childcare would fix a lot of ills in society, namely in lower class and disadvantaged families. So many low income toddlers are set in front of TVs 24/7 with no interaction while their parents work. They start Kindergarten not knowing how to read and don't know their colors.

People keep focusing on college tuition in this election, but I think childcare is 1000x more important. I can't take out loans so that I can continue my career while my kid goes to daycare (stupid idea anyways) but loans to go to college were feasible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see childcare as an extension of free K-12 that we already have. I personally think that free childcare would fix a lot of ills in society, namely in lower class and disadvantaged families. So many low income toddlers are set in front of TVs 24/7 with no interaction while their parents work. They start Kindergarten not knowing how to read and don't know their colors.

This is a stereotype as damaging and pernicious as the welfare queen or the woman who has none abortions. Public policy should be made on the back of urban legends.

[Anonymous]

There is no one "right" way of doing it.

Bingo!

I'm the one that waited. I did not mention that it was not out of choice--it was circumstances. I did not marry until late. My story would likely be different had circumstances been different.

My comment was to address the person who said it was "better for society" if the mother worked. Again, I am not saying that women need to stay home with the kids--I'm just saying that it not "better for society" for me to be working. What is best for society? Happy moms who are able to work or not work. Of course, in order to stay home with the kids, one usually needs a working spouse. I am not condemning single parents--but, I can tell you, it is lots easier if there are two parents in the home. Some people have no choice, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it means subsidizing it, I am dead set against it. Many childless folks choose to forgo children because they know they can't afford to pay for daycare and still live the lifestyle they want (with vacations and eating out and so forth in the budget). If you choose to have a baby, that $2000 daycare bill is on YOU and no one else. And don't bother with the "who will pay for your retirement" argument. It's old and tired and bullshit anyway. We all know SS will be bankrupt by then anyway.

Screw pay for your retirement? Who is going to wipe your a$$? probably not many with your attitude

I'll pay a private nurse. I'll be able to afford it since I'm childless and not an idiot spending hundreds of thousands on my special snowflake who is just like every other kid.

+ 1

+ 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2k childcare that's the problem right there

Look DC and other major cities are nuts from real estate prices to childcare costs etc

Subsidizing isn't the solution though. Look at healthcare you are taking from the middle class to give the lower class stuff for free.

The reality is if you aren't upper middle income you shouldn't be living in a high COL area. There are plenty of other palces around the country where you can survive on 10-15 bucks an hour

Rent is less than 700 for a nice big 1br and daycare is around 700 a month in many places around the country

Is there an award for the most elitist post ever on DCUM? And you want a family to live in a big 1 BR? I suspect PP was ditch delivered by a drab and raised by wolves.

FIne make it a 2br I don't care

Point being noone deserves to live anywhere or free healthcare or free childcare. Its called responsibiltiy and choosing an area where you can afford to live (of which there are plenty across the US) and/or making choices working hard/education to make more income to then afford to be able to live in higher COL areas. Call me elitist all you want. It's what normal people have been doing for generations instead of whining or demanding government do stuff for them

Agree.

Disagree. DC used to be affordable. Why should lower income people be forced to relocate because of gentrification? Say good bye to teachers, postal workers, florists, gardeners, cashiers, waiters, construction workers and (OH YEAH!) childcare workers if that's your attitude.

A couple things

1. People should have bought instead of rented and they could benefit from the real estate side of gentrification and more importantly their rent or in this case actual mortgage wouldn't incraese to the point where they could no longer to live in the area
2. Overall wages should go up to reflect the higher cost of living (this is happening)
3. The real thing that is screwing alot of people over is the two income trap. That's the real issue. You went from an economy running on one income to an ecnomy running on two. Those households not having dualincomes are going to be locked out of areas. At the same time this is supply and demand and the only fair thing. It's natural that a single income situation won't be able to afford an area that is a nice as a dual income situation

1. Not everyone can afford to buy. Not everyone can afford to save for a down payment. This is not a crime.

2. This is not happening, certainly not in proportion to the rate at which COL items such as housing, food, healthcare and childcare are rising.

