I think it's unfair to discuss subsidizing child care only for parents working outside the home. If we go that route, then families that sacrifice a pay check to have a parent home with the kids also deserve some kind of break.
39
If I had stayed home from the birth of my first child until my second was school aged (a period of nine years), the cost to me would have been approximately $1.1 million in accumulated salary, plus loss of those years' employer contributions to my retirement account, and any interest I could have earned on all of that. Plus lower salary over time due to the loss of years of seniority raises. And that's with an income in the low $100K's, which is nothing to write home about in New York City's cost of living. The tax base obviously does better by having me work. And it would be a drastic difference to the financial security of my household and my eventual (god willing) retirement.
34
We need public full time prekindergarten everywhere in the USA, starting at age 3, after toilet training. This is not a universal right yet, but it is recognized in some places. The time from birth to 6 weeks is covered by most jobs, but not all. We need universal parents' rights to stay home with their newborns at least until 6 months at least until the baby is sleeping through the night. The time between 6 months to age 3 needs a sliding scale of cost based daycare income tax credit no matter what type of daycare - home, church, temple, social service agency, or private business.
Also,business that provide in house daycare needs tax credits, too, as an incentive. Is this socialist democracy? So what, if it benefits the majority no matter what income or political party.
Also,business that provide in house daycare needs tax credits, too, as an incentive. Is this socialist democracy? So what, if it benefits the majority no matter what income or political party.
33
The study found the United States spends 0.4 percent of G.D.P. on child care, the lowest level among industrialized countries and half the average. i.e. Mothers/Fathers are staying home and caring for their own children.
The reason conservatives are resistant to increases in government support for day care is because it only benefits people who think it's best to work and pay other people to care for your children. If Liberals want movement on this they need to push for increases to the Child Tax Credit rather than the Childcare Tax Credit or other subsidies for daycare.
The reason conservatives are resistant to increases in government support for day care is because it only benefits people who think it's best to work and pay other people to care for your children. If Liberals want movement on this they need to push for increases to the Child Tax Credit rather than the Childcare Tax Credit or other subsidies for daycare.
10
As an American living in Montreal, Quebec, I had the incredible fortune of $5/day French-style, educational day care for my 2 daughters, now teens. And that included outings, meals and diapers! The “garderie” had its own cook, who served scrumptious, healthful meals. The “pouponnière” (nursery) was a loving, peaceful place for the babies. The older children benefited from educational games and outings. My kids adored it there. It’s now $7.50/day for lower income with a sliding scale up to $20/day for the wealthy, with tax deductions--still a huge bargain. I feel for American parents who don’t have even a hope for this kind of system. The Republican proposal for tiny tax breaks is ridiculous, since most can’t afford to fork out $16K/year upfront. The U.S. really needs to start acting in the long-term.
48
Please don't call it "child care" or "day care" unless that's all it is. Federally funded programs like Head Start and Early Head Start are supposed to be early childhood development centers. The brain develops more-rapidly during the first five years of life than at any other time in a human being's life. Every child deserves early childhood development opportunities before entering kindergarten.
32
How come other nations can afford quality day care for all children - -but the richest nation the world has ever seen cannot? Same goes for free health care and college education. I thought we were supposed to be the greatest. I guess "greatest" means military might and nothing else.
56
Higher income earners in Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries pay a higher tax rate than high-income people in the US, where the wealthy have beaten down their tax rate over the last three decades. That is how the Scandinavian countries are able to pay for the social programs like child care and health care.
17
The marginal tax rates for high income Swedes is slightly higher than those in the US (barely so if you live in a high tax state like California). But, the distinguishing feature if the Swedish tax structure is how much higher it taxes middle income families compared to the US. The Swedes pay for their social programs by taxing almost ALL of their citizens at comparatively high rates.
17
Fs is correct. Americans of all political hues need to be better informed about the taxation systems of other nation states, especially the countries of Scandinavia.
https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-governmen...
https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-governmen...
12
Republicans promote strongly in the US's current style of hyper consumption capitalism, yet rail against poor decision-making by the poor and middle-class parents they depend on for profits. You can't have a child supporting culture and a house full of baubles at the same time. If you want people to spend, make it feasible for them to work.
