Reply to Wait. Why are childcare workers in this area so poorly paid?

Forum Index » Preschool and Daycare Discussion

Reply to "Wait. Why are childcare workers in this area so poorly paid? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I'm just running the numbers here.  If an average Arlington preschool charges appx $1600/child.

Assume they have three rooms: 
2s room with 10 kids
3s room with 20 kids
4s room with 20 kids

So that is 50 kids x $1600/mo = $80,000/mo or $960,000/yr.

Assume rent is 10k/mo so $120,000/yr (and I think that is a high rent estimate - might be way lower if the center is in a church for example). 
Assume is it $10/kid/day to feed them, so $500/week, $2000/mo, $24,000/year
Assume an annual insurance premium of $10,000
Assume utility costs of $1000/mo, so $12,000/yr
Assume misc operating expenses of $1000/mo so $12,000/yr
So that is $178,000 before salaries

Assume you paid 9 livable teacher salaries at $60,000 so $540,000/yr
Assume one director salary at $80,000

So 178,000+$540,000+80,000 = $798,000

That still leaves a profit of $162,000 for the owner of the daycare.

That is with a good wage for the teachers and extremely high assumptions for rent, insurance, utilities, and operating expenses.

My point is that it seems like with gross profit of $960,000/yr, there is a decent cushion to pay the teachers better.  Instead, daycare owners seem to be [b]chintzing [/b]these poor teachers on salary.  No wonder there is so much turnover.  [/quote]

[b]Maybe find a less racist term to use for your argument[[/b]/quote]

I'm not PP, and don't regularly use that term, but I'm interested in whether others consider this term racist.   It derives from the word "chintz" which is a type of light-weight type of cotton fabrci, with the implication that if you're using chintz rather than something like silk or velvet, you are taking a cheap option.  I looked it up after seeing PP's thread, and apparently the word is a derivation of a Hindu word, as the fabric was typically made in India in the 17th to 19th century.  According to Wikipedia, British mill operators were less than pleased with its importation, because they could not compete with it.  (Ah, trade wars....).  So they may have started using it as a derogatory term to mean "cheap" in order to protect their own domestic product.  But that doesn't make the term racist, does it -- it doesn't seem to imply that a particular group is likely to be cheap (unlike the term "scotch-tape", which I think we're all comfortable with despite it slamming the Scots)?  I think chintz fabric continues to be a cheaper option as compared with other potential upholstery/drapery fabrics, so the meaning to refer to a cheaper option would still appear to hold.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics