"Affordable Childcare"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do these amazing toddler teachers earn a decent living wage, or do they depend on their families for basic support?

Every parent should absolutely know what these people get paid for their hard work. Yes?

Wonders poster from above. I don't know, but I hope so. One of the reasons we are willing to pay so much is in the hope that the teachers have a decent wage for their very important work. The teachers at our program tend to stay for a long time, so I hope that means it is financially worthwhile to them -- as much as teaching can be, that is. My mother was a teacher (of middle and high school) and the money is crap, I know. Mom always told me that although she loved teaching, if she had been born a generation later and had had more professional options, she would have chosen a different career because it wasn't until she was in her 50s that her income climbed high enough to have supported a household. She actively discouraged her kids from teaching because of finances. Though it didn't take much discouragement; I would have been a lousy teacher. I greatly admire gifted teachers; it's a hard job.

[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

So if normal people are living elsewhere in the country, you must live here, PP.

This idea of affordable housing has expanded to such an extent that it is fueling "entitlement" attitudes. I live in a HCOL, with many high-end restaurants and shops. Developers are constructing a high-rise apartment building with rentals starting close to $3k for a 1-bedroom. But the county requires "workforce" housing so that the retail workers and waiters can afford to live there - and walk a block to work. (This is being paid for by taxpayers.) Rents for around 15% of these units will be a proportion of the income of these workers.

So here's the question: There are affordable apartment complexes around a mile or two away, with excellent bus service. Why do the taxpayers have to fund low-incime people living in luxury apartments (which I myself could not afford) so they get the convenience of walking to work instead of a five-minute bus ride. I work downtown, and my commute involves walking 10 minutes to the bus.....then taking the bus to metro.....then a 25-minute ride to DC....then another 10 minute walk to the office. Why do we think it's such a hardship for the low-income to take the bus?

Besides feeling life is unfair, how does this set up hurt you? Fewer commuters on the road, less packed buses. It helps lower income retail and service workers save money on transport costs and ups the odds they won't be late for shift work jobs and thus be unemployed or docked wages.

Please name one substantial way affordable housing actually impacts your life, then we will have a discussion. But I bet you have nothing except "way wah wah"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Affordable" is a code word for cheap, isn't it?

Me again. Can we please define "affordable" with actual numbers? Or how do you know what anyone is talking about? Or are numbers irrelevant, as long as you're getting government subsidies?

no, because costs are relative to COL. But I definitely think percentage of income is a good way to gauge affordability on a case by case basis-maybe a sliding income scale, like FCPS does with SACC.

Who would the difference be paid by? Not a great example but If your day care costs $100 a week but your percentage says you pay $60, who pays the $40?

+1

The government. And before anyone protests, I'll point out that we have a consumer economy, and increasing the spending money of working people is maybe the number one way to stimulate our economy. Subsidizing childcare would enable more people to work, thereby improving productivity, and also mean people who are already working will be able to buy more goods.

It's not only a compassionate way to treat families, it also benefits the economic state of the nation as a whole. It's a great investment.

I agree plus, we could just treat peek and childcare like k-12. It's doable, but we need the will.

[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.

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.

Agree completely PP. Not everyone is college material but every child is material for good pre-school education. I would much rather give a child free daycare by a capable person who can teach them useful skills rather than tricking children into thinking that just because they get a free college education they are set for life.
It would be much better if children were given a choice to not go to college but to good technical programs that train them to be HVAC techs, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, computer techs, caregivers, pre-school teachers, and the other skills that we still need but are not paid as well as they should be.

Give the child a good start and the rest follows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

from affordable, high-quality childcare [b]for their babies

????could someone describe this? Is this government run? Home care? What is it?

It starts with having teachers who are educated in early childhood education who understand early childhood development and can implement classrooms and strategies that support learning during the different developmental phases. Those teachers must make a live able salary in order to attract students to commit to the programs and by live able salary I mean on par with public school teacher salaries.

Thank you for chiming in Teacher Union rep

Sorry but no, I am not a teacher at all. Someone asked what makes high quality childcare and it's well established that having trained, quality teachers is the first step. Look at your standard daycare in downtown DC and who is working there now. If you replaced those staff with trained, educated degreed teachers who understood early childhood development (infant - age 3), then the quality of care would go up. Not the actual physical care of children which pretty much any nice person can be trained to do but the "education" part of care that is equated with closing achievement gaps later in life like speaking with children one on one and teaching appropriate behavior through positive means.

