What do they expect people with infants/toddlers to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why you would not hire a nanny if your kids are not school aged. All the more if you have two or more kids. Heck, I have one five year old and I am thinking of hiring a nanny.

Oh yeah, the 38 million Americans who are unemployed are going to hire a fking nanny.

Fk you, PP.

Calm down, what is with the temper tantrum? Why would 38 million UNEMPLOYED Americans hire nannies? The OP is talking about her EMPLOYED self and her EMPLOYED husband. That's a dual income family with two kids - it's the same price to hire a nanny as it is to send them to daycare.

She said “you.” She clearly wasn’t just talking about herself. Also, this PP is talking about having one kid.

Lastly, many parents are paying to keep a preschool spot, so you’re asking them to pay for a nanny on top of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Benefits don’t weight the risk, gtfo out

The chances of a worst case outcome are fractions of a percentage and even lower when multiplied by the risk of getting. Not zero but very low. If you have a wealthy husband and can quit your job or pay for a nanny while you pay to hold your slot then yes maybe it’s too high risk for you. Most do have these choices.

We have to take precautions but we also have to stop this insanity and give people the options they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell you my Mom participated in child sharing/caring with other Moms and these arrangements were commonplace in the 1960's.

Five Moms. Each Mom takes a day. You tell your employer you can work 4 days a week. The kids get dropped off at the Mom of the day.

Daycare as a business was not such a thing in the 1960s. You had to be creative to get your childcare.

This arrangement was pretty common in Bowie in the 1960s and allowed Moms to work.

One person carrying for 5+ infants/toddlers who is not used to doing so sounds like a great idea. What could go wrong?

*rolls eyes*

So let me get this straight. You want professional childcare or nanny to be paid minimum wage to watch your precious bundle but you don't want to pay a competitive rate AND you refuse to let a neighborhood mom also watch your child for free?

Sounds like you've stuck yourself between a rock and a hard place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably more venting than an actual question... But I'd still love to hear others' thoughts on this.

While Maryland is (sort of) loosening restrictions on who can use the essential personnel daycares, it's still being heavily regulated and restrictive. Daycares can't open without going through a fairly complicated process, so people's regular daycares are often not open.

Yet, many of us are expected to work- if not going into work, at least working from home.

What exactly does the county/state expect people with infants and toddlers to do? Do they really think we should be sending our kids to the opened daycares that are now filled with only high-risk kids? And now that the state is no longer paying for daycare, that might mean paying for daycare twice: 1) paying your "regular" daycare to reserve your spot, and 2) paying the temporary essential personnel daycare.

They're putting parents in an impossible situation by not giving parents more (paid) child care options. The least they could do would be to completely deregulate providers caring for children in a single family (or perhaps even 2-3 families).

OP,

There are a lot of different issues going on in your post.

1. If daycare is open and you feel it is not safe, that's your decision. There is some data on infections in centers for essential workers and the vast majority of centers have been able to safely operate. When two centers in CO have to close temporarily due to cases, that is what we hear rather than the fact that hundreds or maybe thousands of facilities that reopen had no incidents.
2. Paying daycare while they are closed is up to the center. For better or worse, they are businesses that need to survive and government is not going to bail them out.
3. Deregulating day care temporarily is a terrible idea.

I have an infant and a toddler and think we need to prioritize getting daycares open with protocols recommended by CDC. Even more dire will be then they open at half capacity and many people can't get care.

Our society's reaction to COVID is mind boggling. On the one hand, we have shameful fools in the white house stoking controversy of mask wearing. On the other hand, we can't seem to put risk in perspective and figure out how to open an essential service like child care. In one weekend we shut down the country and I fear it will take years to unravel this mess. Yes, there is risk, but the risk to young children and parents is very low, and the benefits (indeed the necessity) of opening child care far outweighs the risk.

Also understand that many of the daycare workers are getting big money in unemployment (significantly bigger money than their standard paychecks.) Getting daycare workers to come back and put themselves and their families at risk
to care for your kid while they are getting the big money from unemployment will make staffing at daycare centers problematic. Why would you go back to work as a daycare worker when unemployment monies are significantly larger
than your standard paycheck and why risk going back to work where the kid you are caring for might infect you and then your own children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can tell you my Mom participated in child sharing/caring with other Moms and these arrangements were commonplace in the 1960's.

Five Moms. Each Mom takes a day. You tell your employer you can work 4 days a week. The kids get dropped off at the Mom of the day.

Daycare as a business was not such a thing in the 1960s. You had to be creative to get your childcare.

