Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re in Maryland you need to listen up. The childcare crisis is going to get worse. So much worse! The State will expand pre-K3 and pre-K for programs throughout the entire state. Sounds good, right? For many daycares this is bad news and at our conferences a lot of daycare’s will be closing because they will be losing a huge portion of their children. With only two infant spots, if your home daycare, I am, that leaves you with infants and two year olds which is not sustainable.

The state also wants providers to get a college degree in early childhood education. This means if you have any other degree it is not valid. many women work from early in the morning till late at night when do they expect us to go back to school to get a degree? We are tired, we are burnt out and we have our own families that we need to care for on top of the children we care for during the day.

As it is people are ready scoff at $275-$325 a week, how much more are they willing to pay for a daycare with a early childhood education degree? It won’t be enough to cover the tuition and time that will go into it, never mind the abuse that many face from parents. People disrespect providers by bringing in sick children, not paying on time, dropping off early or picking up late.

The childcare crisis has many facets and that is my point of you about a major driving force. Adding the extra pressure and requirements from the state will mean more daycares will leave the profession entirely which ultimately is bad news for parents.

Yep, this happened already in DC and many centers had to close because it is so expensive to care for infants and toddlers without having their slots subsidized by preschoolers!

On the other hand as a consumer I have to pay for 0-6 years of daycare because nothing is free until K and my son turns 5 in January so he will basically be 5.75 when he enters K. If I only needed to pay for years 0.5/1-3 it would be a different calculation. Having the first 6 months of maternity leave possibly combined with 3-6 months paternity means the 1st year is covered. I only need to work about age 1- turning 3 for preK3.

Good for you, but not many people get that much leave

I don't have that much leave I actually had no maternity leave. As the person above me stated the most expensive part of daycare and most vulnerable children are those who are under a year and so if you can at least get to 6 months for maternity leave and then provide 3 to 6 months for attorney lately you can likely get most children to 9 months to 12 months without non parental care.

I absolutely needed 3 months to recover from childbirth and a C-section while taking care of an infant on my own because my partner had to go back at day 4. I got 0. No maternity leave no disability nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh good, the MRAs and Magas found the thread. Cool.

Nah - I'm neither and female. But I watched as just 1/4th of the social welfare policy pushed by liberals like me implemented such terrible inflation that everyone in this country is punished when really only 18% (the share of parents with school-aged kids) directly benefited.

We're still sinking under high prices for everything from food to gas to energy and its been what? 7 months since it was canceled.

(1) The expanded unemployment in response to Covid is not the reason gas is more expensive now. Please read a newspaper sometimes.
(2) We're not talking about unemployment, we're talking about expanding parental leave and subsidizing healthcare. There may be some inflationary risks associated with these policies but they are extremely different from what you are talking about.
(3) The proposals on this thread are more similar to the Biden Administration's child tax credit program, which is not blamed for inflation and cut child poverty in half but was sundowned for no other reason than lack of will.

Also, just FYI, most women don't say "I'm female" -- that's how MRAs talk about women on 4Chan. So "ma'am", you might want to update your terminology.

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:Oh good, the MRAs and Magas found the thread. Cool.

Nah - I'm neither and female. But I watched as just 1/4th of the social welfare policy pushed by liberals like me implemented such terrible inflation that everyone in this country is punished when really only 18% (the share of parents with school-aged kids) directly benefited.

We're still sinking under high prices for everything from food to gas to energy and its been what? 7 months since it was canceled.

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: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?

Since you're fundamentally uninterested in recognizing any problem here, you might want to move along from this discussion.

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?

OP here. I did for the first year, but I'm honestly not concerned about my personal situation. I feel so deeply for other moms and families that struggle over this.

OMG! your photo is next to altruism in the dictionary. All these other people that you are so worried about chose to have children they cannot afford and they want the rest of us to pay for their stupidity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Paying childcare workers should be tax deductible by companies or individuals. Large companies should be able to put childcare workers on their payroll and offer them the same benefits as other employees. This would encourage more workplaces to have onsite childcare and improve the salaries/benefits of people who provide childcare so that they can afford to stay in the job.

