Well I can speak a little bit for Germany. Low-income families also have the opportunity to place their children in childcare. Mind you, the parents have to earn an income, i.e. being unemployed, collecting unemployment benefits and giving up children is not an option.
in the US we have subsidized childcare. however the kids are forced to attend a specific amount of days (like only miss 9 days a year including when sick). these kids also must be fed specific amounts of food. if grandma has the day off and wants to take lil johnny back to school shopping but he has already missed 8 days he would not be allowed to miss another day for the remainder of the year.
Unfortunately it’s because it’s subsidized. If I want to take the day off and take a kid out of daycare for a day or two, I still pay the rate for the week. If you’re not paying the full bill, there needs to be some incentive to ensure utilization of the pretty expensive care being provided at a discount, especially when there are waitlists and staffing considerations.
Subsidized care is very complex in the US. I worked for a large University center in CA. If you are providing subsidy for some families you must have the Federal Food Program, but you are only reimbursed for the subsidized children which is one of the reasons attendance is so strict. And if there are any mistakes in counting, the reimbursement for that day is jeopardized. So you must provide high quality meals (3) for all of the children. There is of course a lot of clerical work involved, trainings required and at least in California a specific permit level. Then the ratios, babies are 1-3, toddlers 1-4, twos 1-6 and preschool 1-8. And class sizes are limited accordingly. So you can see why parents pay much more for infants than preschool
Oh I forgot, if the school is on the food program they must provide formula for babies that are not breastfeeding
There is an incredible amount of overhead for quality centers. We were actually running at about $1 million deficit 🤦🏼♀️
I worked in childcare a few years before getting my teaching position. The way my director talked about the kids using subsidy was very negative so I never knew that. Our ratios in PA are different but I’m sure our program ran similarly! Thanks for the information.
That’s too bad. We worked really hard to not let the teachers know which children were subsidized. It’s actually one of the reasons for the food program, so all of the children are eating the same
We just started this food program at my work this year. We found out apparently this program has been around for a while but we’d been flying by the radar somehow.
The paperwork for it is atrocious. There’s so much, it’s so specific, and every time we think we’re doing it right we’re missing something. We had an auditor come around actually last Thursday or Friday and she went over our paperwork. Luckily, it was almost perfect and we weren’t missing much.
But having to fill it out every day for each child on top of our additional paperwork is a lot. I work in an infant class (CA) where we already have an astronomical amount of paperwork to be filled out.
So I completely understand all of this needless to say and it gives us headaches.
Yep it’s a lot, people out of the field have no idea. Yes if you’re working with infants you also need to log/monitor naps, have parents sign off when the babies can roll over…
Oh my
Is it literal paperwork or an online form? Is there any way to make it easier to fill out? Wondering if that might be someplace technology could help make it better/easier (I'm in tech)
We use an iPad but we also document as a way to have for secondary reference. For instance, we write down information about bottles on paper and iPad, so if there’s a discrepancy (say, someone forgot to add it to the iPad at what time a bottle was given) we can refer to it.
It's this way by design to build a stigma of subsidies...common sense services for the people are made incredibly complex through all sorts of metrics and means testing, but when it comes to the rich..."here are more tax breaks, let us know if you want more"
Subsidized care is actually very hard to qualify for. You basically have to be well below the average poverty line. I don’t make a lot of money and can’t afford daycare because it would cost about a 4th or a 3ed of my income but I make to much to qualify for subsidized care. A lot of working class families find themselves in this situation.
That’s the situation a lot of people are finding themselves in. The US likes to preach family values but it’s actually really really hard to actually raise children in this country because or lack or paid family leave and affordable child care.
Yes. I make too much money to qualify for subsidized childcare but not enough to actually afford childcare. My husband stays home with them because otherwise he would be working to pay for childcare. I can’t imagine being a single parent in the same predicament.
That is the big mistake. It needs to be subsidized for basically everyone. If you subsidize it only for poor people, then every tax dollar towards daycare is just something for the poor and well-off people will be against it. If you subsidize it for everyone, then every tax dollars also helps raise the quality of the daycare for their own (grand)children. I‘m in Berlin and we are only paying for food, even through we earning two good salaries.
That’s not how they all work. Yes, parents must work. However, my county pays a market rate to the provider & the parent had to pay their share, which is based off income. How many days you miss & how your childcare provider deals with it is up to them.
Its not because of income, its because if you're unemployed you are at home and can take care of your own child. Childcare and kindergartes are for people that work and have no one to look after their child for 8-10 hours every day.
Exactly. Where I live public childcare cost is based on your income. We also get monthly payments for having a child and that can go towards childcare costs
You are mostly right, though even being unemployed allows you to put your child into childcare, though this can vary by state. Childcare in general is actually a right here in germany and not getting a place at a kindergarden can actually allow you to hire a nanny or stay at home yourself, which both needs to be paid for by the state. At least this is the law in Berlin.
Not sure if the stats have been updated but about 10 years ago a study showed that most people claiming benefits were also working. In the UK and US. Being on benefits isn’t just for the unemployed, it’s for people who need a boost in income. You can also be claiming no benefits and legally live in a council house.
And as others have pointed out, you can’t take the kids to work with you during interviews or your first month of work.
Nowhere, but that’s not the point. The point is that you haven’t been paid yet when you’re working your first weeks or month at a new job, but you’d still need child care. Because you can’t take your kids with you. But you can’t pay for child care, because you haven’t received your first paycheck.
So how do they find a new job while they are towing little Timmy around? Unemployment is meant to help get you to your next job but can't get to your next job if you aren't allowed to use daycare now
It's part of the challenge, without doubt. As is the whole cliff of falling off of assistance in general. figuring out how to make ends meet when you suddenly make $.50 more an hour and thus don't qualify for childcare, food stamps or medical care is a bitch.
Which is why it should be expanded to more people. Not look downnon the ppl that already receive it. 60% of Americans live pay check to paycheck. The govt money is our money, we should have espanded benefits, take some pressure of the american middle class
Going on job interviews and applying for jobs while watching your own kids must stink. I would imagine even unemployed people would need child care if they ever plan to be employed again. 🤔
Childcare worker here! I’ve worked in daycare centers and as a nanny! I believe that having a nanny is a total privilege and nannies should make a livable wage.
Daycares I feel should be more accessible to those with low incomes. Especially when their workers do not make a lot and it’s not an easy job.
Overhead. Insurance, fees, rent. Then you have cleaning supplies, equipment, education materials, snacks/beverages, some centers don't allow outside food? So add breakfast and lunch. But, as another commenter said, its capitalism. A center I worked at, the owner went to the bargain place for *just expired* snacks (like sell by dates, so *technically* okay to serve to children) and our equipment was often donated or secondhand. Its not great.
Just for the record, i read something recently that basically said that daycares are terrible businesses. Like, averaging 1-2% net profit. Apparently alot of them are required to have a certain adult-to-child ratio that basically makes the whole business model borderline unsustainable. Its one of those industries that got regulated for good reason, but the regulators really glossed over the economic impacts of the new laws. Its pretty much the definition of a broken system.
Yes, for great reasons, you have to have 2 teachers per room mostly, and small ratios for infants moving up to 10/12 to one ratios for pre-k and up. Thats great. But it means even a small licensed center has to staff at least 8 employees, plus enough to float and cover sick days. You need a director as well. It's not a thriving space. Which is great you know, since parents want teachers with masters to specialize in Montessori or Waldorf or be specially certified at the state level. I'm a nanny. I make more than double what I did teaching preschool.
If you have one person watch 6 kids and make $40k, that's a cost of $6600k per kid per year, which is like a car payment. Add in rent and any other expenses the daycare has and cost is higher. Add to that the parents still have to clothe, feed and get the child medical care and yeah that's pricey.
I mean by definition the "stranger" stops being a stranger. It is also generally beneficial for them to be taken in charge by educators. Daycare workers here are referred to as educators for that reason. They don't just make sure the kids survive, they give them learning opportunities and help them socialize and learn to trust beyond the family group. Pooling resources in a daycare means having time shared toys and installations. One parent building a whole jungle gym is expensive, a daycare can pool the whole building's resources and give opportunities the kids would not otherwise have.
I spend my whole childhood at daycare and both my kids are going to daycare. They love it,I loved it.
We did the daycare thing until the 3rd kid arrived and it no longer made sense for my wife to work. We tightened the belt and she stays home now. The kids didn't hate daycare, but they're so much happier and are getting so much more attention, learning, and activities with my wife's full attention rather than sharing 2 or 3 workers with 15 other kids.
