# Child Care Reform



## MayzieMay (Apr 11, 2007)

My daughter will be starting day care soon and I'm appalled at the cost. I'm sure many of you are in the same boat. I've been doing as much research as possible to find less expensive alternatives, but have had no luck so far. I read that the average family spends 25% of their income on "sub-par care".

Luckily, there are actions we can take. A group called MomsRising is taking on this task. There is much we can do without too much effort. I guess I can only hope to initiate child care reform before I consider having child number 2.

For more information on the state of child care now and what can be done to make a change, see the site below.

http://www.divinecaroline.com/articl...P=KNC-DC_YSM_6


----------



## cutekid (Aug 5, 2004)

I am a member of moms rising. My problem with it is that's its focused on reforming a system that needs to be abolished all together. Instead of subsidies and tax breaks, how about getting paid for 2 years just for having a child. This would insure that childern are taken care of by the highest quality child care provider (their own mother)

Denise


----------



## gamecaco4 (Sep 15, 2006)

As appealing as being paid to stay at home is, I just dont ever see it happening in this country. I was just saying the other day that its insane that SAHP's should get paid cash to stay home because my family is struggling financially because I refuse to purchase another vehicle (plus insurance, gas, repairs, etc) plus pay someone else to take care of my child while I work.

ITA that the daycare rates are out of control. It is excellent pay for the provider, but a huge chunk of the working parents check when Im sure they would rather be at home with their little ones instead of at work.


----------



## MilkbarMom (Mar 28, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gamecaco4* 
It is excellent pay for the provider, but a huge chunk of the working parents check when Im sure they would rather be at home with their little ones instead of at work.

I have to disagree with this statement. Where I live, childcare fees average between $3-$4/hour or $120-$130 a week. As a family child care provider, this is hardly "excellent pay".

Out of these fees, I pay for:
Food for meals and snacks
extra utility expenses
extra toiletry expenses...toilet paper, paper towels, etc.
extra cleaning supplies
new toys
insurance
arts and craft supplies

So even with multiple children, it is hard some months to even break even.


----------



## Aeress (Jan 25, 2005)

Being someone who payed for care and someone who got payed for caring, I can say that no one is making money in daycare. I paid an at home daycare the going rate which was $3.50 an hr. I as a teacher of 2 yr olds, was making 9.50 an hr. I have two children, so the math just doesn't make sense.

My concern with the state giving more money for daycare is that the states will continue to push laws and regualtions that make it harder to provide quality care harder.


----------



## cutekid (Aug 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gamecaco4* 
As appealing as being paid to stay at home is, I just dont ever see it happening in this country. I was just saying the other day that its insane that SAHP's should get paid cash to stay home because my family is struggling financially because I refuse to purchase another vehicle (plus insurance, gas, repairs, etc) plus pay someone else to take care of my child while I work.
.

The reality is, consumers are fine with the way things are. The large majority of parents aren't going to take strike against the way things are currently. Its truly sad the financial burden and infant can bring with both parents think they must work. If the majority of parents pushed for it, and took a huge finacial hit to see to it that future parents got paid to stay at home for two years, then things would be differnt.

Denise


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

I don't see how getting paid to stay home for two years solves the problem. Not all moms want to stay home, and in any case, what happens after the child is two? I stayed home till DD was 2.5, but I'm paying through the nose for daycare now...


----------



## UptownZoo (May 11, 2003)

Parents can't afford to pay.
Providers can't afford to stay.
There's GOT to be a better way!

NO ONE is getting rich off of child care. It's very low-wage work, which is a large part of the reason that the turn-over is so high, which in turn is largely the cause of the miserable state of most child care in the US. Well-educated, well-trained workers leave for more lucrative work. We need a new system that combines excellent, subsidized care with long-term paid maternity/paternity leaves.


----------



## PiePie (Oct 2, 2006)

those of you interested in this topic may want to check out my poll in working mamas: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...52#post8024452


----------



## DTmama1 (Jan 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MilkbarMom* 
I have to disagree with this statement. Where I live, childcare fees average between $3-$4/hour or $120-$130 a week. As a family child care provider, this is hardly "excellent pay".

Out of these fees, I pay for:
Food for meals and snacks
extra utility expenses
extra toiletry expenses...toilet paper, paper towels, etc.
extra cleaning supplies
new toys
insurance
arts and craft supplies

So even with multiple children, it is hard some months to even break even.

