D.C. Council passes bill to cap cost of child care

[Anonymous]

But what are the requirements? I'm a teacher and believe daycare should be pricey and subsidized. Daycare has little babies, our most venerable citizens and those most in need of love, hugs, and stimulation. But how is this bill written? Are there requirement for the daycare (education of workers etc.) Or is it essentially free market - they set the prices, parents choose if they'll pay, city makes up the difference? This is hugely confusing to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the money coming from? Will the poorest families now apply to the most expensive daycares?

Increases in tax revenues from people being more attracted to DC because of this bill. At least that is what happened when they rolled out universal preK. As to your second question, hopefully!

This makes no sense. If people are attracted to DC because of this bill, they are likely to be a daycare user in need of subsidy, not someone paying enough to subsidize someone else's daycare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the money coming from? Will the poorest families now apply to the most expensive daycares?

Increases in tax revenues from people being more attracted to DC because of this bill. At least that is what happened when they rolled out universal preK. As to your second question, hopefully!

This makes no sense. If people are attracted to DC because of this bill, they are likely to be a daycare user in need of subsidy, not someone paying enough to subsidize someone else's daycare.

Would make way more sense for city to offset daycares costs - waive water electricity etc- and require those savings passed on to parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to decent, safe, professional daycare.

This will be a big boon to dangerous, unregulated at-home providers.

I predict nannies will getting a LOT more popular

Really? I think will make people more likely to go with higher end more regulated daycare that they can now afford.

Uh, NO

Because those "higher end" more regulated providers will simply close up shop if their profit margin is artificially limited outside of market forces by this law. But not before reducing their quality of care and staff pay to make up the difference for a few years before finally shutting down.


Do you own a business? Ever started a business? I've started several. And the minute somebody told me my potential revenues were going to capped regardless of the market, I'd be selling and getting out.

You people have ZERO understanding of economics. None whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For a family of four making $85,000 a year, their out-of-pocket expenses for child care would be capped at 8 percent of their income, with anything above that being covered by the city’s subsidy. Families making less would have a lower cap, and families making more would have a higher cap — up to 10 percent of their income.

The price is estimated at $466 million over 10 years. Mayor Bowser has yet to sign it.

Does it do enough to address the insane cost of child care in this city?

So that just means the lost money will be passed on by increasing the costs for a family making 90k? that is not the right approach

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to decent, safe, professional daycare.

This will be a big boon to dangerous, unregulated at-home providers.

I predict nannies will getting a LOT more popular

Really? I think will make people more likely to go with higher end more regulated daycare that they can now afford.

Uh, NO

Because those "higher end" more regulated providers will simply close up shop if their profit margin is artificially limited outside of market forces by this law. But not before reducing their quality of care and staff pay to make up the difference for a few years before finally shutting down.


Do you own a business? Ever started a business? I've started several. And the minute somebody told me my potential revenues were going to capped regardless of the market, I'd be selling and getting out.

You people have ZERO understanding of economics. None whatsoever.

this. it doesn't make sense. First of all ,there are year long wait list for the top centers. Will they pick and choose based on income of families? Will they add another few thousand in child care costs to the families who make over 85k and no we dont want to pay for your kids in addition to our own. This will actually reduce the number of good providers in the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to decent, safe, professional daycare.

This will be a big boon to dangerous, unregulated at-home providers.

I predict nannies will getting a LOT more popular

I'd think the opposite would be true. A lot of families now use unregulated at home providers because they can't afford more formal care. Having easier to access subsidies will help those families access licensed care. Why do you think otherwise?

Are there a lot of licensed care providers with openings? My impression was that most providers had more than enough demand even without the subsidy. Obviously the high cost of care is a huge issue for a lot of families, but there is also a lack of providers that isn't going to be addressed by this subsidy.

If there is a demand, more will open

No they won. the cost of real estate is what drives a lot of the cost of daycare in DC. That isn't being regulate at all with this bill. So monthly costs and real estate are the same for bright horizens but the city is now capping how much they can charge? So I guess they pass the cost on to other families who make just over 85k? this will actually deter more providers.

[Anonymous]

and dont forget DC is now requirig a college degree for daycare workers. adding yet another cost. sorry folks, if you make over 85k your child care costs are going to soar even higher.

[Anonymous]

Do any of those members have a lick of common sense? Do they never look at the law of unintended consequences?

[Anonymous]

I really don't understand this bill. I am a teacher and have always thought daycare workers should earn the most, and it should go down from there (sorry college professors ) - but the mechanism for ensuring that those who care for the littlest should be well recompensed and work in cheerful, safe facilities isn't easy. If the Council wants to tackle this, they should come up with a comprehensive plan that involves the college degrees (and a pathway to support daycare staff in getting there), facilities standards, suggested curriculum with waivers if centers have their own quality programs, subsidies, etc. But the way they have gone after daycare just seems really half baked with a LOT of unintended consequences. I don't see anything improving unless they actually address this throughtfully. Have they even LOOKED at how its done in cities with successful daycares? Have they considered private public partnerships? Or anything else? This is just their usual treatment of tax payer money as monopoly play money. I really, really dislike how they approach city quality of life problems.

[Anonymous]

Child care giving are some of the lowest paying jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Child care giving are some of the lowest paying jobs.

I've ALWAYS thought providers should earn more. A subsidy to centers (with scrutiny) - fine! But this bill is weird...

[Anonymous]

Prices will go up, the same as college tuition has gone up thanks to the federal government being the grantor/lender paying whatever students can’t afford.