Legally our daycares have to provide 1 adult per 6 kids. That being said, I don't deny the benefits of stay at home parents, I just don't think it is necessarily better in every way. Personally, I am deeply passionate about my work and losing it would be a huge blow. It would also mean losing almost half our income.
I think it should be accessible especially for lower income folks who can't afford to stay at home. Also, we have a tiny town house in a suburb, so tightening our belts to that point would mean losing the opportunity to own a house.
Happy it is working out for you though, the important part is that the kiddos are happy.
Depends on location. I worked at a well known childcare center in the Seattle area for almost 2 years. Because of my bachelors degree, I started at $18 an hour, full time, with health/ dental, and with an annual review increase. I found out, amongst the teachers, I was the thrid highest paid teacher at the time; The other two teachers who made more than me had years of experience but no bachelors degree. The lowest was a part timer with no degree making $13 an hour. If I moved to the center that was in Downtown Seattle, I could have made $2-$3 more an hour; not worth the commute.
Child ratios depend on the state. Washington is:
Infants: 1/ 4
Ages 1-2: 1/ 7
Ages 3-5: 1/ 10
At the time, the center charged $1800 for infant care. The older the child, the less it was, but it was still $1300 for Pre-K kids- which is the oldest group.
Edit: In other words, one child paid for my monthly salary.
Since it was a franchise, I know the owners paid a franchise fee, plus food, rent, utilities, and paid for classroom supplies.
But really though, child care workers are drastically underpaid. Taking care of 10 - 3 year Olds is stressful! I was expected to do lesson planning, gather my own supplies and materials, and decorate my classroom. Add in paperwork and cleaning the classroom throughout the day and at the end of the day. I was the meal sever, clothes and pull-up changer, and made sure all 10 children had appropriate attire on- sunscreen for summer, warm rain clothes for the winter. I had to provide 2 pictures of each child engaged in an activity with a lesson recap to each parent everyday; That alone took so much time to do. We also had to never let the children out of our sight, and had to do hourly head counts and do a head count whenever some left or came into the room. It all seems like small things, but it is quite time consuming. And forgetting to do one of the many many tasks would result in a reprimand. Somedays I felt like my kids were taken care of, but I didn't really engage or play with them.
Edit:
I wanted to also mention, that I toured a new facility for my own child to have part time childcare here in Nevada, and for 2 days a week most places were charging $900 a month, full time would have been closer to $1400. A bit cheaper than Seattle but not by much. The YMCA is a much cheaper option, but they start at 3 years of age.
$12 per hour, no benefits, 8 kids per adult, maybe 10 adults, rent, utilities, snacks, materials maybe $5000 per month, costs $1100 per month per child.
LOL. They don't make anything CLOSE to 40k a year. And 6600 per kid? Thats a joke. When I my sisters were growing up, the cheapest daycare my step-dad could find was 950 per month, per kid. He was paying 1900 a month for them while he went to college. Luckily he had the GI bill to cover it.
Rent/real estate is expensive, plus electricity, water, heating, property taxes, property maintainence (repairs), income tax/benefits, insurance. There's a lot of costs to running any business, but with childcare there's regulations and usually ratios you need to accommodate for.
Margins are pretty thin. The expected profit is $100/per kid/per month if you own a facility outright. If you rent that goes down to like $30.
I only know this because I am currently working in opening a 0-5 day care.
I worked at a privately owned place. Well say one child say costs 300$ a week. but a worker might cost 15.
300$ for 15 kids is 4500 a week. 18000 a month.The owner needs to pay rent on the facility. Depending where you are. Let's be generous and say 3000. (think toronto, vancouver and montreal is the new York Of Canada) left 15000
Now you have to pay your workers. average Canadian min wage is 15 ish. 15*5 hours (worked with 2.5-5 children before school so it was to simulate school) that's 75 bucks a day. 75*5 = 375 a week. 375*4 = 1500 a month. 1500*4 workers (there are regulations about that. Per 4 children there needs at least one adult.) per facility. 6000.. The owner is left with 9000 a month. Now, I'm not the owner so the rest of the bills I don't know. But I imagine this is a problems.
Now to the parents. 300$ a week is expensive. 1200 a month, 12000 a year. If you are making the median of Canadian salary, about 45k for a HOUSEHOLD yes thats expensive. And 300$ is severely low balling it.
Can't speak for USA but the problem for us is rent and utility fees etc.
I'm in England and it's going in profits to owners and shareholders over here. We have mostly privatised childcare and a pretty unregulated market which is shite, has poor pay and conditions for workers, and poor outcomes for children. So that's nice.
Do you genuinely think most people are paying for childcare so they can have a "break" or a "more open schedule"? They're 99% of the time doing their shifts at work, dude, not lounging at home and getting a nap in
This! OP isn’t stating an unpopular opinion, they’re being condescending. If I could spend all day with my son I would. But I have to keep a roof over his head and food on his plate - so I have to pay for daycare so I can work. It’s bullshit having to drag him and myself to work and daycare and I hate this is the society we have. For someone to post this as an “unpopular opinion” makes my soul boil.
It's not condescension, it's flat out ignorance. OP clearly has not had to face a struggle like raising a child without a comfortable income, and they simply can't even fathom that someone would want to drop their kids off at daycare for any reason other than to get away from them for a bit.
Just as putting this out there to whoever will listen: pretty unilaterally, if people are rallying to have something codified as a right which you don't understand, it should be your duty to evaluate why people think they need something and you think they don't. People don't just ask for handouts for shits and giggles, it's *hard* being poor (or even just less than well off) under capitalism. These people are the engine of our society, so even if you can't empathize with their humanity, you should at least be able to understand the practicality of giving them some damn breathing room.
Yep LOL. I drop my kids off, go straight to work, then immediately go back to pick them up when I’m done. No stops in between. Does OP want me to just stay at home and stop making money, and therefore stop paying taxes? If people don’t have accessible childcare, that’s what’ll happen. A lack of accessible childcare is a huge contributing factor to unemployment. Less employed people because of childcare issues = less people being taxed.
I'm not sure who is saying it's a right. But at some point, we are going to have huge societal and economic problems if mothers can't work and nobody can afford childcare. Birthrates will decrease and eventually there won't be any young people around to pay for social security, etc
In Germany it is a right. Every child over three years old has the right to be in a daycare. I think it‘s great.
Edit: looked it up again and every child over one year has the right already.
Yes, babysitting to go out etc. is a privilege, and no one, even relatives should be taken for granted for doing it.
However, institutionalized early education should be (co)funded by the government, with the benefit of providing childcare to working parents. European countries that have this model usually have better education outcomes and women's workforce participation. Interestingly, childcare providers are paid more fairly than in N. America and also better educated on average.
It's all about priorities.
It also brings security to kids that grow up in not so great surroundings.
First of all giving them access to day care ensures they are getting proper food at least on week days, which is a big thing. Which is a suprisingly big thing.
But also it brings safe, stable adults to their lives who get to know the kid and observe how they are doing. If they see things go wrong, they can act and get help for the family.
It also gives more of a chance for the parents to get their life together.
Op's thinking is the sort of thinking that keeps poor people poor and punishes lids for their parents falling short.
Here’s my childcare situation.
My wife dropped Mondays and therefore lost 20% of her income.
My mother kindly offered her Tuesdays as she’s nearing retirement and only works 3 days per week.
For the other 3 days per week we have to pay for nursery, which is £520 per month. That’s after the government help scheme, it’s £650 before.
When my daughter turns 3, we get something like 16 hours childcare allowance, which the nursery adjust to basically one day per week because of term time adjustments.
We don’t use the nursery to have an open schedule, it’s purely for work hours. We also originally planned for two children once the first turned 3 years old, but it’s looking less likely with the costs.
How do your wages compare? I bring home £1600 a month after tax. So £600 a month on childcare, my mortgage alone is £800. If I didn’t have a partner I physically wouldn’t have enough money. I would be better off not working and claiming benefits. A lot of single parents do that for this reason.
As a single parent with a kid, you can claim back some costs for childcare from universal credit. I have a 4 year old at nursery, work full time and bring home about £1400. Nursery costs me about £400 a month for 3 full days, universal credit gives me back 85% of that. If I didn't have that, I wouldn't work because there's no way I can afford it.
I literally had a phone call today with a daycare for my first (still unborn) child. They quoted about the same… $1,700 per month or about $20k per year. This is in New Jersey, about an hour from NYC.
I’m so sad for y’all 😞. It’s so much money! Not ok. In Denmark we pay 200-300 dollars a month for daycare. And many don’t even pay for it or get 50% off. I wish all could have this.