6
Please keep in mind that these costs are per child. After the first child, costs practically multiply exponentially. I've never heard of a day care center that gives discounts for second and third children!
5
Funny. Most day cares I know about do give discounts for second and third children.
18
Reading over the comments here, and talking with my own teenage daughter last night, I realize that the reason people feel so strident, and often don't respect each other's choices, is because supporting public daycare ultimately comes down to an allocation of (huge) financial resources and that begs the question about how this should best be done.
People who believe that some sort of relative, or even nanny, is best, generally want lower taxes. If they want public spending, they want subsidies for all parents.
Many folks want all mothers to work some, or be able to work, so they are not vulnerable to divorce and abuse. I understand this. Although, does a woman with two little kids need school AND work when kids are BABIES, using a public subsidy (i.e. in article)??
From wanting all mothers to be able to work, though, we go to wanting all women to achieve equality with men -- wanting power, money, lean in feminism. A married man with a stay at home wife can out compete working mothers -- I believe this is at the heart of the vehemence about stay at home mothers being from another era. In a world where all parents work, and fathers take care of kids too, women can achieve equal access to power. In a world where only a portion of mothers work, these mothers are handicapped in the toughest of environments.
Are we striving for women's safety and fulfillment? Or for some rich women to get access to the raw power of the most competitive men?
People who believe that some sort of relative, or even nanny, is best, generally want lower taxes. If they want public spending, they want subsidies for all parents.
Many folks want all mothers to work some, or be able to work, so they are not vulnerable to divorce and abuse. I understand this. Although, does a woman with two little kids need school AND work when kids are BABIES, using a public subsidy (i.e. in article)??
From wanting all mothers to be able to work, though, we go to wanting all women to achieve equality with men -- wanting power, money, lean in feminism. A married man with a stay at home wife can out compete working mothers -- I believe this is at the heart of the vehemence about stay at home mothers being from another era. In a world where all parents work, and fathers take care of kids too, women can achieve equal access to power. In a world where only a portion of mothers work, these mothers are handicapped in the toughest of environments.
Are we striving for women's safety and fulfillment? Or for some rich women to get access to the raw power of the most competitive men?
16
Most people in school need to work to support themselves, let alone children. Yes, a mother of two young kids can do both work and school. Her husband only earns 35,000/year, which would make it very difficult to support a family of four. So the mother works while attending school to work for a degree that should open up better-paying jobs and better opportunities. The article managed to find a family who seem to be a perfect real-life example of the study's findings.
6
I should add that universal childcare would help both the women seeking some level of security in case their husbands died or divorced them and also the highly ambitious women who want to level the playing field with the men that have stay-at-home wives.
10
Thoughtful comment, C. I would say at minimum we are striving for women's safety. Another type of woman will want the power that can only come from a seat at the big boy table- little pink collar jobs won't do. These women are ambitious, but I wouldn't say they are necessarily rich. A special venom is reserved for these women who DARE to assert themselves in a man's world. The irony is that the venom is typically not from the men, it's from the women who have settled for less and are insecure about it.
5
Maybe this kind of economic impact will be persuasive to those decision-makers who are unmoved by the difficulties faced by families and the importance of healthy child development to our society. But if they think tax credits are the way to go, it is unlikely that the effects noted in this report wlil result.
10
Raising children is brutal. Providing the basics is hard enough - doctors appointments, dentist appointments, shopping, sick days, sports activities, music lessons, half-day school days, and snow days. It's exhausting in part because a lot of it is deathly boring, requiring half a brain cell to keep alert for one's children's efforts to win a Darwin Award, and prevents use of one's higher cognitive functions, which are so rewarding. I don't know if it takes a village, but it definitely takes a bartender. We need to make raising children a little more user friendly.
39
Perhaps we should even acknowledge that it's a full time job, and the most important one to the survival of our species. Outsourcing core functions is a sign of a dying business. No different with a society.
21
Having a parent home when children are very young is truly a worthwhile thing; however, for some parents, the financial cost is unbearable.