I'd love for anyone here to name a so-called high quality daycare for children, infant-age three or so, in the DC area.

I'd like to see it.

Saint Anthony's in Old Town Alexandria
The National Science Foundation Daycare in Arlington

[Anonymous]

Also, to the PP who is like "move where you can afford to live. " I CANNOT wait to see how this will work for your childcare workers, housekeepers, lawn guys, restaurant servers, car wash guys, etc. Whowould take care of all these things for you? Would we ship in poor Filipinos like we are Dubai?

And really, you're suggesting that more than half the population not be allowed to have children. Holy cow.

AND. Being mobile is not easy. People generally stay where they are born when 1. They can't afford to move and 2. They have family nearby that keeps them rooted or provides support.

Try not being such an elitist hag, please please please. Use some of the Cognitive function you must have up there somewhere.

[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

So if normal people are living elsewhere in the country, you must live here, PP.

This idea of affordable housing has expanded to such an extent that it is fueling "entitlement" attitudes. I live in a HCOL, with many high-end restaurants and shops. Developers are constructing a high-rise apartment building with rentals starting close to $3k for a 1-bedroom. But the county requires "workforce" housing so that the retail workers and waiters can afford to live there - and walk a block to work. (This is being paid for by taxpayers.) Rents for around 15% of these units will be a proportion of the income of these workers.

So here's the question: There are affordable apartment complexes around a mile or two away, with excellent bus service. Why do the taxpayers have to fund low-incime people living in luxury apartments (which I myself could not afford) so they get the convenience of walking to work instead of a five-minute bus ride. I work downtown, and my commute involves walking 10 minutes to the bus.....then taking the bus to metro.....then a 25-minute ride to DC....then another 10 minute walk to the office. Why do we think it's such a hardship for the low-income to take the bus?

Besides feeling life is unfair, how does this set up hurt you? Fewer commuters on the road, less packed buses. It helps lower income retail and service workers save money on transport costs and ups the odds they won't be late for shift work jobs and thus be unemployed or docked wages.

Please name one substantial way affordable housing actually impacts your life, then we will have a discussion. But I bet you have nothing except "way wah wah"

Ignoring the implied putdown of your "wah wah wah" remark....what a way to open a nice discussion huh?....it hurts me in that I am asked to pay more in taxes to help provide a lifestyle (luxury apartment a block or two from work) that I MYSELF could never afford! Why is it that the middle class, already burdened with escalating health care costs and rent, need subsidize people to a higher level than they themselves have?

And as far as it allowing the low-income to save money on bus fare, THAT would be a lot cheaper to subsidize than a luxury $3k apartment. I'm all for subsidizing the bus fare. But I have a horrible commute (walk to bus....15-minute bus ride to metro....25-minute metro to downtown....6 block walk to office), but I moved further out because that's what I could afford.

So sorry. If I can manage an hour-long commute involving a bus and metro, the low-income can take advantage of EXISTING affordable housing a five minute bus right away. They're not entitled to the convenience of walking to work when someone else has to subsidize that.

[Anonymous]

....and as to the argument that they won't risk being late to work, are you kidding me? What about everyone else, who either drives or has delays with Metro, and has the same risk? Nobody subsidizes them. This bleeding heart liberal stuff has just gotten ridiculous. We have many affordable housing complexes within a mile, already funded by taxpayers. They can either walk a mile (15 minutes isn't so horrible....I practically walk that distance just to get to my bus), or take a bus. They're not entitled to live, subsidized, in the expensive luxury high-rise because it's only a block from work. Jeez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

from affordable, high-quality childcare [b]for their babies

????could someone describe this? Is this government run? Home care? What is it?

It starts with having teachers who are educated in early childhood education who understand early childhood development and can implement classrooms and strategies that support learning during the different developmental phases. Those teachers must make a live able salary in order to attract students to commit to the programs and by live able salary I mean on par with public school teacher salaries.