3. I agree with you to an extent.

[Anonymous]

I don't have children and won't have them because I don't want that kind of hassle in my life. We have a close circle of childless friends who we spend holidays and vacation with, etc. They feel the same as me. If you want to have a baby, that is totally fine. But that is YOUR CHOICE and it is not fair to expect other people (I.e. taxpayers or your colleagues at the office) to do the heavy lifting for you. With birth control and abortion widely available, there is no reason to five birth to an unwanted baby you can't afford to raise. Find a way to do it or don't, that's up to you. I don't want to be involved, as your potential coworker or taxpayer.

Yeah, but you want those kids to grow up to wipe your ass in your old age, don't you?

You expect those parents to do the heavy lifting to make sure the kids are contributing to the economy that you have invested in, right?

You have no idea how cheap your end of the deal is.

And once the children are here, you're going to let them die by the side of the road if they need food or immunizations (because birth control and abortion are available)? The world is such a simple place for some people.

And, yeah, Dickensian England was a fine place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Point being noone deserves to live anywhere or free healthcare or free childcare. Its called responsibiltiy and choosing an area where you can afford to live (of which there are plenty across the US) and/or making choices working hard/education to make more income to then afford to be able to live in higher COL areas. Call me elitist all you want. It's what normal people have been doing for generations instead of whining or demanding government do stuff for them

Do you want the FDA to stop monitoring for Ecoli in food? Do you want the EPA to stop enforcing clean air and water regulations? Do you think people should demand that there not be lead in their water? Is that whining? Do you think the government should help people who are mentally or physically disabled (or should we just tell them to work harder and get an education)? Do you think old people should get Medicare? Do you think kids should get free K-12 education? Do you think there should be a minimum wage? Do you think your garbage should be collected (or maybe you should do that yourself)? Do you think plows should come down your street when it snows? Do you think potholes should be fixed? Do you think those people should be paid enough to live in your high COLA area? Or should they drive in every day from West Virginia? What about police and fire protection? How much are you willing to pay to make sure those people are available and live close enough so they aren't totally burned out from driving here? Do you think they should be able to have children if they want them? What kind of place do you want to live in? Do you like other people?

Have you benefited from any of these things?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it means subsidizing it, I am dead set against it. Many childless folks choose to forgo children because they know they can't afford to pay for daycare and still live the lifestyle they want (with vacations and eating out and so forth in the budget). If you choose to have a baby, that $2000 daycare bill is on YOU and no one else. And don't bother with the "who will pay for your retirement" argument. It's old and tired and bullshit anyway. We all know SS will be bankrupt by then anyway.

Screw pay for your retirement? Who is going to wipe your a$$? probably not many with your attitude

I'll pay a private nurse. I'll be able to afford it since I'm childless and not an idiot spending hundreds of thousands on my special snowflake who is just like every other kid.

+ 1

+ 2

Then why are you posting here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an economist

Government has screwed up by putting in affordable housing minimum wage etc. All these artifical floors that keep lower class people dependent and screw over the middle class

Now before you call me heartless here is what should happen

1. You get rid of affordable housing and the minimum wage
2. You let the market work..... wages and housing will adjust based on supply and demand.

DC is screwed up because of 1. If you were able to get rid of that you would have 2 where wages would actaully increase or real estate would decrease to an equlibrium point to allow for service workers to have a reasonable wage, reasonable housing and reasonable healthcare. It's all supply and demand. People will only take jobs if they can afford to live in an area. If noone takes the job then you either increase wages or automate

Again there are plenty of other places across the country with lower cost of living

P.S. the third thing you have to do is reform immigration. All the wages being paid under the table is screwing the system as well. Yes illegal immigration totally hurts the law abiding lower class.

Real estate would only "adjust" to house the highest bidders. No way in hell would it "correct itself" to enable people of all income brackets to be housed.

You need to get out of DC. Not to say that market works ideally, but generally speaking, cities with tougher rent control see much more decline in stock and more homelessness. Amazingly, it's a simple fact staring everybody in the face, but nobody is willing to acknowledge it, because it will be seen as the un-PC "not caring for the poor people."

[Anonymous]

eonomist agrees with you

The other thing Europe gets is college shouldn't be for everyone

We have way too many people going to college dropping out and being saddled with debt

Instead put them in a trade school (high demand job especially in high cost of living areas)

You know how much plumbers working Capitol Hill and NW make over 6 figures easy heck you can make over 6 figures in most of the DC metro doing that kind of work