We know young couples in Sweden, where the mother and father take successive nine-month parental leaves, at 90% of salary. Besides the psychological value to each parent, the children will be well-grounded and comfortable in their own skin--for a lifetime. The benefits to society outweigh the expense.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
We know young couples in Sweden, where the mother and father take successive nine-month parental leaves, at 90% of salary. Besides the psychological value to each parent, the children will be well-grounded and comfortable in their own skin--for a lifetime. The benefits to society outweigh the expense.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
36
Only in America is having children a sentence of poverty. Child care payment is a struggle even for the middle class. Our children are the future taxpayers, future workers. We must invest in them across the entire economic spectrum. All our children deserve an excellent start in life.
41
We can import all the future workers/consumers we ever will need, as adults. No need to overtax the rest of us to finance individual lifestyle choices. We simply don't need homegrown future citizens.
Nor do we need an ever-expanding human population. Quite the reverse.
Nor do we need an ever-expanding human population. Quite the reverse.
8
The studies cited in this article are all quantitative primarily conducted by economists and developmental psychologists. While they have their strengths, they also have limits compared to intensive qualitative and ethnography studies which have captured important and nuanced findings regarding comparative early education and family policies. For example, one of the studies involving survey data states the 70% of Italians say preschool children would be better off at home with mothers. I am not sure how preschool was defined for the respondents but with nearly universal attendance of 3-5 year old children in government supported preschool programs in Italy these data are clearly flawed. This finding might hold for attitudes regarding children less than a year old in Italy but with a good family leave policy most children of this age do not need child care in Italy. I have spent over 30 years doing research on early education in Italy and in no way can this be correct. See Corsaro & Molinari, I Compagni: Understanding Children's Transition from Preschool to Elementary School. NY: Teachers College Press, 2005 for qualitative research and references to other studies to complement the studies discussed in this article.
12
I am so happy to see an argument for deeper, more nuanced, qualitative research.
5
america aint got no money for child care
them cruise missiles aint cheap, ya know
71
Here's an idea - let's go back to family values where the grandparents are available to take care of the grandchildren.
Make it work across the board and stop discriminating against hard pressed middle class parents. There is a higher cost of living associated with suburban life that government statistics get wrong. It is small and petty to not aim for universal childcare... and to constantly assume that the other guy is loaded.
28
Sweden provides high quality child care for all of its citizens with parents paying a small proportion of the actual cost. They also provide 480 days of paid parental leave (at 80% salary) per couple per child. They also have one of the highest living standards in the world, nearly the longest life expectancy, and universal healthcare.
They have one of the most highly educated populations in the world too. Hmm ... highly educated, affordable daycare, parental leave, universal healthcare, high standard of living. You think these things could be somehow, you know ... connected?
I hope someday we learn that the lack of truly beneficial social programs harms our society In the long run, makes it less competetive, and prevents people from reaching their full potential. Then vote appropriately.
You read it: each dollar invested yields $7 in return over time.
They have one of the most highly educated populations in the world too. Hmm ... highly educated, affordable daycare, parental leave, universal healthcare, high standard of living. You think these things could be somehow, you know ... connected?
I hope someday we learn that the lack of truly beneficial social programs harms our society In the long run, makes it less competetive, and prevents people from reaching their full potential. Then vote appropriately.
You read it: each dollar invested yields $7 in return over time.
79
It drives me a little bit bonkers when people constantly compare US public services to Sweden (or other Scandinavian countries, for that matter). The United States is vastly larger than any of these countries, and to presume that we could simply enact similar social programs with consistently high-quality is folly. The size of our nation is a significant barrier that such comparisons ignore. Does that mean we should throw our hands up in defeat? No, but we must acknowledge that the answer is not so simple as just following Sweden's lead. Implementing nationwide universal childcare of an acceptable quality is a massive undertaking.
12
But it can be done.
15
Universal daycare would create jobs. Not everyone is cut out to be a daycare provider but those who love kids would see it as a career. Also, this would allow for more regulations to ensure that kids receive quality care that prepares them for school.
Young women who might be considering an abortion would be more likely to keep their child because theywould feel like they have options and support. Abortions are had for many reasons but a lot of women have one because they can't afford to have a child or they recognize that having a child might prevent them from obtaining higher education.
I don't understand our attitude towards programs that support families. We complain about poverty and gang shootings but refuse to implement policies that would solve these issues. If parents had a safe place for their children to go while they were working that didn't cost an arm and a leg we could change the fate of these children.
