Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.
The nanny shortage.
The lack of parental leave.
What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?
Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.
The nanny shortage.
The lack of parental leave.
What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?
Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?
So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?
Not women. There are SAHD and will be more and more of them. For the first year, a baby needs a parent. A grandparent can step in but a parent is best.
Ok, so how about a year of parental leave? Some of us can't afford to just leave our jobs and/or would have a lot of trouble getting a new one without moving cross-country. Other countries do this. It's possible.
You just can't imagine avoiding the two-income trap?
DP. I can’t imagine pulling all of those people from the workforce. If you include every parent who is the lower earner in the family and still has children at home, that includes most of my kids teachers, our pediatrician, all of the dental hygienists at my dentist’s practice, and probably quite a few more that I can’t think of off the top of my head. It would be mind-boggling.
There also wouldn’t be enough income and taxes generated to pay for most of the government programs we have in place, including Medicare and social security.
This plan sounds bad.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.
The nanny shortage.
The lack of parental leave.
What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?
Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?
So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?
Not women. There are SAHD and will be more and more of them. For the first year, a baby needs a parent. A grandparent can step in but a parent is best.
Ok, so how about a year of parental leave? Some of us can't afford to just leave our jobs and/or would have a lot of trouble getting a new one without moving cross-country. Other countries do this. It's possible.
You just can't imagine avoiding the two-income trap?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.
The nanny shortage.
The lack of parental leave.
What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?
Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?
So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?
Not women. There are SAHD and will be more and more of them. For the first year, a baby needs a parent. A grandparent can step in but a parent is best.
Ok, so how about a year of parental leave? Some of us can't afford to just leave our jobs and/or would have a lot of trouble getting a new one without moving cross-country. Other countries do this. It's possible.
You just can't imagine avoiding the two-income trap?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.
The nanny shortage.
The lack of parental leave.
What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?
Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?
So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?
Not women. There are SAHD and will be more and more of them. For the first year, a baby needs a parent. A grandparent can step in but a parent is best.
Ok, so how about a year of parental leave? Some of us can't afford to just leave our jobs and/or would have a lot of trouble getting a new one without moving cross-country. Other countries do this. It's possible.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.
The nanny shortage.
The lack of parental leave.
What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?
Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?
So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?
Not women. There are SAHD and will be more and more of them. For the first year, a baby needs a parent. A grandparent can step in but a parent is best.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.
The nanny shortage.
The lack of parental leave.
What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?
Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?
So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Pay teachers and childcare workers more. They can make almost as much working in fast food but are responsible for the health, safety, and education of your children.
Agree this is a core problem- but where would the money come from?
The parents.
Parents can afford to give up more of their money from their two sets of income...it is not a societal problem that two income households with kids have to use a good portion of their money for care for their kids. Single person households do not have two incomes to leverage and they do just fine.
This is such an ignorant statement.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.
The nanny shortage.
The lack of parental leave.
What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?
Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Pay teachers and childcare workers more. They can make almost as much working in fast food but are responsible for the health, safety, and education of your children.
Agree this is a core problem- but where would the money come from?
The parents.
Parents can afford to give up more of their money from their two sets of income...it is not a societal problem that two income households with kids have to use a good portion of their money for care for their kids. Single person households do not have two incomes to leverage and they do just fine.
Anonymous wrote:3-6 months paid leave. Encourage parents to stagger their leave (it's good for families because it forces both parents to bond with children and develop parenting skills). Large employers will be required to provide a minimum of 3 months per employee, smaller employers and people who are self-employed would be subsidized out of a central fund. Can also follow models from other countries that offer 100% paid leave for some period and then diminishes to a lower percentage for longer leaves. But jobs are guaranteed after the leave.
Subsidized or free childcare (based on income qualification) starting at 1 year. Parents would sort out the first year between leave, family help, and paid help. Then we'd have government run or sponsored (so private centers could apply for government subsidy in order to offer free/reduced price care to people) childcare centers from 1-3. Not offering government sponsored care for kids under 1 resolves a lot of logistical issues with infants and babies, who require much lower caregiver to child ratios and also are less mobile. Toddlers are ideal for group care -- they do parallel play, can follow basic directions, can walk and play on playgrounds, etc.
Subsidized or free preschool. We already have this in DC and other places. It's fantastic in terms of enabling parents to work while also providing social-emotional skills to kids who need it and some pre-kindergarten academics.
Expanded aftercare and summer programs for school age children (again, DC already has this to some degree) to close the gap for working parents. People overthink this stuff for some reason. School age kids don't need particularly expensive care outside of school. We don't actually need to be doing enrichment. You can just make sure you are hiring qualified minders and then let kids play. They get enrichment in school. Some parents will pay for classes and the like, but we really just need safe places for children to play after school or in the summer while their parents are working.
You treat having children as a normal and expected part of most people's lives and structure society in a way that supports what children need (time to bond with parents, intensive care as infants, and safe group care as toddlers and preschoolers). You stop acting like having a child is some outlandish and selective activity only engaged in by the rich or the selfish and acknowledge that it is among the most basic human instincts. And you also recognize that by helping parents maintain employment through their children's early years, you actually keep more people (especially women) in the workforce, paying taxes and maintaining their skills.
I know this doesn't work perfectly in other countries but it works a heck of a lot better than the system we have here -- better for workers, better for families, better for kids.
What we currently do Does. Not. Work.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Pay teachers and childcare workers more. They can make almost as much working in fast food but are responsible for the health, safety, and education of your children.
Agree this is a core problem- but where would the money come from?
All those with children of school age.l