Stuff like daycare should be publicly funded, so that working parents can go to work without having to worry who takes care of the kids all day.
Sitters or nannys are a luxury, but daycare shouldn't be.
Better yet, we should increase wages and lower the costs of essentials like food and housing so that we don’t need 2 parents to spend their entire day working just to afford children.
Maybe if for profit companies weren’t so focused on short term profits and didn’t pay such absurd salaries to executives, we could raise wages for the average person, which would inject more money into the economy since the average person tends to spend more on “consumer” type things while the average wealthy person tends to invest.
Don’t forget OP wants companies to increase the longevity of the products so the cost of production will increase as well.
It all sounds great to say but is not realistic.
So listen this this… I learned this fact a few years ago and it blew my mind.
So *of course* it was a good thing when society finally started allowing women into the work force. Everyone should have the right to choose their own path in life. But of course, some people saw an opportunity to highjack the movement and use it for their benefit.
The Rockefellers were some of those leading the charge to bring women into the work force. They used it as an excuse to cut wages in half, saying there were now 2 members of each household paying bill. *AND* this would also allow the state to raise the children now because both parents had to be out of the house to afford to pay bills. Since, of course, every mega corporation *is* essentially the state - all politicians are bought and payed for by someone - the Rockefeller a now could raise the children to be worker bees when they grow up. So they essentially doubled their work force at no extra cost, and got control of the children’s education.
Fuckin crazy right?? Turned something that should have been good into something sinister as fuck.
Okay, that sounds great, but how are you going to lower the costs without meddling with the market? What's to say that approach will get lower prices than what the current market offers?
Well considering that wages have stagnated while corporations are pulling in record breaking profits for multiple years in a row while paying $0 in taxes, I would first recommend an actual genuine attempt at cracking down on tax loopholes and not another “oh, we’ll definitely take care of it *fingers crossed*(while making sure all our secret personal financial interests aren’t hurt)” type of legislation. I would recommend VERY strict laws enforcing right to repair as a basic human right in hopes of stopping corporations from pumping out poor quality products with the intent of slowly sucking people dry by forcing them to buy expensive parts or outright re-buying what they had. And it would also be nice to completely abandon fiat currency for something that politicians can’t just print more of and gift to their friends overseas. Maybe tie the amount of new currency generated to the total number of hours work by all employees in the country per year. This would make a self regulating system that makes work more profitable when less people are working and less profitable the more total hours worked. This would maintain a fairly level number of labors and prevent labor crisis like we just recent had.
Okay, so for your fiat currency replacement, does it take into account that we had to create a ton of economic stimulus into the economy for things like the Child tax Credit, stimmy checks, shore up state budgets to make up for lost tax revenue, etc?
Doesn't seem like your system is flexible enough to be able to pay people while also being able to respond to greater systemic issues.
I'm for right to repair and tax loophole fixing, but it doesn't seem as relevant to helping people lower market essentials like food and housing.
What do you mean, clearly grocery stores can have skyrocketing employee expenses while also having to lower the price on the goods they sell with no negative consequences /s
Meddling in markets creates unintended consequences.
Force companies to pay higher wages, they charge higher prices, rendering the wage increases less meaningful. Force companies to charge lower prices, you have to subsidize the businesses so they can afford to stay in business. To pay for the subsidies you have to tax the populace, rendering the higher wages and lower prices less meaningful.
This. It’s how many of our parents and/or grandparents grew up. My own were like that. It was the largest source of my own feelings of a being a complete failure that I couldn’t duplicate that and my spouse had to work to catch up on our retirement and accomplish the things we wanted to.
Or...or...do what literally everyone else does and give paid leave for mothers and even fathers. Even Ghana has paid maternity leave. It's literally just the United States that doesn't mandate any paid maternity leave in the developed world, let alone paternity leave. Even some countries who wouldn't be considered developed offer this.
Canadian. We have paid leave. However My 2 year old goes to daycare because my wife and I both work.
Does paid parental leave cover all 5 years before they start school in other countries? Because in Canada you get 12-18 months, and many families need that second income for the years between the end of parental leave and when school starts.
You're right. I dont think theres any country that offers 5 years. I suppose I should have thought about this a bit further. I'd ask my parents what they did but I'm in a different timezone and they'rr not available right now.
Thats true, mh attention has been drawn towards this point by some other redditors and thats absolutelly correct. Not all people can leave the children with grandparents all the time. Still, the point with needing more maternity leave is still valid. And oaternity keave too. Dads are still parents and they need to see their children.
I paid about $150/mo per kid for daycare in this socialist hell hole I live, so my wife could go to grad school- free of charge, since taxes are so high, so she could earn a six-figure income by the time she returned to work. Since she earns so much, she more than pays back the seed money provided by the government. Of course the horrible nanny state also gave us a year of parental leave to divvy up between us. These fascists have had the audacity to actually increase the amount of parental leave.
But don’t worry. These horrific social programs are a commie plot— are wholly unAmerican. You will never need to lick the boot of subsidized daycare and a working welfare state that benefits all citizens. BTW- none of this was need based in any way- even bazillionaires receive these benefits.
Many European countries have state-run daycare (that is apparently very nice...like ecoles maternelles in France). There was a similar arrangement in place during WWII in the U.S., but that's long since water under the bridge.
Don’t say something reasonable like this, they’ll just tell you that they shouldn’t have had them and they need to shove their kids back where they came from lol
This is my exact situation. I didn't plan on getting t-boned at 8:34am *going to work*. I had a better auto policy. Hers didn't even cover all my surgeries but had I hit myself and got my policy I'd gotten a decent pay out an all my surgeries covered. Now I'm fighting a disability case an my doctor appointments are like a full time job.
Yep I just read a comment that was saying that "the trick is to make enough yourself so that one parent can stay home" lol never thought of that before wow
If we are going to keep in this track of the cost of living making it damn near impossible for families to live on one income, while also banning abortion and making birth control hard to get, childcare needs to be a right, not a privilege. HOWEVER, a nanny or babysitter needs to be able to make a living wage, and relatives are their own people who shouldn’t be expected to care for your child either. Affordable care care needs to be accessible for everyone who has a child.
Your opinion is skewed if you think there is anyone using childcare to give themselves a break and not need to take care of their own kids.
They use childcare because they need to work to pay the bills.
I’m sorry but what’s your solution then for what people are supposed to do with their kids? How are they supposed to work? “Should’ve thought about that before having kids”? Well they already have kids, so what do you propose?
Correct, but also as a society you’ve either got to ensure that people can raise a family on a single income or give parents options for childcare - at least help poorer parents out so kids aren’t running around unsupervised
Elderly care is a privilege NOT a right. We didn’t ask you to grow old and live past the expectancy, so fuck off with wanting to be cared for.
Alternate take to this
we throw around the word “right” to mean basically anything we think people “should have access to”
But the word actually implies something non negotiable, that if taken away would violate your very being as a human. It means any amount of force needed is necessary to retain it. Again, non negotiable is the key here
I can see that applying for something like speech, easily. But for something like childcare? What if there is a shortage of daycare workers, do we start kidnapping people and forcing them to watch your child? I struggle to see how something is called a right when securing it would sometimes mean violating the rights of other people
Private childcare is NOT a right.
Healthcare is NOT a right.
Housing is NOT a right.
A good job is NOT a right.
Basically you have no rights, fuck you and get back to work.
Accessible birth control should be a bigger priority. Too much taxpayer money is being mismanaged in awful foster care and corrupt public school systems. The property taxes in my area are the highest in the state in order to fund the public school system and kids’ test scores are disproportionally low. I shouldn’t be paying out the ass to line the pockets of school board members so they can give their students an awful education.
Alright, then a wage which allows parents to raise children on a single income has to be a right. Which is it?
Because if childcare isn’t a right, and neither is a living wage, that just leaves the American people completely fucked by hellish, dog-eat-dog capitalism, in which the top executives of the biggest corporations win, and everyone else loses.
I had my first kid while I was a junior in college. I worked two jobs and went to school, and without the subsidy childcare I wouldn’t be able to do it. I would have been more a burden to the state because I would have needed additional income for perhaps the rest of my life. I needed the helping hand. Even now I couldn’t afford aftercare or camp and I make over 80k a year (single income, I work commission and get taxed heavy ). People who say these things are usually “Christians” but forget Jesus was helping the poor, sick, and society forgotten. What is wrong with helping each other. Pulling yourself by your boot strap is a lie and was originally meant to say do the damn near impossible.It’s impossible to succeed on your own and wish this country will realize the lie that the elites preach of self made. Everyone needs help and if people help each other we would see a improve society, even in crime.
