Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the loaded cost of a single daycare provider is $22/hr (probably low, but the minimum wage is still a ridiculous $7.25), and that you need one per 4 kids (probably low, especially with pre-schoolers). Let's also assume that the daycare business is entitled to a 10% profit before taxes (also low), and that you can drop off and pick up your kid inside a 10-hour window (assuming you get a lunch break, at least).
That would put your WEEKLY child care bill at well over $300 per kid (and my guess is that's low) - serious money unless you've got a pretty good income.
As an old, I can attest that Gramma and Grampa love their grandkids dearly, but they've already raised kids and don't feel the need (or the energy) to do it again. Hell, they might even want to spend their retirement traveling, or otherwise being unavailable. And that's just assuming that a) they're around and b) they can be trusted with the kids.
I actually agree with the "it takes a village" concept - neighbors were trusted and expected to discipline me when I was a kid - but society has to support parents (and kids) where the family and/or community will not or can not.
Call me a socialist if you will, but my take is that society (ie government) has to take action and responsibility for affordable child care, regardless of what that fucking (Yale-graduate) hillbily and his patrons think.
Oh! Have RELATIVES take care of my children! I never thought of that! Jeez Louise, doesn't everyone who has such relatives already take advantage of that??!!? Did he come up with that groundbreaking idea all on his own, or was it part of his Ivy League curriculum?
If there is one thing parents already know, it’s how to ask family to help with kids. My wife and I had 3 sets of grandparents to help when our son was born. Unfortunately, my dad was dying of cancer and my mom wasn’t up to taking our son for more than an hour or two for a playdate. The second set of grandparents, my wife’s father and his wife, were never interested in taking our son at all, ever. They visited our house to watch him play about once a month, but they never took him for a visit at all, and he’s almost 6 now. Fortunately, my wife’s mom and her husband are deeply involved in our son’s life. They took him for sleepovers about every 2 weeks, giving my wife and I much needed breathers. They take him places and have usually been there for us if we needed someone to watch him. We also paid a babysitter to sit with him about once a week for a date night break. But she graduated from college and moved on. I work from home and my wife is taking 6 months off while starting her own business.
We had just enough help with our one child to save our sanity and be able to attend to our lives and responsibilities. I can’t imagine how hard it is for working people with multiple kids. I read an article that cited a study showing 2/3 of American parents feel they are overwhelmed and need more help with childcare. Vance’s insultingly simplistic answer is exactly why electing unserious politicians like Vance and Trump would be tragic. We need people who devote themselves to service, to justice, and to actually caring about improving people’s lives.
Trump and Vance have the same reactionary plan to reduce the cost of child care - make someone else do it. Vance thinks Gumpa and Nana aren’t doing their share, the freeloaders, and Trump will have China pay for it. Ayup. It worked with Mexico and the Big Wall didn’t it?
And how much lap time does turmp provide his grandkids I wonder? I suppose for varnce it’ll be his menopausal wife who will be responsible for being the grandkids’ child care, not him, so he won’t ever have need to adjust his perspective.
No More Mister Nice Blog makes an interesting point that Trump's reply to the child care problem wasn't the spewing of a demented mind but the kind of arglebargle one throws out when one has no answer to a question yet much say something.
That said there are a number of limitations on who can or should be allowed in daycare. Firstly, they need a background check to weed out the child molesters, drug addicts, and temperamentally violent. Then there needs consideration for how many kids can one person care for (differing for diaper and post diaper children, consideration for enrichment activities (even zoo animals need enrichment activities), and a facility that is lead and asbestos free. And more. It's not like you can open up your house and take in a bunch of kids.
Its not like those red states that made it legal for people to open their own unregulated daycare centers as long as the proprietors claim to be Xtians have had any scandals involving horrifying abuse and neglect.
Works fine in Sweden for a parent of young kids to take in additional kids for day care. Presumably there is some kind of check. Parents are obviously checking as well. Often it's a neighbor. Never heard of any problems, but occasionally pedophiles get jobs in daycare centers and schools.
Worked quite well for Justice Clarence "Clearance" Thomas. Except that wasn't a relative, that was a Hitler-adoring billionaire who just might have his fingers in a lot of pies that come before the Supreme Pie-Eating Contest Judges...
Despite the exorbitant costs of Day Care, the workers get paid very little. Same with Elder Care. Almost as if we don’t value “women’s work” like changing diapers and wiping bottoms.
