Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:subsidize women who want to care for their own children. There are a lot of women who work full time just to end up bringing home a few hundred bucks a month to get them by. If just paid them to care for their kids it would be better for everyone.

No, it would not. As someone who watched the dumpster fire of a government who paid people just because they had kids. We're at 8.5% inflation now. Would you like to see 10%?

You want more than 'a few hundred bucks a month' post-childcare payments? Get a better job.

The Child Tax Credit did not cause inflation. It might have had some upward influence, but no, you cannot lay inflation at the feet of that program. Most of the money people got was simply shifted into a monthly payment instead of paid out via a refund. And the additional funds only helped families under a relatively low income cap. The idea that this program, and not the war in Ukraine, Covid, multiple stimulus packages, extended and expanded unemployment programs, and long term supply chain issues, is to blame is so naive as to be impossible to take seriously.

We are a family with an HHI under 150 and we received 10x as much money from Trump stimulus packages as from the Child Tax Credit program. Granted, 90% of what we received went to pay for childcare we needed because of school closures, but that's another conversation.

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.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Stop making having children so expensive.

We've structured our entire economy around the idea that childcare will be provided for free. Every other developed country in the world has overhauled their childcare system to deal with the facts that (1) slavery, indentured servitude, and exploitation of cheap immigrant labor are, correctly, no longer seen as acceptable ways to raise children, and (2) women are allowed to work and have rights now.

The US is the only country that was like "ok, ok, we won't just force WOC to care for children for free/close to free anymore, and fine, women can have jobs and be people, but you're just going to have to figure out for yourselves whose going to take care of children then, we give up." Like all the other countries were able to recognize that without the free labor of women, you were going to have to subsidize childcare in some way or the whole economic system falls apart. We are so, so dumb.

This is not even considered a left-right issue in most countries. Europe, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, many of the more developed countries in Africa -- they have plenty of political debates, but the question of whether a free country can survive without subsidizing childcare in some capacity is viewed as non-controversial. They have arguments about whether immigrants should have access to subsidized childcare, but not whether it should exist. Of course it should, because otherwise how would children be cared for?

Anonymous wrote:subsidize women who want to care for their own children. There are a lot of women who work full time just to end up bringing home a few hundred bucks a month to get them by. If just paid them to care for their kids it would be better for everyone.

No, it would not. As someone who watched the dumpster fire of a government who paid people just because they had kids. We're at 8.5% inflation now. Would you like to see 10%?

You want more than 'a few hundred bucks a month' post-childcare payments? Get a better job.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Okay, so only the rich will have children. Who do you think will do almost every working and middle class job in America then?

Real middle class and lower income can get day care vouchers in this area. Its those of us who make too much to qualify but day care costs are the same as our take home pay that it makes it impossible to work.

For the poster who says a grandparent can step in. Mine live 10 minutes away, healthy and have never babysat even once in an emergency in 13 years. Can and will are two different things. I could be dying and my mom would still make up an excuse not to help.

There aren't enough providers. Same with mental health. These people aren't going to come out of the ether.

subsidize women who want to care for their own children. There are a lot of women who work full time just to end up bringing home a few hundred bucks a month to get them by. If just paid them to care for their kids it would be better for everyone.

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?

Why not.

This thread is over. You can't argue with people like this. We're not fully human to them.

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.

Stop having children you can't afford.

So now people who can't or won't leave the workforce, and pay for childcare in the first year, can't afford kids either?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Okay, so only the rich will have children. Who do you think will do almost every working and middle class job in America then?

Real middle class and lower income can get day care vouchers in this area. Its those of us who make too much to qualify but day care costs are the same as our take home pay that it makes it impossible to work.

For the poster who says a grandparent can step in. Mine live 10 minutes away, healthy and have never babysat even once in an emergency in 13 years. Can and will are two different things. I could be dying and my mom would still make up an excuse not to help.

Here's my thoughts - I know 'MC' people who bought $800K - $900K homes - which in this area you know is not some palatial estate but still acceptable - that were whining after they were stripped of a $1,200/month CTC.

Why should you get a daycare subsidy when you can afford and willingly bought a $1 million property? Why shouldn't you be expected to use your HHI, usually $150K - $400K, again seems high enough to me - to provide for your own children?

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.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Okay, so only the rich will have children. Who do you think will do almost every working and middle class job in America then?

Real middle class and lower income can get day care vouchers in this area. Its those of us who make too much to qualify but day care costs are the same as our take home pay that it makes it impossible to work.

For the poster who says a grandparent can step in. Mine live 10 minutes away, healthy and have never babysat even once in an emergency in 13 years. Can and will are two different things. I could be dying and my mom would still make up an excuse not to help.

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?

That's why many of us SAH - you know, the mom's who get slammed on here. We cannot afford a nanny, day care costs are high except if you can get a voucher, etc.

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.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Okay, so only the rich will have children. Who do you think will do almost every working and middle class job in America then?

Immigrants? I mean Americans too good for a hard day's work already refuse to work in fields and factories. Unless you're raising your MC child to make machinery parts?

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.

This. Last thing we need is government intervention in the childcare market. It will only make it more expensive. Just like what happened to college tuition.

I remember in the BBB discussions this came up and economist said the price of childcare would be astronomical. There were parents who flat out said they didn't care because guess what? Their expenses would be limited to 7% no matter how high the fees rose. Meanwhile the government, meaning the taxpayer, would be paying the other 93% even if childcare centers decided $5,000/month was the acceptable per child rate. You already see it happening with in federally-subsidzed daycares in D.C.

I shudder to think of the national costs.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And, you didn't know this prior to getting pregnant?

DP - for some reason FTPs seem to just completely blank. I know someone who decided to switch jobs last month and now she's pregnant. Well guess what...no leave whatsoever. Now she's planning to beg for donated leave like...why didn't you plan for this?

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.

This. Last thing we need is government intervention in the childcare market. It will only make it more expensive. Just like what happened to college tuition.

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.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Okay, so only the rich will have children. Who do you think will do almost every working and middle class job in America then?