This arrangement was pretty common in Bowie in the 1960s and allowed Moms to work.

Easy -peasy… Just find five moms that you trust with one or two children each and an employer who will give you the day you need off each week and then just supervise 5 to 10 children for 9 hours a day once a week after working for four days a week and handling all your errands yourself. Why not? Sounds like a dream.

[Anonymous]

Let the lazy ass dads do this. Wtf!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell you my Mom participated in child sharing/caring with other Moms and these arrangements were commonplace in the 1960's.

Five Moms. Each Mom takes a day. You tell your employer you can work 4 days a week. The kids get dropped off at the Mom of the day.

Daycare as a business was not such a thing in the 1960s. You had to be creative to get your childcare.

This arrangement was pretty common in Bowie in the 1960s and allowed Moms to work.

Easy -peasy… Just find five moms that you trust with one or two children each and an employer who will give you the day you need off each week and then just supervise 5 to 10 children for 9 hours a day once a week after working for four days a week and handling all your errands yourself. Why not? Sounds like a dream.

DC parents are always crowing about a ‘village’ and mom friends.

You mean the women you go to Starbucks with after a Soulcycle class aren’t trustworthy? I’m shocked!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell you my Mom participated in child sharing/caring with other Moms and these arrangements were commonplace in the 1960's.

Five Moms. Each Mom takes a day. You tell your employer you can work 4 days a week. The kids get dropped off at the Mom of the day.

Daycare as a business was not such a thing in the 1960s. You had to be creative to get your childcare.

This arrangement was pretty common in Bowie in the 1960s and allowed Moms to work.

Easy -peasy… Just find five moms that you trust with one or two children each and an employer who will give you the day you need off each week and then just supervise 5 to 10 children for 9 hours a day once a week after working for four days a week and handling all your errands yourself. Why not? Sounds like a dream.

DC parents are always crowing about a ‘village’ and mom friends.


Rofl
You mean the women you go to Starbucks with after a Soulcycle class aren’t trustworthy? I’m shocked!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can tell you my Mom participated in child sharing/caring with other Moms and these arrangements were commonplace in the 1960's.

Five Moms. Each Mom takes a day. You tell your employer you can work 4 days a week. The kids get dropped off at the Mom of the day.

Daycare as a business was not such a thing in the 1960s. You had to be creative to get your childcare.

This arrangement was pretty common in Bowie in the 1960s and allowed Moms to work.

Easy -peasy… Just find five moms that you trust with one or two children each and an employer who will give you the day you need off each week and then just supervise 5 to 10 children for 9 hours a day once a week after working for four days a week and handling all your errands yourself. Why not? Sounds like a dream.

DC parents are always crowing about a ‘village’ and mom friends.



You mean the women you go to Starbucks with after a Soulcycle class aren’t trustworthy? I’m shocked!

Rofl

[Anonymous]

Not all college students have the luxury of not working that your daughter has. Many have to work for rent, car payments, groceries etc.

Yes, exactly. I cant pay more than minimum wage. Min wage in PG county is 11.50 x 40 hours =460 plus taxes? so 500x4=2000/mo. I pay 240/week for my 2 year old including meals for a licensed in-home daycare provider who does arts n crafts, music, yoga, has a obstacle course/playground in her backyard. Even the super ritzy centers in PG like Montessori, Celebree, Goddard cost less than 1500/mo for a 2 year old.

Given the choice between an 8-400 schedule with a crazy 2 year old and doing groc checkout in a 2-10 shift- its not a hard decision.

[Anonymous]

When they wanted women to work in factories during WWII, governments in many countries made it their job to provide secure daycare for women. They knew they couldn’t get a workforce if they didn’t have daycare. Similar to how an army marches on its stomachs.

If they want the moms and dads of the world to work (the 25-45 year olds) they need to figure out a daycare solution. Middle schoolers and high schoolers will be okay. My 1 year old? He’d kill himself and my 3 year old if they were left unattended.

I think you all aren’t taking into account that the entire US economy is relying on 2 income households. It would be a massive shift if all the women stopped working (because I know it would be the women in our progressive society)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why you would not hire a nanny if your kids are not school aged. All the more if you have two or more kids. Heck, I have one five year old and I am thinking of hiring a nanny.

Oh yeah, the 38 million Americans who are unemployed are going to hire a fking nanny.

Fk you, PP.

Calm down, what is with the temper tantrum? Why would 38 million UNEMPLOYED Americans hire nannies? The OP is talking about her EMPLOYED self and her EMPLOYED husband. That's a dual income family with two kids - it's the same price to hire a nanny as it is to send them to daycare.