It's also hard physical labor - lots of cleaning when you're not wiping bottoms, pushing strollers, or trying to herd 18-20 toddlers. And there's a high incidence of disease, because everything goes in those little sucker's mouths no matter where it was thirty seconds ago. It is in no way a low-skilled job, even if the skills are easily acquired.
Ah, so America's at the point in Child Care development where Australia was a couple of decades ago.
1. Childcare services are lightly regulated and staffed by unqualified people, because how hard can it be??? I mean, women do it! For free!
2. Enough scandals and tragedies occur to make it plain that yes, SOME regulations and qualifications are necessary. Wages don't rise because it's women's work and always been free, they do it because they love kids!!
3. The quality of child care rises, and so do the prices. The wages of child care don't, because... you know why.
4. No one Wants to Work Anymore. Day care centres can't get staff, people can't get child care, businesses can't get get workers, poverty increases because parents can't work, THE ECONOMY SUFFERS, the wheels fall off the whole damn wagon
Australia's just now getting to #5, which is actually paying child care workers a rate that reflects their skills, education and the demands of the job. Because there's such a shortage of places that it's (gasp!) HURTING THE ECONOMY. I know, I know, THAT'S what's important here.
Sounds like America is currently still stuck between 1 and 2. And Vance(and Trump) are choking on the thought of PAYING someone to do Women's Work, which obviously a Woman should be doing for free because that's what women are FOR.
I guess he hasn't noticed that a lot of grandparents are still working themselves. See Boebert and Palin (dunno what she's doing, but she's grifting around somewhere) for example.
And don't forget: republicans want to raise the social security age to 70. Grandma and Grandpa aren't going to feel very chipper by then.
These fucking assholes ...
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the loaded cost of a single daycare provider is $22/hr (probably low, but the minimum wage is still a ridiculous $7.25), and that you need one per 4 kids (probably low, especially with pre-schoolers). Let's also assume that the daycare business is entitled to a 10% profit before taxes (also low), and that you can drop off and pick up your kid inside a 10-hour window (assuming you get a lunch break, at least).
That would put your WEEKLY child care bill at well over $300 per kid (and my guess is that's low) - serious money unless you've got a pretty good income.
As an old, I can attest that Gramma and Grampa love their grandkids dearly, but they've already raised kids and don't feel the need (or the energy) to do it again. Hell, they might even want to spend their retirement traveling, or otherwise being unavailable. And that's just assuming that a) they're around and b) they can be trusted with the kids.
I actually agree with the "it takes a village" concept - neighbors were trusted and expected to discipline me when I was a kid - but society has to support parents (and kids) where the family and/or community will not or can not.
Call me a socialist if you will, but my take is that society (ie government) has to take action and responsibility for affordable child care, regardless of what that fucking (Yale-graduate) hillbily and his patrons think.
Oh! Have RELATIVES take care of my children! I never thought of that! Jeez Louise, doesn't everyone who has such relatives already take advantage of that??!!? Did he come up with that groundbreaking idea all on his own, or was it part of his Ivy League curriculum?
Our niece ran a daycare when we had a small child. We did not get a discount, but our kid did get excellent care.
Which was worse- Vance's glib, I got mine so fuck you buddy answer, or Convict Donnie's brain salad arglebargle? We report, you decide.
It only sounds insane BECAUSE IT IS insane.
If there is one thing parents already know, it’s how to ask family to help with kids. My wife and I had 3 sets of grandparents to help when our son was born. Unfortunately, my dad was dying of cancer and my mom wasn’t up to taking our son for more than an hour or two for a playdate. The second set of grandparents, my wife’s father and his wife, were never interested in taking our son at all, ever. They visited our house to watch him play about once a month, but they never took him for a visit at all, and he’s almost 6 now. Fortunately, my wife’s mom and her husband are deeply involved in our son’s life. They took him for sleepovers about every 2 weeks, giving my wife and I much needed breathers. They take him places and have usually been there for us if we needed someone to watch him. We also paid a babysitter to sit with him about once a week for a date night break. But she graduated from college and moved on. I work from home and my wife is taking 6 months off while starting her own business.