I agree with that. I'm also a home daycare provider. The individual rate per child for me- comes out to about $2.50 an hour for fulltime. I'm in a state that allows me to have enough kids to actually make a living, but I'll never get rich doing it.


----------



## cutekid (Aug 5, 2004)

First, Mothers and Fathers would have another option. There are many women who would like to stay home, and cannot because of finances. The reason I said two years is because, by the time a child is three, the cost of pre-school is lower than caring for an infant or unpotty trained child. I have heard potty training night mares all in an effort to save $50 or so dollar a month. Also, could you imagine how much money would be saved on Childcare for parents if they didn't have to pya for the first two years.

Its extremely sad at how much childcare workers get paid. My Sister was a daycare worker. She loved her work, but she hated her pay check. She got paid $7/hr. I think daycare workers deserve a living wage..atleast one they could subsist off of, without much goverment assistance. I think the low pay, is much of the reason for high turn overs. Which, from my understanding of attatchment theory isn';t good for small childern under the age of three.

Denise


----------



## AlexisT (May 6, 2007)

Yep, day care workers are not making a fortune. The only way to make it cheaper would be to have government subsidised creches as they do in much of Europe. In Scandinavia being a nursery nurse is a respected, well paid job, which is why women there go back to work (they have a year or more paid leave, but most women go back).

Where I live, day care for an infant is £260 a week. (over $500). But a childminder (home day care) can only have 1 child under 1 and a total of 3 under 3. So they NEED to charge high fees to make anything. (I live in outer north London, it can be £300 in central London.)


----------



## 2babes:-) (May 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cutekid* 
Instead of subsidies and tax breaks, how about getting paid for 2 years just for having a child. This would insure that childern are taken care of by the highest quality child care provider (their own mother)

Denise

Sorry but why should we be paid for having children?


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

ITA that the daycare rates are out of control. It is excellent pay for the provider, but a huge chunk of the working parents check when Im sure they would rather be at home with their little ones instead of at work
I don't know any home daycare providers or daycare center workers who make excellent pay. The women I know who work in commercial daycare centers make roughly $7/hour, often less.


----------



## cutekid (Aug 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2babes* 
Sorry but why should we be paid for having children?

Well, I don't think we should, but with teh cost of everything these days why not. So many families depend on the double income, that its just an incentive to stay home. There's A LOT of evidence that childern are better off, when they stay at home with their mothers. (I'll dig around for it if you'd like to see that) I think our society would be better off if more mothers could stay at home or atleast afford daycare that didn't include being put in an enviroment with 8 other infants. (that's the most I'ev heard for an infant room at a daycare)

Of course you wouldn't be millionaires for spitting out kids, it would be like making minimum wage, and you would have to of worked before having childern So a woman like me, who wasn't working when I had my son wouldn't get anything. Ya know.

Just a few thoughts in my eutopian mind.

Denise


----------



## UptownZoo (May 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2babes* 
Sorry but why should we be paid for having children?

Because children are not pets. The theory that children are a luxury and you should only have them if you can afford them, and if you can't, well tough sh!t, is absolutely insane. We abandon families to live or die by their own resources, with few assistance opportunities available. The primary assistance available to most families is public school, and we all know how miserable that is, especially in the most economically challenged areas.

Now, if we really, extremely, outrageously broadened and deepened what is available to families, think how much money we would SAVE!!! Yes, save. Research what we spend on prisons, public drug rehab programs, parole, etc. The impact we could have if we supported young families is enormous. If every family had several options from which to choose, all economically feasible, then most families would have more satisfied parents, less stressed parents (because being unable to pay the bills, buy medical care, feed the kids, etc., is pretty [email protected] stressful), and would be better off in general. If a parent could stay home and get some money for that, then many parents who work and hate it could stay home. On the flip side, many parents who can't afford to work but want to (I'm in this camp) because child care costs outstrip earnings would benefit from gov't funded, high quality child care and more flexible work schedules.