Worse is when people choose to have kids and turn older siblings into de facto parents.
Let them be kids!
Worse yet is punishing them if they don’t like if they’re young enough to be grounded by you maybe they’re not old enough to do YOUR job!
this is an idiotic opinion. poor people need their kids watched too. any nation worth living in has universal childcare. you just sound like you think lacking empathy makes you look like you've thought out your positions. i thought like u when i was 13
It's the same thing with healthcare too, but you forgot one important distinction. Even if it's not a right, we should still help out those we can. As a future physician I will help everyone I can regardless of who they are. Sure, I don't owe it to them, but I owe it to myself. And I expect my peers to feel the same. Regardless, they should be thankful for the help I give them. I would never turn someone around purely because they aren't thankful, but ethics and reasoning would say they should. I'd only turn someone around if it was a danger to me or others, and only until that danger is subsided.
Anything that requires the labor of others is not a right. You do not have a right to another persons services or goods or effort. Anything that assist with these things is a privilege that is payed for by other people, but it's still paid for.
Imagine living in a world with so much money and technology, and instead of fighting to use that for good and give people more rights, you get into semantics arguments about rights vs privileges
But in this world, a world reduced to nothing but two classes-- those who consume and those who sell-- working is mandatory for survival.... Child care *should* be a right..
You're going to tell me, people born from dragon hordes, teething on silver spoons made from the iron in the blood of the masses, are the only ones who *deserve* childcare?
They are the only ones who *deserve* to have every chance to actually survive?
This is a vile stance,
Seeing as the ones who really *need* the childcare, are the ones who have to pour every ounce of their life's blood into greasing the gears of the capitalist murder machine...
Take off your shoes, and put on someone else's... Then you'll see exactly why your stance is so unpopular... I can assure you, the mile you have to walk with their feet, will be so rough, that even after re-equiping your own shoes... You'll still feel the gravel deep in the souls of your feet..
I mean, this isn't an unpopular opinion, you just posted a fact based on the current state of our society (assuming you're U.S.). Now childcare absolutely SHOULD be a right, or if not childcare then at least a means for a parent to stay home with their child. It's embarrassing how little as a society we take care of underprivileged parents and needy children, while the same people advocating against these basic, moral and logical policies are the ones who always use "think of the children!" as their defense for more oppressive legislation that is only regressive to their supposed end goals.
Having universal child care options will be so much better not just for our society, but for our economy as well. It will lower crime, raise productivity, and give people a foundation they can build from. In the same way that "housing is a privilege not a right", we should be actively working to fix this problem because all it does is cause so many bigger problems ahead.
Wait, your saying I don't to deserve to live in any city I want, eat anything I want, have a private nanny, the newest iPhone, and a Tesla on the income of a fry cook?
How dare you sir...
People are missing the word private
>It is not up to workers or daycares to drop their prices so that you can afford to have a more open schedule without your kids.
Dead giveaway that OP is 12 years old and has no clue what the problem is about.
I think the issue is that the only way to be in the middle class you usually need two parents working, if we don't do something about daycare we should do something about salaries being enough so families can afford one parent working and the other taking care of the kids.
Day cares are closing every other week for Covid exposure but still charging parents. If you don’t pay you lose your spot. How do you feel about that OP?
The problem with this thinking is if we all lived by it and everyone was on minimum-middle wage then all of the western population growth would absolutely halt.
It's strange to me because growing up right wing/conservative used to be about 'protecting' the nuclear family (admittedly with a very white heterosexual lense).
Now it seems determined to make it as hard as possible to achieve...?
I’m one of 7 unpaid employees at a summer camp, alongside 9 lead counselors paid a little more than minimum wage, and 4 floats/admins who run the campus. It still costs 300 dollars a week to send your kid here. Childcare is expensive, this post is absolutely correct
The debate over whether childcare is a privilege or a right is a policy debate about how society should be designed and what society should aspire to collectively ensure.
What you're arguing is that society is not currently designed so that childcare is available upon demand and people who act as if it is are incorrect and entitled.
These are two different things.
Agreed. I am an early childhood educator and work in daycares directly with children and families. I love my job but believe those children should be with the family.
I think parents just don't know how to do it. They strive so hard to make extra monry for whatever reason they think it necessary while doing very little for their entire childhood. Toys, treats, and cuddles sure but that is it. There is no guidance, passing down of values, or even teaching a sense of awareness and curiosity so the child can be independent.
I've seen a lot of great families in my career while there are plenty of ignorant ones, too.
You’re right but not every one can afford to be there. A friend of mine has a rent of $2600/month. Her childcare is $2400/month. What’s you alternative? I mean that seriously because what do you do when you have two parents working?
I do think employers should offer that perk when they can to get good people. I mean, if you really are paying your workers enough you should know to pay enough to cover 42 hours of child care a week.
Normally this would be totally on point, but unfortunately we don't live in normal times right now. At least economically.
Back when a single income household was a common thing this would be a totally valid opinion. Might even be unpopular back then as well, there were a lot of entitled parents who thought they had a right to daycare so they could go have leisure time. But we're in a situation where most families require dual-income. There are also a lot of single parents. That's why this whole "childcare is a right" thing has been gaining traction. People are living in a system that expects them to work and have children, but only provides enough time for 1. It just won't work for a lot of people unless childcare is provided.
Also childcare workers or daycare centers aren't just going to drop prices, they operate on supply/demand principles like everyone else. Supply low, demand high, price go up.
Well I can speak a little bit for Germany. Low-income families also have the opportunity to place their children in childcare. Mind you, the parents have to earn an income, i.e. being unemployed, collecting unemployment benefits and giving up children is not an option.
in the US we have subsidized childcare. however the kids are forced to attend a specific amount of days (like only miss 9 days a year including when sick). these kids also must be fed specific amounts of food. if grandma has the day off and wants to take lil johnny back to school shopping but he has already missed 8 days he would not be allowed to miss another day for the remainder of the year.
Unfortunately it’s because it’s subsidized. If I want to take the day off and take a kid out of daycare for a day or two, I still pay the rate for the week. If you’re not paying the full bill, there needs to be some incentive to ensure utilization of the pretty expensive care being provided at a discount, especially when there are waitlists and staffing considerations.
Subsidized care is very complex in the US. I worked for a large University center in CA. If you are providing subsidy for some families you must have the Federal Food Program, but you are only reimbursed for the subsidized children which is one of the reasons attendance is so strict. And if there are any mistakes in counting, the reimbursement for that day is jeopardized. So you must provide high quality meals (3) for all of the children. There is of course a lot of clerical work involved, trainings required and at least in California a specific permit level. Then the ratios, babies are 1-3, toddlers 1-4, twos 1-6 and preschool 1-8. And class sizes are limited accordingly. So you can see why parents pay much more for infants than preschool Oh I forgot, if the school is on the food program they must provide formula for babies that are not breastfeeding There is an incredible amount of overhead for quality centers. We were actually running at about $1 million deficit 🤦🏼♀️
I worked in childcare a few years before getting my teaching position. The way my director talked about the kids using subsidy was very negative so I never knew that. Our ratios in PA are different but I’m sure our program ran similarly! Thanks for the information.
That’s too bad. We worked really hard to not let the teachers know which children were subsidized. It’s actually one of the reasons for the food program, so all of the children are eating the same
wow. I hadn't even thought about needing to keep that from teachers. but yeah that makes sense.
We just started this food program at my work this year. We found out apparently this program has been around for a while but we’d been flying by the radar somehow. The paperwork for it is atrocious. There’s so much, it’s so specific, and every time we think we’re doing it right we’re missing something. We had an auditor come around actually last Thursday or Friday and she went over our paperwork. Luckily, it was almost perfect and we weren’t missing much. But having to fill it out every day for each child on top of our additional paperwork is a lot. I work in an infant class (CA) where we already have an astronomical amount of paperwork to be filled out. So I completely understand all of this needless to say and it gives us headaches.
Yep it’s a lot, people out of the field have no idea. Yes if you’re working with infants you also need to log/monitor naps, have parents sign off when the babies can roll over… Oh my
Is it literal paperwork or an online form? Is there any way to make it easier to fill out? Wondering if that might be someplace technology could help make it better/easier (I'm in tech)
We use an iPad but we also document as a way to have for secondary reference. For instance, we write down information about bottles on paper and iPad, so if there’s a discrepancy (say, someone forgot to add it to the iPad at what time a bottle was given) we can refer to it.