We had just enough help with our one child to save our sanity and be able to attend to our lives and responsibilities. I can’t imagine how hard it is for working people with multiple kids. I read an article that cited a study showing 2/3 of American parents feel they are overwhelmed and need more help with childcare. Vance’s insultingly simplistic answer is exactly why electing unserious politicians like Vance and Trump would be tragic. We need people who devote themselves to service, to justice, and to actually caring about improving people’s lives.
Trump and Vance have the same reactionary plan to reduce the cost of child care - make someone else do it. Vance thinks Gumpa and Nana aren’t doing their share, the freeloaders, and Trump will have China pay for it. Ayup. It worked with Mexico and the Big Wall didn’t it?
And how much lap time does turmp provide his grandkids I wonder? I suppose for varnce it’ll be his menopausal wife who will be responsible for being the grandkids’ child care, not him, so he won’t ever have need to adjust his perspective.
like
No More Mister Nice Blog makes an interesting point that Trump's reply to the child care problem wasn't the spewing of a demented mind but the kind of arglebargle one throws out when one has no answer to a question yet much say something.
That said there are a number of limitations on who can or should be allowed in daycare. Firstly, they need a background check to weed out the child molesters, drug addicts, and temperamentally violent. Then there needs consideration for how many kids can one person care for (differing for diaper and post diaper children, consideration for enrichment activities (even zoo animals need enrichment activities), and a facility that is lead and asbestos free. And more. It's not like you can open up your house and take in a bunch of kids.
Its not like those red states that made it legal for people to open their own unregulated daycare centers as long as the proprietors claim to be Xtians have had any scandals involving horrifying abuse and neglect.
Works fine in Sweden for a parent of young kids to take in additional kids for day care. Presumably there is some kind of check. Parents are obviously checking as well. Often it's a neighbor. Never heard of any problems, but occasionally pedophiles get jobs in daycare centers and schools.
My three year old niece used to talk like that - her thoughts overran her ability to speak but then again she was three.
And she had thoughts.
"Again, plenty of licensed daycares are not staffed by overeducated Vassar grads with degrees in early childhood education."
I've had just about enough of your Vassar-bashing, young lady!
Ta, Gary. GOTV and VOTE. Harris-Walz 2024.
Worked quite well for Justice Clarence "Clearance" Thomas. Except that wasn't a relative, that was a Hitler-adoring billionaire who just might have his fingers in a lot of pies that come before the Supreme Pie-Eating Contest Judges...
College, college debt, side-hustle, ride share, tiny house, care giver for tiny kids, die from something curable in most other countries.
Despite the exorbitant costs of Day Care, the workers get paid very little. Same with Elder Care. Almost as if we don’t value “women’s work” like changing diapers and wiping bottoms.
Nailed it. Granted, it’s work that’s just not as important as hedge fund manager, so.
It's also hard physical labor - lots of cleaning when you're not wiping bottoms, pushing strollers, or trying to herd 18-20 toddlers. And there's a high incidence of disease, because everything goes in those little sucker's mouths no matter where it was thirty seconds ago. It is in no way a low-skilled job, even if the skills are easily acquired.
Well-said. It’s how I feel about most so-called “low-skill” jobs. What exactly is the criteria we are basing skill-level on? Besides gender.
Ah, so America's at the point in Child Care development where Australia was a couple of decades ago.
1. Childcare services are lightly regulated and staffed by unqualified people, because how hard can it be??? I mean, women do it! For free!
2. Enough scandals and tragedies occur to make it plain that yes, SOME regulations and qualifications are necessary. Wages don't rise because it's women's work and always been free, they do it because they love kids!!
3. The quality of child care rises, and so do the prices. The wages of child care don't, because... you know why.
4. No one Wants to Work Anymore. Day care centres can't get staff, people can't get child care, businesses can't get get workers, poverty increases because parents can't work, THE ECONOMY SUFFERS, the wheels fall off the whole damn wagon
Australia's just now getting to #5, which is actually paying child care workers a rate that reflects their skills, education and the demands of the job. Because there's such a shortage of places that it's (gasp!) HURTING THE ECONOMY. I know, I know, THAT'S what's important here.
Sounds like America is currently still stuck between 1 and 2. And Vance(and Trump) are choking on the thought of PAYING someone to do Women's Work, which obviously a Woman should be doing for free because that's what women are FOR.
like
I guess he hasn't noticed that a lot of grandparents are still working themselves. See Boebert and Palin (dunno what she's doing, but she's grifting around somewhere) for example.