Individuals who hire a nanny should be able to deduct her salary and include her as a member of the household on their own health insurance. Again, this would solve a lot of the problems of people being paid under the table illegally, not paying into social security, not having unemployment benefits, and not having health insurance. It would make being a nanny a much more viable long term career.

OP here. I was just reading this morning that hiring a refugee is a tax deduction- employers can deduct up to 40% of a refugee's pay. It got me thinking there should be a way to encourage refugees to work in childcare. I wonder if the deduction would apply to families hiring a refugee nanny legally via w2. It seems like it could be a win-win for nanny and family.

A new form of indentured servitude. Refugees should only have subservient jobs. No white collar jobs for them. I need someone to be my maid, housekeeper, nanny, for pittance. Quite a few refugees are as well educated as you and some are better educated. You are responsible for your childcare not the taxpayer!

I guess my initial thought was through a different lens. I was thinking that nannies typically make $25-30hr which is more than a lot of jobs refugees go right in to. Another thought I had was if they could bring their own children to work, it would eliminate their own need for childcare. If they could live-in, it would be housing and pay.

Anonymous wrote:Oh good, the MRAs and Magas found the thread. Cool.

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?

OP here. I did for the first year, but I'm honestly not concerned about my personal situation. I feel so deeply for other moms and families that struggle over this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

From the families who need childcare. Now, personally, I think childcare should be subsidized by the government, on a sliding scale for all families making less than 250K a year (and free for those making under about 100K) for up to 2 kids. And I think that if a parent decides to stay home, they should get the amount that they would be subsidized if they used outside childcare. But until then, parents have to decide if they can afford to pay enough to find reliable childcare.

LOL and this is why social welfare is just a never happening concept. You want to PAY stay at home moms to take care of their own children? What's to stop someone from having 9 kids and never working for 20 years.

You want to have kids, you pay for their care yourself until pre-k/kindergarten. Period.

Tell me you don't know what it's like to care for children full time without telling me you don't know what it's like to care for children full time

Tell me you don't know there are plenty of families with with huge numbers of kids in this country. HAPPILY.

I love watching them on Youtube. Super-moms.

Sure, super moms because they are working hella hard raising a litter of children. Which is why it is nonsensical to argue that people would have 9 kids to *avoid work*. This is like running away from your trainer to avoid exercise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

From the families who need childcare. Now, personally, I think childcare should be subsidized by the government, on a sliding scale for all families making less than 250K a year (and free for those making under about 100K) for up to 2 kids. And I think that if a parent decides to stay home, they should get the amount that they would be subsidized if they used outside childcare. But until then, parents have to decide if they can afford to pay enough to find reliable childcare.

LOL and this is why social welfare is just a never happening concept. You want to PAY stay at home moms to take care of their own children? What's to stop someone from having 9 kids and never working for 20 years.

You want to have kids, you pay for their care yourself until pre-k/kindergarten. Period.

I have to agree that this is crazy. People who SAH already aren’t paying taxes on their labor.

... you're so close.

No one pays taxes on their labor. We pay taxes on income. You are acknowledging that SAHPs are performing labor, but the conclusion you are drawing is that rather than compensate them for that labor, we force them to go do other labor somewhere else so that we can tax them on that, and then pay another person as little as humanly possible to care for their child so that we can tax that labor?

Lemme guess. You're a "fiscal conservative" who just cares about the budget deficit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

From the families who need childcare. Now, personally, I think childcare should be subsidized by the government, on a sliding scale for all families making less than 250K a year (and free for those making under about 100K) for up to 2 kids. And I think that if a parent decides to stay home, they should get the amount that they would be subsidized if they used outside childcare. But until then, parents have to decide if they can afford to pay enough to find reliable childcare.

LOL and this is why social welfare is just a never happening concept. You want to PAY stay at home moms to take care of their own children? What's to stop someone from having 9 kids and never working for 20 years.

You want to have kids, you pay for their care yourself until pre-k/kindergarten. Period.

Tell me you don't know what it's like to care for children full time without telling me you don't know what it's like to care for children full time

Tell me you don't know there are plenty of families with with huge numbers of kids in this country. HAPPILY.

I love watching them on Youtube. Super-moms.