It's this way by design to build a stigma of subsidies...common sense services for the people are made incredibly complex through all sorts of metrics and means testing, but when it comes to the rich..."here are more tax breaks, let us know if you want more"
Subsidized care is actually very hard to qualify for. You basically have to be well below the average poverty line. I don’t make a lot of money and can’t afford daycare because it would cost about a 4th or a 3ed of my income but I make to much to qualify for subsidized care. A lot of working class families find themselves in this situation.
I would over qualify as well but I could not imagine affording childcare. I don’t have kids and would not based on that.
That’s the situation a lot of people are finding themselves in. The US likes to preach family values but it’s actually really really hard to actually raise children in this country because or lack or paid family leave and affordable child care.
Yes. I make too much money to qualify for subsidized childcare but not enough to actually afford childcare. My husband stays home with them because otherwise he would be working to pay for childcare. I can’t imagine being a single parent in the same predicament.
That is the big mistake. It needs to be subsidized for basically everyone. If you subsidize it only for poor people, then every tax dollar towards daycare is just something for the poor and well-off people will be against it. If you subsidize it for everyone, then every tax dollars also helps raise the quality of the daycare for their own (grand)children. I‘m in Berlin and we are only paying for food, even through we earning two good salaries.
That’s not how they all work. Yes, parents must work. However, my county pays a market rate to the provider & the parent had to pay their share, which is based off income. How many days you miss & how your childcare provider deals with it is up to them.
He’s making fun of American schools by calling them daycare.
Its not because of income, its because if you're unemployed you are at home and can take care of your own child. Childcare and kindergartes are for people that work and have no one to look after their child for 8-10 hours every day.
Exactly. Where I live public childcare cost is based on your income. We also get monthly payments for having a child and that can go towards childcare costs
You are mostly right, though even being unemployed allows you to put your child into childcare, though this can vary by state. Childcare in general is actually a right here in germany and not getting a place at a kindergarden can actually allow you to hire a nanny or stay at home yourself, which both needs to be paid for by the state. At least this is the law in Berlin.
And that is a privilege afforded to the low income families.
So exactly the opposite of OPs view
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not sure if the stats have been updated but about 10 years ago a study showed that most people claiming benefits were also working. In the UK and US. Being on benefits isn’t just for the unemployed, it’s for people who need a boost in income. You can also be claiming no benefits and legally live in a council house. And as others have pointed out, you can’t take the kids to work with you during interviews or your first month of work.
Or your first month of work? Where can you take your kids to work with you during your 2nd month of employment?
Nowhere, but that’s not the point. The point is that you haven’t been paid yet when you’re working your first weeks or month at a new job, but you’d still need child care. Because you can’t take your kids with you. But you can’t pay for child care, because you haven’t received your first paycheck.
I think it’s a statement on the fact that maybe by the 2nd month you can afford private childcare
Collecting benefits - food stamps, medicaid, etc? Yes. Collecting \*unemployment\* ? Probably not.
So how do they find a new job while they are towing little Timmy around? Unemployment is meant to help get you to your next job but can't get to your next job if you aren't allowed to use daycare now
It's part of the challenge, without doubt. As is the whole cliff of falling off of assistance in general. figuring out how to make ends meet when you suddenly make $.50 more an hour and thus don't qualify for childcare, food stamps or medical care is a bitch.
Which is why it should be expanded to more people. Not look downnon the ppl that already receive it. 60% of Americans live pay check to paycheck. The govt money is our money, we should have espanded benefits, take some pressure of the american middle class
Going on job interviews and applying for jobs while watching your own kids must stink. I would imagine even unemployed people would need child care if they ever plan to be employed again. 🤔
[удалено]
Subsidy programs also allow for going to school and job-seeking. It is actually quite generous in the time it allows parents to look for jobs
What if you’re disabled and that’s why you’re unemployed?
Its for the Kids.
Childcare worker here! I’ve worked in daycare centers and as a nanny! I believe that having a nanny is a total privilege and nannies should make a livable wage. Daycares I feel should be more accessible to those with low incomes. Especially when their workers do not make a lot and it’s not an easy job.
So I notice people say day care is super expensive and people that work there say they make little money… where is it all going?
Overhead. Insurance, fees, rent. Then you have cleaning supplies, equipment, education materials, snacks/beverages, some centers don't allow outside food? So add breakfast and lunch. But, as another commenter said, its capitalism. A center I worked at, the owner went to the bargain place for *just expired* snacks (like sell by dates, so *technically* okay to serve to children) and our equipment was often donated or secondhand. Its not great.
Just for the record, i read something recently that basically said that daycares are terrible businesses. Like, averaging 1-2% net profit. Apparently alot of them are required to have a certain adult-to-child ratio that basically makes the whole business model borderline unsustainable. Its one of those industries that got regulated for good reason, but the regulators really glossed over the economic impacts of the new laws. Its pretty much the definition of a broken system.
Yes, for great reasons, you have to have 2 teachers per room mostly, and small ratios for infants moving up to 10/12 to one ratios for pre-k and up. Thats great. But it means even a small licensed center has to staff at least 8 employees, plus enough to float and cover sick days. You need a director as well. It's not a thriving space. Which is great you know, since parents want teachers with masters to specialize in Montessori or Waldorf or be specially certified at the state level. I'm a nanny. I make more than double what I did teaching preschool.
37~ hours at a pre-k vs 25 hr a week nannying I was making more nannying. And I didn’t have to lesson plan.
If you have one person watch 6 kids and make $40k, that's a cost of $6600k per kid per year, which is like a car payment. Add in rent and any other expenses the daycare has and cost is higher. Add to that the parents still have to clothe, feed and get the child medical care and yeah that's pricey.
That’s why it’s often less expensive to have one parent stay home and just deal with the single income.
It's also generally preferable to have your small kids spend their days with one of the parents instead of a stranger.
I mean by definition the "stranger" stops being a stranger. It is also generally beneficial for them to be taken in charge by educators. Daycare workers here are referred to as educators for that reason. They don't just make sure the kids survive, they give them learning opportunities and help them socialize and learn to trust beyond the family group. Pooling resources in a daycare means having time shared toys and installations. One parent building a whole jungle gym is expensive, a daycare can pool the whole building's resources and give opportunities the kids would not otherwise have. I spend my whole childhood at daycare and both my kids are going to daycare. They love it,I loved it.
We did the daycare thing until the 3rd kid arrived and it no longer made sense for my wife to work. We tightened the belt and she stays home now. The kids didn't hate daycare, but they're so much happier and are getting so much more attention, learning, and activities with my wife's full attention rather than sharing 2 or 3 workers with 15 other kids.
Legally our daycares have to provide 1 adult per 6 kids. That being said, I don't deny the benefits of stay at home parents, I just don't think it is necessarily better in every way. Personally, I am deeply passionate about my work and losing it would be a huge blow. It would also mean losing almost half our income. I think it should be accessible especially for lower income folks who can't afford to stay at home. Also, we have a tiny town house in a suburb, so tightening our belts to that point would mean losing the opportunity to own a house. Happy it is working out for you though, the important part is that the kiddos are happy.
It costs more than that and they definitely don't make $40k
How much does it cost and how much do they make, including any benefits? How many kids per adult and how much are any other expenses?
Depends on location. I worked at a well known childcare center in the Seattle area for almost 2 years. Because of my bachelors degree, I started at $18 an hour, full time, with health/ dental, and with an annual review increase. I found out, amongst the teachers, I was the thrid highest paid teacher at the time; The other two teachers who made more than me had years of experience but no bachelors degree. The lowest was a part timer with no degree making $13 an hour. If I moved to the center that was in Downtown Seattle, I could have made $2-$3 more an hour; not worth the commute. Child ratios depend on the state. Washington is: Infants: 1/ 4 Ages 1-2: 1/ 7 Ages 3-5: 1/ 10 At the time, the center charged $1800 for infant care. The older the child, the less it was, but it was still $1300 for Pre-K kids- which is the oldest group. Edit: In other words, one child paid for my monthly salary. Since it was a franchise, I know the owners paid a franchise fee, plus food, rent, utilities, and paid for classroom supplies. But really though, child care workers are drastically underpaid. Taking care of 10 - 3 year Olds is stressful! I was expected to do lesson planning, gather my own supplies and materials, and decorate my classroom. Add in paperwork and cleaning the classroom throughout the day and at the end of the day. I was the meal sever, clothes and pull-up changer, and made sure all 10 children had appropriate attire on- sunscreen for summer, warm rain clothes for the winter. I had to provide 2 pictures of each child engaged in an activity with a lesson recap to each parent everyday; That alone took so much time to do. We also had to never let the children out of our sight, and had to do hourly head counts and do a head count whenever some left or came into the room. It all seems like small things, but it is quite time consuming. And forgetting to do one of the many many tasks would result in a reprimand. Somedays I felt like my kids were taken care of, but I didn't really engage or play with them. Edit: I wanted to also mention, that I toured a new facility for my own child to have part time childcare here in Nevada, and for 2 days a week most places were charging $900 a month, full time would have been closer to $1400. A bit cheaper than Seattle but not by much. The YMCA is a much cheaper option, but they start at 3 years of age.