My family is typical of many families. What would be ideal for us would be for both DH and I to work 25-30 hours a week, with our youngest in a preschool setting that's as good as the ones in the UK and the Scandinavian countries, and our older kids in a wide variety of interesting after-school activities. The US economy doesn't work that way. To get health insurance, DH has to work full-time. Until 20-30 years ago, full-time meant 40 hours a week. My DH, in a very good week, works about 50 hours, and when it gets good and busy, as many as 65 hours. I don't have enough earning potential to pay for all the child care and after-school care that my employment would require, esp. with all the vacations and holidays that the kids have from school.

But back to the kids as pets problem. We all benefit when kids do well. They do better in school. They commit fewer crimes. They're less likely to do drugs or engage in other high-risk behavior. They're more likely to become gainfully employed, pay taxes, buy a house, and in all other ways to be part of the economy. And in turn, they're more likely to raise well-balanced kids. And when we need a doctor, a real estate agent, a roofer, or a grocer, there are educated people available to fill those jobs.

It's not about paying people to have kids. It's about supporting people in raising their kids well.


----------



## cutekid (Aug 5, 2004)

:

Denise


----------



## cecily (Jan 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2babes* 
Sorry but why should we be paid for having children?

Because raising children is important work that benefits society! I find it odd that we're expected to work as parents for free or pay someone else to do what we would otherwise be doing ourselves. And what UptownZoo says rings true, for sure.


----------



## 2babes:-) (May 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cecily* 
Because raising children is important work that benefits society! I find it odd that we're expected to work as parents for free or pay someone else to do what we would otherwise be doing ourselves. And what UptownZoo says rings true, for sure.

But society doesn't ask us to be parents does it? Do you go into the job centre and say "I'd like a job as a parent please"?

If you start paying people for having children it will increase the current problem of people having children to get a bigger house/ more child benefit/ etc... etc...

I have never (and will never) understand why people have children when they can't afford them!


----------



## cecily (Jan 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2babes* 
But society doesn't ask us to be parents does it? Do you go into the job centre and say "I'd like a job as a parent please"?

If you start paying people for having children it will increase the current problem of people having children to get a bigger house/ more child benefit/ etc... etc...

I have never (and will never) understand why people have children when they can't afford them!

I'm not allowed to ask for a job as a parent, and to me that's a problem. I can get paid to take care of someone else's children and not my own.

I think of being able to afford children as being beside the point. With Uptown Zoo, I do not think of children as a luxury. The next generation is a necessity. Raising the next generation must be done. It is better done by parents.

I like the idea of education credit for at-home parents. Pay off their student loans, or store up credits for future education.


----------



## cutekid (Aug 5, 2004)

Childern are not a Luxury. As for "affording" childern. Here's an antedote, I know a lady who worked for 7 years to get to a certain salary before having a child. She did this so she could "afford" childcare, and health care for the new baby. Her husband worked too. Between the two of them, they were a nice mid-middle class couple. Well disaster struck. Not long after thier baby was born her husband got injured at work and need surgery..which he had to pay for out of pocket. In the mean time, he couldn't take care of the baby while she was at work becaues he's physically disabled. So they opt to send him to daycare. With her salary alone, they do not qualify for goverment assistance. Yet, they struggle to keep the bills paid. Its been almsot two years and they are still struggling.

Another antedote for you. A woman and her partner decide to have a child while they are both still in school. They make about $15,000 a year with goverment benefits included. Its a HARD HARD difficult life, being broke college students with a kid, but it was their choice. There comes a day when they absolutely need childcare so they can both attend class for about 3 hours a week. They had managed without any childcare for two years..but now they needed it, and because neither worked, they didn't qualify for assistance. O...and the child costs them a minimum amount because they CHOOSE to breastfeed and cloth diaper..and only use the clothing that been given to them. so in essense they could afford to have a child, until something CHANGED!!! That's right things change..its called life.

Denise


----------



## maymorales (Dec 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2babes* 
But society doesn't ask us to be parents does it? Do you go into the job centre and say "I'd like a job as a parent please"?

Society may not ask us explicitly but it sure does implicitly. "when are you guys going to start your family?" "You've been married for two years, so when are the munchkins coming?" etc.
Why do we get child care tax credit? Because the government promotes a particular social culture: man+wife+2 kids who own their own house.

IMO, I think ALL parents should apply to become a parent so the knuckle heads out there who leave their children in a hot car during a heat wave will be obliterated. But that's not realistic.