American individualism and personal responsibility sounds great. But countries who have strong social safety policies are leaving us behind. Their parents can afford to be creative and take risks because they don't have to worry about their choices hurting their children.
Young women who might be considering an abortion would be more likely to keep their child because theywould feel like they have options and support. Abortions are had for many reasons but a lot of women have one because they can't afford to have a child or they recognize that having a child might prevent them from obtaining higher education.
I don't understand our attitude towards programs that support families. We complain about poverty and gang shootings but refuse to implement policies that would solve these issues. If parents had a safe place for their children to go while they were working that didn't cost an arm and a leg we could change the fate of these children.
American individualism and personal responsibility sounds great. But countries who have strong social safety policies are leaving us behind. Their parents can afford to be creative and take risks because they don't have to worry about their choices hurting their children.
58
So many programs sound like a great idea...until you realize that (once again) the only ones who will be helped are those who aren't in need.
Kudos to Ms Trump for backing tax help for poor, struggling families scraping by on a paltry half million a year!!
Kudos to Ms Trump for backing tax help for poor, struggling families scraping by on a paltry half million a year!!
24
Exactly!
3
I live in Norway where we have guaranteed child care for all children under 3 years old at low heavily subsidized rates. As someone you didn't like pre-school as a child and has been quite skeptical towards it for much of my adult life, I got to say having my own children and sending them to pre-school from 1 years of age profoundly changed my perspective on it.
In todays society, people don't have that many kids often. This means that in our case as I would believe would be the case for many other parents, we didn't know all that much about child raising when we became first time parents.
I felt that having our first child in pre-school was a tremendous help as these are professionals with years of experience with children who can help you a lot. There is a systematic and very organized approach to things that most fresh parents will lack. They got e.g. charts and pictures showing you how to dress your child for winter. What layers to put on, what fabrics to use etc. They have a system for teaching the kids how to eat properly and what sort of food they can eat at various ages. They record all the times they poop. They have advice on food to eat etc. So pre-school often served as a template for what we would do at home with the kids.
Socializing is also an important thing. I don't think our kids would have gotten as used to being around other kids without pre-school. And they learn how to get along, sharing and taking turns. Important group behavior to know before school.
In todays society, people don't have that many kids often. This means that in our case as I would believe would be the case for many other parents, we didn't know all that much about child raising when we became first time parents.
I felt that having our first child in pre-school was a tremendous help as these are professionals with years of experience with children who can help you a lot. There is a systematic and very organized approach to things that most fresh parents will lack. They got e.g. charts and pictures showing you how to dress your child for winter. What layers to put on, what fabrics to use etc. They have a system for teaching the kids how to eat properly and what sort of food they can eat at various ages. They record all the times they poop. They have advice on food to eat etc. So pre-school often served as a template for what we would do at home with the kids.
Socializing is also an important thing. I don't think our kids would have gotten as used to being around other kids without pre-school. And they learn how to get along, sharing and taking turns. Important group behavior to know before school.
62
Sorry, but this article refutes the research the NYT summarized about a month ago ("The Increasing Significance of the Decline of Men," 3/16/17).
That article references a study (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/imhj.21616/full, Schore, 2016) in which boys suffered developmentally from early childcare, compared to those who were able to stay at home and bond with a parent over a longer maturation phase.
So which is it? According to that other article's research, this child care model HARMS boys.
That article references a study (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/imhj.21616/full, Schore, 2016) in which boys suffered developmentally from early childcare, compared to those who were able to stay at home and bond with a parent over a longer maturation phase.
So which is it? According to that other article's research, this child care model HARMS boys.
10
That's social science for you.
Child care is an expense of working and just as the hedge fund manager writes off the cost of his/her office, auto, internet, etc. so should the single working parent/student or married working couple/students.
We have no problem taking huge amounts of tax from working parents yet we do not allow them to accurately take into account the expense of working.
We have no problem taking huge amounts of tax from working parents yet we do not allow them to accurately take into account the expense of working.
24
Once again, the title annoys me. How child care enriches mothers, and especially the sons they raise. I'm sure it enriches the whole family, but there seems to be a never ending focus on moms. Why can't the title be how child care enriches the entire family, and there are extra benefits for mothers and sons?