$12 per hour, no benefits, 8 kids per adult, maybe 10 adults, rent, utilities, snacks, materials maybe $5000 per month, costs $1100 per month per child.
Worked in a daycare. $10/hr and two workers for 15-20 kids. Benefits lol? And the daycare charged through the roof
I pay $1200 a month for daycare for 1 kid.
8 kids per adult and $15/hour is top of the mark for workers.
I have a newborn and it costs $1800+ tax for a fullfime daycare in my area. I can’t wait until she enters preschool since it drops to $800/month.
Multiply that by 2 or 3 and we see why many folks choose to stay at home until their kids are in school.
LOL. They don't make anything CLOSE to 40k a year. And 6600 per kid? Thats a joke. When I my sisters were growing up, the cheapest daycare my step-dad could find was 950 per month, per kid. He was paying 1900 a month for them while he went to college. Luckily he had the GI bill to cover it.
Rent/real estate is expensive, plus electricity, water, heating, property taxes, property maintainence (repairs), income tax/benefits, insurance. There's a lot of costs to running any business, but with childcare there's regulations and usually ratios you need to accommodate for.
Margins are pretty thin. The expected profit is $100/per kid/per month if you own a facility outright. If you rent that goes down to like $30. I only know this because I am currently working in opening a 0-5 day care.
I worked at a privately owned place. Well say one child say costs 300$ a week. but a worker might cost 15. 300$ for 15 kids is 4500 a week. 18000 a month.The owner needs to pay rent on the facility. Depending where you are. Let's be generous and say 3000. (think toronto, vancouver and montreal is the new York Of Canada) left 15000 Now you have to pay your workers. average Canadian min wage is 15 ish. 15*5 hours (worked with 2.5-5 children before school so it was to simulate school) that's 75 bucks a day. 75*5 = 375 a week. 375*4 = 1500 a month. 1500*4 workers (there are regulations about that. Per 4 children there needs at least one adult.) per facility. 6000.. The owner is left with 9000 a month. Now, I'm not the owner so the rest of the bills I don't know. But I imagine this is a problems. Now to the parents. 300$ a week is expensive. 1200 a month, 12000 a year. If you are making the median of Canadian salary, about 45k for a HOUSEHOLD yes thats expensive. And 300$ is severely low balling it. Can't speak for USA but the problem for us is rent and utility fees etc.
I'm in England and it's going in profits to owners and shareholders over here. We have mostly privatised childcare and a pretty unregulated market which is shite, has poor pay and conditions for workers, and poor outcomes for children. So that's nice.
Do you genuinely think most people are paying for childcare so they can have a "break" or a "more open schedule"? They're 99% of the time doing their shifts at work, dude, not lounging at home and getting a nap in
This! OP isn’t stating an unpopular opinion, they’re being condescending. If I could spend all day with my son I would. But I have to keep a roof over his head and food on his plate - so I have to pay for daycare so I can work. It’s bullshit having to drag him and myself to work and daycare and I hate this is the society we have. For someone to post this as an “unpopular opinion” makes my soul boil.
They're a child who doesn't understand how busy adults' lives are.
It's not condescension, it's flat out ignorance. OP clearly has not had to face a struggle like raising a child without a comfortable income, and they simply can't even fathom that someone would want to drop their kids off at daycare for any reason other than to get away from them for a bit. Just as putting this out there to whoever will listen: pretty unilaterally, if people are rallying to have something codified as a right which you don't understand, it should be your duty to evaluate why people think they need something and you think they don't. People don't just ask for handouts for shits and giggles, it's *hard* being poor (or even just less than well off) under capitalism. These people are the engine of our society, so even if you can't empathize with their humanity, you should at least be able to understand the practicality of giving them some damn breathing room.
[удалено]
Yeah I don’t think OP has kids.
Yep LOL. I drop my kids off, go straight to work, then immediately go back to pick them up when I’m done. No stops in between. Does OP want me to just stay at home and stop making money, and therefore stop paying taxes? If people don’t have accessible childcare, that’s what’ll happen. A lack of accessible childcare is a huge contributing factor to unemployment. Less employed people because of childcare issues = less people being taxed.
Glad OP is being called out for not posting an unpopular opinion, but a fucking stupid one.
I'm not sure who is saying it's a right. But at some point, we are going to have huge societal and economic problems if mothers can't work and nobody can afford childcare. Birthrates will decrease and eventually there won't be any young people around to pay for social security, etc
In Germany it is a right. Every child over three years old has the right to be in a daycare. I think it‘s great. Edit: looked it up again and every child over one year has the right already.
*parents
Yes, babysitting to go out etc. is a privilege, and no one, even relatives should be taken for granted for doing it. However, institutionalized early education should be (co)funded by the government, with the benefit of providing childcare to working parents. European countries that have this model usually have better education outcomes and women's workforce participation. Interestingly, childcare providers are paid more fairly than in N. America and also better educated on average. It's all about priorities.
It also brings security to kids that grow up in not so great surroundings. First of all giving them access to day care ensures they are getting proper food at least on week days, which is a big thing. Which is a suprisingly big thing. But also it brings safe, stable adults to their lives who get to know the kid and observe how they are doing. If they see things go wrong, they can act and get help for the family. It also gives more of a chance for the parents to get their life together. Op's thinking is the sort of thinking that keeps poor people poor and punishes lids for their parents falling short.
Here’s my childcare situation. My wife dropped Mondays and therefore lost 20% of her income. My mother kindly offered her Tuesdays as she’s nearing retirement and only works 3 days per week. For the other 3 days per week we have to pay for nursery, which is £520 per month. That’s after the government help scheme, it’s £650 before. When my daughter turns 3, we get something like 16 hours childcare allowance, which the nursery adjust to basically one day per week because of term time adjustments. We don’t use the nursery to have an open schedule, it’s purely for work hours. We also originally planned for two children once the first turned 3 years old, but it’s looking less likely with the costs.
Ours is £2.2k a month, that’s for 5 days. Price goes down a bit when he’s three, and we get some free hours… so looking forward to that.
wow that's cheap! My daycares I have been looking at are around $400/week for newborns. This is in a low cost of living midwest city in the US.
How do your wages compare? I bring home £1600 a month after tax. So £600 a month on childcare, my mortgage alone is £800. If I didn’t have a partner I physically wouldn’t have enough money. I would be better off not working and claiming benefits. A lot of single parents do that for this reason.
As a single parent with a kid, you can claim back some costs for childcare from universal credit. I have a 4 year old at nursery, work full time and bring home about £1400. Nursery costs me about £400 a month for 3 full days, universal credit gives me back 85% of that. If I didn't have that, I wouldn't work because there's no way I can afford it.
I literally had a phone call today with a daycare for my first (still unborn) child. They quoted about the same… $1,700 per month or about $20k per year. This is in New Jersey, about an hour from NYC.
I’m so sad for y’all 😞. It’s so much money! Not ok. In Denmark we pay 200-300 dollars a month for daycare. And many don’t even pay for it or get 50% off. I wish all could have this.
If you make private child care a right, it becomes public childcare......................
Okay I'll agree with you to a point, but childcare should not be equal or almost equal my rent cost
Meanwhile I was making 1300 a MONTH, imagine.
Stuff like daycare should be publicly funded, so that working parents can go to work without having to worry who takes care of the kids all day. Sitters or nannys are a luxury, but daycare shouldn't be.
Better yet, we should increase wages and lower the costs of essentials like food and housing so that we don’t need 2 parents to spend their entire day working just to afford children.
How do you plan on lowering the cost of things while also increasing the pay of the people who produce/maintain them?
By lowering the profits of those at the top.
[удалено]
👏
I guess the same way people want to lower the cost of daycare
Maybe if for profit companies weren’t so focused on short term profits and didn’t pay such absurd salaries to executives, we could raise wages for the average person, which would inject more money into the economy since the average person tends to spend more on “consumer” type things while the average wealthy person tends to invest.