Thank you for chiming in Teacher Union rep

Sorry but no, I am not a teacher at all. Someone asked what makes high quality childcare and it's well established that having trained, quality teachers is the first step. Look at your standard daycare in downtown DC and who is working there now. If you replaced those staff with trained, educated degreed teachers who understood early childhood development (infant - age 3), then the quality of care would go up. Not the actual physical care of children which pretty much any nice person can be trained to do but the "education" part of care that is equated with closing achievement gaps later in life like speaking with children one on one and teaching appropriate behavior through positive means.

I'd love for anyone here to name a so-called high quality daycare for children, infant-age three or so, in the DC area.

I'd like to see it.

Saint Anthony's in Old Town Alexandria
The National Science Foundation Daycare in Arlington

Do they take babies?

[Anonymous]

I have trouble believing that affordable market rate housing exists one mile on a direct bus line from an area where $3k is the going rate for a 1 br. I am starting a new job in an area with rents like that and the closest place I could find a 2 bedroom under $2k (for my family, with kids) was 6 miles away and a mile from the closest metro. Rents don't just drop off a cliff in that short a distance.

Also, are you sure those luxury units are taxpayer subsidized? In a lot of cities building a certain % of affordable units is required but the cost is borne by the developer, who makes up for it with the high rents charged for the majority of units. The public does not pay the difference in rents, so it doesn't hurt them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have trouble believing that affordable market rate housing exists one mile on a direct bus line from an area where $3k is the going rate for a 1 br. I am starting a new job in an area with rents like that and the closest place I could find a 2 bedroom under $2k (for my family, with kids) was 6 miles away and a mile from the closest metro. Rents don't just drop off a cliff in that short a distance.

Also, are you sure those luxury units are taxpayer subsidized? In a lot of cities building a certain % of affordable units is required but the cost is borne by the developer, who makes up for it with the high rents charged for the majority of units. The public does not pay the difference in rents, so it doesn't hurt them.

PP here. Yes, there are some relatively modest apartments very close - one large complex is actually only 4 blocks away from the luxury building, and is about three blocks from a bus. And further away - about a mile - there are even cheaper apartments. In fact, we have a subsidized housing complex located less than half-mile from townhouses going for $800k. So expensive and affordable housing does exist in close proximity.

You bring up an interesting point about the developer bearing the costs for the subsidized rental units. It would then be true that the general public, in that instance, does not pay for the subsidized units, but of course the people who live there DO, in terms of higher rents to "make up the difference." But....their choice to live there.

It also works the other way, though, with taxpayers supporting the subsidies. Perhaps it's the difference between rental units and homes for sale. I recall a large luxury townhouse community, maybe a year ago or more, with new sales going for $800k. These homes were gorgeous - granite kitchens, hardwood flooring, the works. There were a certain percentage set aside for modest earners, with the price being $150k. In that case, the county made up the $650k difference to the developers (which of course is borne by the taxpayers). There was quite a "to-do" about this, as local residents who bought more affordable townhouses they could afford felt, rightly IMO, that they were being asked to help people earning less buy luxury townhouses they themselves could not afford. (I don't recall how that ended.)

[Anonymous]

I posted about this in some other thread, but the place where I worked was in a college town and most of the daycare workers eventually went on to become teachers or work with kids in some capacity. That was a good setup for everyone involved but aside from the people who ran the centers, no one was in it as a lifetime career. It was a lot different from places I saw while working in daycares in the DC Metro area during the summers when I was home.

Yes, you can't always find out how much the workers make, but I was able to tour KC and asked teachers how long they had worked there. When I heard answers of over 10 years (and they said they got everything they needed), that sealed the deal for me. When employees are well treated and qualified, the kids are well treated. You have to pay for this of course. But about 10 or 20 percent more gets you a whole lot more value for your child.

[Anonymous]

Surely a civilized nation will see the benefit of programs that benefit the very young

[Anonymous]

Think "Affordable Care Act" ... how did that work out for the average worker?


To provide " Affordable Child Care" will require massive regulation, a mammoth bureaucracy, gross systems inefficiency, that the outcome will be anything but.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:well, many european countries have actual affordable childcare. they also have reasonable maternity leave policies.

And very affordable higher education and free health care for citizens, affordable for non-citizens or tourists.
This is America, not Europe.