12
The article, if you read it, talks about a number of research studies which showed the effect of disadvantage on boys being higher than on girls over time. The headline relates to these research studies which the article is about. The last few paragraphs are very important - how the US spends the least on childcare of all industrialised countries in the world and how Trump's childcare proposals only benefit poorer families by perhaps $20 a year or less. Good article!
6
I agree with all of that - but to frame the article as a an issue for the "mother" , rather than the whole family is annoying. People then view childcare as an issue only for mom and not for the community.
6
One thing forgotten in this whole discussion of the real and implied costs of this industry is that outside of densely-populated areas (areas that were mostly Trump voters), the opportunity to make better economies of scale or consolidate resources is impeded my geography. The more rural areas get short-shrugged again. How do we fix that?
8
The progressive approach is to tell them to move to the city.
Are you claiming that a family receiving $20k in childcare subsidies, $20k in heath insurance/care subsidies, $xx housing $xx food, $x transportation, and has a negative Federal tax rate, is "poor"??
6
I didn't see any of those numbers in the article, Where are you getting them?
11
Reproducing is the default state of reproduction-age people. Not having kids requires effort, access, education, money, and somehow beating the odds, no matter how good your contraception method is. It's not quite as much of a choice as these uppity, right-wing dopes seem to think, and ironically they are the ones working to limit access to reproductive services, prohibit birth control coverage, and eliminate sexual, relationship and health education. They also somehow think it's solely up to the woman to deal with contraception and all the related costs, as if they are the only ones who derive a benefit. If there's someone in the picture who is doing the impregnating, they do in fact benefit mightily from access to these same services. I don't see too much legislation flying around regarding chasing down deadbeat dads, encouraging male sterilization, supporting male parental leave, boosting male participation in early childhood education and care. Oh right, it's more important to shame women for being human, being sexual, and "costing" society.
67
1.) It is very poor study design to lump together children receiving poor care with those that stay at home. The three groups must be separated and "poor" are defined.
2.) Poor people don't benefit from tax credit; they don't pay much in taxes. Trump's program would help middle class and rich parents.
2.) Poor people don't benefit from tax credit; they don't pay much in taxes. Trump's program would help middle class and rich parents.
15
solid point.
5
A tax credit CAN be made "refundable": that means you receive the credit in the form of a payment to you in the amount of the credit, minus any taxes you may owe. So if you don't owe any taxes, you get the entire credit paid to you. That is how the Earned Income Credit works now.
Before I became a mom, I thought I would like to maybe stay at home, at least for a while. I looked down on "daycare kids" and planned to put my career on hold to be a mom.
Fast forward about a decade, and I am now the parent of an amazing two-year-old little girl. Because I ended up being the breadwinner for our family (something I am now quite proud of), I was not able to stay home longer than my three-month maternity leave. And guess what? My kid is also a daycare kid. And she loves it! Granted, she attends a great place with wonderful, caring teachers. She is also firmly attached to both of her parents and we love to spend just about every free minute we have with her.
If every child could have access to the kind of care our daughter has, our society would be infinitely better off. I applaud stay-at-home parents but many of us -- myself included -- are not cut out for the job. More low-income and working-class families should also be able to make this decision based on what is best for their family and have access to high-quality daycare.
Fast forward about a decade, and I am now the parent of an amazing two-year-old little girl. Because I ended up being the breadwinner for our family (something I am now quite proud of), I was not able to stay home longer than my three-month maternity leave. And guess what? My kid is also a daycare kid. And she loves it! Granted, she attends a great place with wonderful, caring teachers. She is also firmly attached to both of her parents and we love to spend just about every free minute we have with her.
If every child could have access to the kind of care our daughter has, our society would be infinitely better off. I applaud stay-at-home parents but many of us -- myself included -- are not cut out for the job. More low-income and working-class families should also be able to make this decision based on what is best for their family and have access to high-quality daycare.
20
Looks like total sample size for this study is a few hundred students (about half of whom are in treatment); comparable Head Start study looked at ~4600 students (https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/executive_summary_final... and found essentially no effects lasting through the end of first grade. Hard to look at both of these studies and conclude that childcare "works". Still, if there were a plausible plan to launch wraparound services like those offered in NC -- substantially more involved than those offered by Head Start, in general -- that'd be an evaluation we'd all benefit from seeing.