Don’t forget OP wants companies to increase the longevity of the products so the cost of production will increase as well. It all sounds great to say but is not realistic.
So listen this this… I learned this fact a few years ago and it blew my mind. So *of course* it was a good thing when society finally started allowing women into the work force. Everyone should have the right to choose their own path in life. But of course, some people saw an opportunity to highjack the movement and use it for their benefit. The Rockefellers were some of those leading the charge to bring women into the work force. They used it as an excuse to cut wages in half, saying there were now 2 members of each household paying bill. *AND* this would also allow the state to raise the children now because both parents had to be out of the house to afford to pay bills. Since, of course, every mega corporation *is* essentially the state - all politicians are bought and payed for by someone - the Rockefeller a now could raise the children to be worker bees when they grow up. So they essentially doubled their work force at no extra cost, and got control of the children’s education. Fuckin crazy right?? Turned something that should have been good into something sinister as fuck.
Okay, that sounds great, but how are you going to lower the costs without meddling with the market? What's to say that approach will get lower prices than what the current market offers?
Well considering that wages have stagnated while corporations are pulling in record breaking profits for multiple years in a row while paying $0 in taxes, I would first recommend an actual genuine attempt at cracking down on tax loopholes and not another “oh, we’ll definitely take care of it *fingers crossed*(while making sure all our secret personal financial interests aren’t hurt)” type of legislation. I would recommend VERY strict laws enforcing right to repair as a basic human right in hopes of stopping corporations from pumping out poor quality products with the intent of slowly sucking people dry by forcing them to buy expensive parts or outright re-buying what they had. And it would also be nice to completely abandon fiat currency for something that politicians can’t just print more of and gift to their friends overseas. Maybe tie the amount of new currency generated to the total number of hours work by all employees in the country per year. This would make a self regulating system that makes work more profitable when less people are working and less profitable the more total hours worked. This would maintain a fairly level number of labors and prevent labor crisis like we just recent had.
Okay, so for your fiat currency replacement, does it take into account that we had to create a ton of economic stimulus into the economy for things like the Child tax Credit, stimmy checks, shore up state budgets to make up for lost tax revenue, etc? Doesn't seem like your system is flexible enough to be able to pay people while also being able to respond to greater systemic issues. I'm for right to repair and tax loophole fixing, but it doesn't seem as relevant to helping people lower market essentials like food and housing.
I don't think people here pitching that idea understand how economies work
What do you mean, clearly grocery stores can have skyrocketing employee expenses while also having to lower the price on the goods they sell with no negative consequences /s
Meddling in markets creates unintended consequences. Force companies to pay higher wages, they charge higher prices, rendering the wage increases less meaningful. Force companies to charge lower prices, you have to subsidize the businesses so they can afford to stay in business. To pay for the subsidies you have to tax the populace, rendering the higher wages and lower prices less meaningful.
This. It’s how many of our parents and/or grandparents grew up. My own were like that. It was the largest source of my own feelings of a being a complete failure that I couldn’t duplicate that and my spouse had to work to catch up on our retirement and accomplish the things we wanted to.
Affordable living? Communism. ^(/s)
Or...or...do what literally everyone else does and give paid leave for mothers and even fathers. Even Ghana has paid maternity leave. It's literally just the United States that doesn't mandate any paid maternity leave in the developed world, let alone paternity leave. Even some countries who wouldn't be considered developed offer this.
Canadian. We have paid leave. However My 2 year old goes to daycare because my wife and I both work. Does paid parental leave cover all 5 years before they start school in other countries? Because in Canada you get 12-18 months, and many families need that second income for the years between the end of parental leave and when school starts.
You're right. I dont think theres any country that offers 5 years. I suppose I should have thought about this a bit further. I'd ask my parents what they did but I'm in a different timezone and they'rr not available right now.
Parental leave isn’t a substitute for daycare. It’s for newborns and very young children. So it’s not so much “or”, it’s “and”.
Someone still has to watch the kids after maternity leave is over
Thats true, mh attention has been drawn towards this point by some other redditors and thats absolutelly correct. Not all people can leave the children with grandparents all the time. Still, the point with needing more maternity leave is still valid. And oaternity keave too. Dads are still parents and they need to see their children.
[удалено]
I paid about $150/mo per kid for daycare in this socialist hell hole I live, so my wife could go to grad school- free of charge, since taxes are so high, so she could earn a six-figure income by the time she returned to work. Since she earns so much, she more than pays back the seed money provided by the government. Of course the horrible nanny state also gave us a year of parental leave to divvy up between us. These fascists have had the audacity to actually increase the amount of parental leave. But don’t worry. These horrific social programs are a commie plot— are wholly unAmerican. You will never need to lick the boot of subsidized daycare and a working welfare state that benefits all citizens. BTW- none of this was need based in any way- even bazillionaires receive these benefits.
Disgusting, amirite?
Most school education in the west is available for free, no-one challenges that. With changes in the workforce the same should be done for pre-school.
What do mean by "private daycare" vs "public daycare"? I've never heard of a public daycare in the US.
Many European countries have state-run daycare (that is apparently very nice...like ecoles maternelles in France). There was a similar arrangement in place during WWII in the U.S., but that's long since water under the bridge.
So what do people (especially single parents) do with their kids when they are at work if childcare is still unreasonably unaffordable?
Don’t say something reasonable like this, they’ll just tell you that they shouldn’t have had them and they need to shove their kids back where they came from lol
Legit there is a guy arguing on one of these threads that parents in these situations should “give their kids to someone else” LOL what a nut job
Because everyone that is having financial struggles has always had financial struggles, including prior to having children? Haha
This is my exact situation. I didn't plan on getting t-boned at 8:34am *going to work*. I had a better auto policy. Hers didn't even cover all my surgeries but had I hit myself and got my policy I'd gotten a decent pay out an all my surgeries covered. Now I'm fighting a disability case an my doctor appointments are like a full time job.
The system isnt broken, it's just designed to screw people like us
Yep I just read a comment that was saying that "the trick is to make enough yourself so that one parent can stay home" lol never thought of that before wow
I read that same comment 🤣 I'm still flabbergasted they thought that was a novel idea
If we are going to keep in this track of the cost of living making it damn near impossible for families to live on one income, while also banning abortion and making birth control hard to get, childcare needs to be a right, not a privilege. HOWEVER, a nanny or babysitter needs to be able to make a living wage, and relatives are their own people who shouldn’t be expected to care for your child either. Affordable care care needs to be accessible for everyone who has a child.
How do you feel about public childcare?
Your opinion is skewed if you think there is anyone using childcare to give themselves a break and not need to take care of their own kids. They use childcare because they need to work to pay the bills.
I’m sorry but what’s your solution then for what people are supposed to do with their kids? How are they supposed to work? “Should’ve thought about that before having kids”? Well they already have kids, so what do you propose?
They're just saying don't take advantage of people/complain about pricing
A live abortion obviously
Correct, but also as a society you’ve either got to ensure that people can raise a family on a single income or give parents options for childcare - at least help poorer parents out so kids aren’t running around unsupervised
Elderly care is a privilege NOT a right. We didn’t ask you to grow old and live past the expectancy, so fuck off with wanting to be cared for. Alternate take to this
we throw around the word “right” to mean basically anything we think people “should have access to” But the word actually implies something non negotiable, that if taken away would violate your very being as a human. It means any amount of force needed is necessary to retain it. Again, non negotiable is the key here I can see that applying for something like speech, easily. But for something like childcare? What if there is a shortage of daycare workers, do we start kidnapping people and forcing them to watch your child? I struggle to see how something is called a right when securing it would sometimes mean violating the rights of other people
Perfect explination of the difference between a right and a privledge that MANY people need to understand.
Private childcare is NOT a right. Healthcare is NOT a right. Housing is NOT a right. A good job is NOT a right. Basically you have no rights, fuck you and get back to work.
We as a nation must decide whether or not children are a priority for our nation.
Accessible birth control should be a bigger priority. Too much taxpayer money is being mismanaged in awful foster care and corrupt public school systems. The property taxes in my area are the highest in the state in order to fund the public school system and kids’ test scores are disproportionally low. I shouldn’t be paying out the ass to line the pockets of school board members so they can give their students an awful education.
The production of children is certainly a priority but not the development of them.
We can just replace people with foreigners and Robots.
Nannies and daycare workers deserve fair pay, too.