She said “you.” She clearly wasn’t just talking about herself. Also, this PP is talking about having one kid.

Lastly, many parents are paying to keep a preschool spot, so you’re asking them to pay for a nanny on top of that.

I'm sorry, why do other people have to worry about your desire to keep a specific preschool slot? That's a luxury, and it's your choice whether or not you go that route.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not all college students have the luxury of not working that your daughter has. Many have to work for rent, car payments, groceries etc.

Yes, exactly. I cant pay more than minimum wage. Min wage in PG county is 11.50 x 40 hours =460 plus taxes? so 500x4=2000/mo. I pay 240/week for my 2 year old including meals for a licensed in-home daycare provider who does arts n crafts, music, yoga, has a obstacle course/playground in her backyard. Even the super ritzy centers in PG like Montessori, Celebree, Goddard cost less than 1500/mo for a 2 year old.

Given the choice between an 8-400 schedule with a crazy 2 year old and doing groc checkout in a 2-10 shift- its not a hard decision.

Umm grocery store workers get hazard pay, paid leave, and health + dental.

Plus you’re mostly standing in one place with occasional haunts.

Kids are exhausting. I’ll take the grocery pay for full benefits. Or an Amazon warehouse that issues PPE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When they wanted women to work in factories during WWII, governments in many countries made it their job to provide secure daycare for women. They knew they couldn’t get a workforce if they didn’t have daycare. Similar to how an army marches on its stomachs.

If they want the moms and dads of the world to work (the 25-45 year olds) they need to figure out a daycare solution. Middle schoolers and high schoolers will be okay. My 1 year old? He’d kill himself and my 3 year old if they were left unattended.

I think you all aren’t taking into account that the entire US economy is relying on 2 income households. It would be a massive shift if all the women stopped working (because I know it would be the women in our progressive society)

This is the US. Many women went into factories. Childcare was not provided. They made do.

And complaining during a billionaire Republican administration is a really futile gesture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is probably more venting than an actual question... But I'd still love to hear others' thoughts on this.

While Maryland is (sort of) loosening restrictions on who can use the essential personnel daycares, it's still being heavily regulated and restrictive. Daycares can't open without going through a fairly complicated process, so people's regular daycares are often not open.

Yet, many of us are expected to work- if not going into work, at least working from home.

What exactly does the county/state expect people with infants and toddlers to do? Do they really think we should be sending our kids to the opened daycares that are now filled with only high-risk kids? And now that the state is no longer paying for daycare, that might mean paying for daycare twice: 1) paying your "regular" daycare to reserve your spot, and 2) paying the temporary essential personnel daycare.

They're putting parents in an impossible situation by not giving parents more (paid) child care options. The least they could do would be to completely deregulate providers caring for children in a single family (or perhaps even 2-3 families).

OP,

There are a lot of different issues going on in your post.

1. If daycare is open and you feel it is not safe, that's your decision. There is some data on infections in centers for essential workers and the vast majority of centers have been able to safely operate. When two centers in CO have to close temporarily due to cases, that is what we hear rather than the fact that hundreds or maybe thousands of facilities that reopen had no incidents.
2. Paying daycare while they are closed is up to the center. For better or worse, they are businesses that need to survive and government is not going to bail them out.
3. Deregulating day care temporarily is a terrible idea.

I have an infant and a toddler and think we need to prioritize getting daycares open with protocols recommended by CDC. Even more dire will be then they open at half capacity and many people can't get care.

Our society's reaction to COVID is mind boggling. On the one hand, we have shameful fools in the white house stoking controversy of mask wearing. On the other hand, we can't seem to put risk in perspective and figure out how to open an essential service like child care. In one weekend we shut down the country and I fear it will take years to unravel this mess. Yes, there is risk, but the risk to young children and parents is very low, and the benefits (indeed the necessity) of opening child care far outweighs the risk.

Also understand that many of the daycare workers are getting big money in unemployment (significantly bigger money than their standard paychecks.) Getting daycare workers to come back and put themselves and their families at risk
to care for your kid while they are getting the big money from unemployment will make staffing at daycare centers problematic. Why would you go back to work as a daycare worker when unemployment monies are significantly larger
than your standard paycheck and why risk going back to work where the kid you are caring for might infect you and then your own children.

People who are called back to work but refuse to go are not permitted to stay on unemployment. They no longer qualify.

If the relevant governing body is too short-staffed to enforce checking on this, hire somebody.