Reform needs to happen. For sure. Not enough single income families can make it these days. And then on the flip side, not enough child care providers are paid properly and fairly to compensate for the work they do. Think about it, how much would you pay yourself to take care of your children if you're, say, some third-party employer? The quality care you give, and such.

wanna continue but ds is up from nap...


----------



## 2babes:-) (May 15, 2007)

So what about people who cannot have children? Isn't it discrimination against them?

"Sorry we can't pay you as you can't have children". Yeah that works.

It was my and my partner's decision to have our children. I doo't then expect hand outs from the goverment to subsidise a lifestyle choice we made.


----------



## cecily (Jan 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2babes* 
So what about people who cannot have children? Isn't it discrimination against them?

"Sorry we can't pay you as you can't have children". Yeah that works.

It was my and my partner's decision to have our children. I doo't then expect hand outs from the goverment to subsidise a lifestyle choice we made.

Parents caring for their adopted children should be paid too. And I think it's scandalous that adoption is so expensive to begin with -- why make it difficult to do something so helpful as caring for a child?

In my utopian dreamland certainly people could opt out of being paid if they wished. That way folks who *want* to volunteer would be allowed to do so, and those who wish to be paid for their hard work could do so as well.


----------



## 2babes:-) (May 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cecily* 
Parents caring for their adopted children should be paid too.

I actually meant those who chose not to have children at all.


----------



## cecily (Jan 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2babes* 
I actually meant those who chose not to have children at all.

Then I don't see the discrimination -- if you choose not to do work, you choose not to get paid for it. Not getting paid for choosing not to parent seems pretty nondiscriminatory to me.


----------



## 2babes:-) (May 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cecily* 
Then I don't see the discrimination -- if you choose not to do work, you choose not to get paid for it. Not getting paid for choosing not to parent seems pretty nondiscriminatory to me.

Proof that I was tired when I wrote that as it's not what I meant at all!

I meant those who want to have children but can't but do not adopt for whatever reason (maybe do not meet the criteria)

And people who choose not to work still get paid benefits anyway so technically you can get paid for choosing to do nothing.


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2babes* 
And people who choose not to work still get paid benefits anyway so technically you can get paid for choosing to do nothing.

Not everyone qualifies for things like that. I know a few people who are legitimately undeniably disabled and have been trying to years to get social security but can't get it, meanwhile living off family and community charity.


----------



## ILoveMyBabyBird (Sep 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UptownZoo* 
Parents can't afford to pay.
Providers can't afford to stay.
There's GOT to be a better way!

NO ONE is getting rich off of child care. It's very low-wage work, which is a large part of the reason that the turn-over is so high, which in turn is largely the cause of the miserable state of most child care in the US. Well-educated, well-trained workers leave for more lucrative work. We need a new system that combines excellent, subsidized care with long-term paid maternity/paternity leaves.

---No one in the child care industry is getting rich, but the big corporations that the parents work for are. I tell dh I refuse to work for some company for 12$ an hour just to have ds in daycare and spend the majority of what I make on his childcare. I worked for a daycare for over three years and got paid 5.75 an hour, so yes no one there gets a nice wage. I really don't know what would be the best way to solve the problem, but after working in a daycare I decided it is in the best interest of my child(ren) that I stay home as long at it is possible.


----------



## mistymama (Oct 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2babes* 
But society doesn't ask us to be parents does it? Do you go into the job centre and say "I'd like a job as a parent please"?

If you start paying people for having children it will increase the current problem of people having children to get a bigger house/ more child benefit/ etc... etc...

I have never (and will never) understand why people have children when they can't afford them!

Have you ever considered that sometimes there is more to the story? I waited to have my son until I was married ... I owned a big home and had two new cars. We were financially stable and I was able to only work part time and bring my son with me, life was perfect! Until I found out my husband was lying, cheating and had no interest in stopping. I lost everything and became a single Mother, struggling. No, I didn't use govt benefits because I had a supportive family that helped me get on my feet. But I can still feel my spine prickle when someone says, "Don't have kids unless you can afford them" .. I never expected to have to struggle like I did, try to be a single Mom, earn a living and keep my son out of daycare.

He's now 4.5, I'm getting remarried and have a wonderful career .. but never again will I judge. You just don't know what has happened to a person and it's certainly not our place to judge their choice to have a child.


----------