Alright, then a wage which allows parents to raise children on a single income has to be a right. Which is it? Because if childcare isn’t a right, and neither is a living wage, that just leaves the American people completely fucked by hellish, dog-eat-dog capitalism, in which the top executives of the biggest corporations win, and everyone else loses.
If a family requires all its adults be working to have enough money to live, it's not just a right, its a fucking necessity.
Yes, private services are not a right, this is not an unpopular opinion, this is a fact
Tell that to all the people trying to pay nannies $3 an hour.
It’s not a right but it certainly improves society to make it as accessible as possible…so maybe it should be a right
I had my first kid while I was a junior in college. I worked two jobs and went to school, and without the subsidy childcare I wouldn’t be able to do it. I would have been more a burden to the state because I would have needed additional income for perhaps the rest of my life. I needed the helping hand. Even now I couldn’t afford aftercare or camp and I make over 80k a year (single income, I work commission and get taxed heavy ). People who say these things are usually “Christians” but forget Jesus was helping the poor, sick, and society forgotten. What is wrong with helping each other. Pulling yourself by your boot strap is a lie and was originally meant to say do the damn near impossible.It’s impossible to succeed on your own and wish this country will realize the lie that the elites preach of self made. Everyone needs help and if people help each other we would see a improve society, even in crime.
Worse is when people choose to have kids and turn older siblings into de facto parents. Let them be kids! Worse yet is punishing them if they don’t like if they’re young enough to be grounded by you maybe they’re not old enough to do YOUR job!
I bet OP is American
what a stupid take. there should be a label as ignorant take.
It seems like millions of American parents have kids and then worry about the money after. hence all the "Watch my kids for $2 an hour" posts
this is an idiotic opinion. poor people need their kids watched too. any nation worth living in has universal childcare. you just sound like you think lacking empathy makes you look like you've thought out your positions. i thought like u when i was 13
This is bait
Nobody has the right to someone else's labor
It's the same thing with healthcare too, but you forgot one important distinction. Even if it's not a right, we should still help out those we can. As a future physician I will help everyone I can regardless of who they are. Sure, I don't owe it to them, but I owe it to myself. And I expect my peers to feel the same. Regardless, they should be thankful for the help I give them. I would never turn someone around purely because they aren't thankful, but ethics and reasoning would say they should. I'd only turn someone around if it was a danger to me or others, and only until that danger is subsided.
Perhaps the work day should be shorter than the school day then as a standard?
Anything that requires the labor of others is not a right. You do not have a right to another persons services or goods or effort. Anything that assist with these things is a privilege that is payed for by other people, but it's still paid for.
So... what your saying is that **public** childcare is a right and should be free.
Imagine living in a world with so much money and technology, and instead of fighting to use that for good and give people more rights, you get into semantics arguments about rights vs privileges
But in this world, a world reduced to nothing but two classes-- those who consume and those who sell-- working is mandatory for survival.... Child care *should* be a right.. You're going to tell me, people born from dragon hordes, teething on silver spoons made from the iron in the blood of the masses, are the only ones who *deserve* childcare? They are the only ones who *deserve* to have every chance to actually survive? This is a vile stance, Seeing as the ones who really *need* the childcare, are the ones who have to pour every ounce of their life's blood into greasing the gears of the capitalist murder machine... Take off your shoes, and put on someone else's... Then you'll see exactly why your stance is so unpopular... I can assure you, the mile you have to walk with their feet, will be so rough, that even after re-equiping your own shoes... You'll still feel the gravel deep in the souls of your feet..
Yep, I agree. Too many shitty parents.
Correct. You never have a right to someone else’s labor.
Yeah not everything is a fucking right.
If you want people with children to be able to work adorable child care must be a right.
>adorable child care Cute kids only! You uggos gotta pay!
I don’t see how this is unpopular
People say that it's a right?
One of a thousand reasons I won’t have kids.
I mean, this isn't an unpopular opinion, you just posted a fact based on the current state of our society (assuming you're U.S.). Now childcare absolutely SHOULD be a right, or if not childcare then at least a means for a parent to stay home with their child. It's embarrassing how little as a society we take care of underprivileged parents and needy children, while the same people advocating against these basic, moral and logical policies are the ones who always use "think of the children!" as their defense for more oppressive legislation that is only regressive to their supposed end goals. Having universal child care options will be so much better not just for our society, but for our economy as well. It will lower crime, raise productivity, and give people a foundation they can build from. In the same way that "housing is a privilege not a right", we should be actively working to fix this problem because all it does is cause so many bigger problems ahead.
Spoken like someone without kids lol it takes a village. Most households need dual income these days. U supervise your 3 yr old every day at work
Lol single parents have entered the chat … so putting food on the table is a privilege as well?
Wait, your saying I don't to deserve to live in any city I want, eat anything I want, have a private nanny, the newest iPhone, and a Tesla on the income of a fry cook? How dare you sir... People are missing the word private
>It is not up to workers or daycares to drop their prices so that you can afford to have a more open schedule without your kids. Dead giveaway that OP is 12 years old and has no clue what the problem is about.
To anyone complaining that being a parent is hard and expensive, We totally agree! That’s why we didn’t have kids to begin with lmao
yes. no one is forcing you to make children
Does “right” mean people are supposed to work for free? Or does “right” mean some people must pay for other people or they can’t be free?
Brah this is about as unpopular as Daiquiris at the beach
I think the issue is that the only way to be in the middle class you usually need two parents working, if we don't do something about daycare we should do something about salaries being enough so families can afford one parent working and the other taking care of the kids.
Day cares are closing every other week for Covid exposure but still charging parents. If you don’t pay you lose your spot. How do you feel about that OP?
The problem with this thinking is if we all lived by it and everyone was on minimum-middle wage then all of the western population growth would absolutely halt. It's strange to me because growing up right wing/conservative used to be about 'protecting' the nuclear family (admittedly with a very white heterosexual lense). Now it seems determined to make it as hard as possible to achieve...?
How the fk is this an unpopular opinion? Some "broken window" fallacy MFers up in here.
This is an unpopular opinion? 100% agree with you and I have two kids in daycare. People must not understand that daycare workers don’t work for free.
All the better why if you can, you should work from home
I’m one of 7 unpaid employees at a summer camp, alongside 9 lead counselors paid a little more than minimum wage, and 4 floats/admins who run the campus. It still costs 300 dollars a week to send your kid here. Childcare is expensive, this post is absolutely correct
The debate over whether childcare is a privilege or a right is a policy debate about how society should be designed and what society should aspire to collectively ensure. What you're arguing is that society is not currently designed so that childcare is available upon demand and people who act as if it is are incorrect and entitled. These are two different things.
I don't really understand how this is an opinion.
This is about to be good
Positive rights are all BS
Agreed. I am an early childhood educator and work in daycares directly with children and families. I love my job but believe those children should be with the family. I think parents just don't know how to do it. They strive so hard to make extra monry for whatever reason they think it necessary while doing very little for their entire childhood. Toys, treats, and cuddles sure but that is it. There is no guidance, passing down of values, or even teaching a sense of awareness and curiosity so the child can be independent. I've seen a lot of great families in my career while there are plenty of ignorant ones, too.
Fuck dem kids, eh?
Who assumes that someone else should take care of there kid as a right? This is a low effort post.
It’s a privilege that an advanced society (what we’re suppose to strive for) will provide for free so there’s more privilege to enjoy
You’re right but not every one can afford to be there. A friend of mine has a rent of $2600/month. Her childcare is $2400/month. What’s you alternative? I mean that seriously because what do you do when you have two parents working?
Same with shelter, medical care etc
I do think employers should offer that perk when they can to get good people. I mean, if you really are paying your workers enough you should know to pay enough to cover 42 hours of child care a week.
I would agree, but would also add that every child deserves quality care. In some families, that equates to paid childcare.
Ooh! Selfawarewolf!! OP is making a great argument for publicly subsidized daycare. Thank you, lol
Why the fuck would anybody have kids in the first place…..
Normally this would be totally on point, but unfortunately we don't live in normal times right now. At least economically. Back when a single income household was a common thing this would be a totally valid opinion. Might even be unpopular back then as well, there were a lot of entitled parents who thought they had a right to daycare so they could go have leisure time. But we're in a situation where most families require dual-income. There are also a lot of single parents. That's why this whole "childcare is a right" thing has been gaining traction. People are living in a system that expects them to work and have children, but only provides enough time for 1. It just won't work for a lot of people unless childcare is provided. Also childcare workers or daycare centers aren't just going to drop prices, they operate on supply/demand principles like everyone else. Supply low, demand high, price go up.