3
Head Start is not considered 'high quality' for the most part. That is the difference.
4
The studies your refer to do not take into account the quality and staffing, turn over rates of children (poor people need to move a lot) of the elementary schools the head start and not head start children attended. It may not be the Head Start does not have lasting effects educational effects but rather they are washed away by quality of elementary schools working class and poor children attend. Also Head Start does more than prepare children for elementary school. It provides nutrition through at least one hot meal a day, major benefits in improving social skills of young children, helps parents and most importantly improves the overall quality of lives of children WHILE THEY ATTEND HEAD START. Only looking at outcomes measures of studies with lots of methodological problems is very short sighted.
4
The reporter needs to do more research - Ivanka Trump's proposal as it stands today would do nothing for low-income parents seeking childcare.
18
She makes that clear if you read to the end of the article: "Yet the aid [Trump] has proposed pales next to the actual cost of care. According to the Tax Policy Center, it would increase the after-tax income of families with children by an average of 0.2 percent, or $190. For families with incomes below $40,000, the annual savings would be $20 or less."
10
What is ridiculous is the progressive religion demanding that we outsource the raising of our children. You know what's better than cheap childcare? Truly dedicated childcare: a family member who cares deeply about the child. A parent will be a better caregiver than anybody contracted to do so.
13
The problem with that assertion is America. In Traditional societies Grandparents care for newborns. But we're all upwardly mobile moving all over for work and job placement. Daycare is a part of our lives and we need to integrate it into the educational system. Families don't destroy families, but capitalism does most definitely.
25
Maybe if wages kept up with inflation instead of the top 1% accruing most of the wealth, then parents could afford to stay home.
20
Your idea that all parents would be better caregivers doesn't stand up. You are ASSuming that childcare takes no special skills or knowledge of child development. Many parents these days do not have those skills because they've never been taught. And, to be realistic, not all parents "care deeply" about their children.
8
Oh no, we can't have high-quality subsidized childcare for all children, but especially children from low SES homes because that would be dirty, filthy socialism, and would prevent women from being punished for attempting to shirk their natural duties by having a career. No. No way. And especially not if our vaunted job creators would actually have to contribute to society in a way that doesn't obviously benefit them directly. Nope. Bootstraps, ladies!!
(/sarcasm, clearly)
(/sarcasm, clearly)
24
Mothers AND fathers I should think.
6
The article treats child care as an investment which apparently pays off. So if it were possible for venture capitalists to get a piece of this action, paying some of the expenses and reaping some of the payoff, they would do it. If we brought back some sort of slavery or indentured servitude, investors would invest in the children they owned so that when the children grew up their labor could be sold for more. The problem here is that our investors expect payoffs that come sooner.
Investing in child care gives the children a competitive advantage over children that received haphazard, low-quality child care. But if we invest in most children, the competitive advantage goes away. Unless the job mix in our economy changes, we will have a larger number of overqualified people, like the current situation where many who have law degrees fail to win jobs that use those qualifications.
Since wealthy people can buy child care on the open market and thereby give their kids a better chance of reaching and remaining in the upper part of society, universal child care financed by taxes would increase the competition their children would face, and they would pay for it. In our competitive society where winning is very important because losing is very ugly, people with money are unlikely to agree. If losing were less ugly, winning would be less important and people would be free to live for other things. But that is not the American way.
Investing in child care gives the children a competitive advantage over children that received haphazard, low-quality child care. But if we invest in most children, the competitive advantage goes away. Unless the job mix in our economy changes, we will have a larger number of overqualified people, like the current situation where many who have law degrees fail to win jobs that use those qualifications.
Since wealthy people can buy child care on the open market and thereby give their kids a better chance of reaching and remaining in the upper part of society, universal child care financed by taxes would increase the competition their children would face, and they would pay for it. In our competitive society where winning is very important because losing is very ugly, people with money are unlikely to agree. If losing were less ugly, winning would be less important and people would be free to live for other things. But that is not the American way.
8
In Sweden parents are given 480 of paid leave. Mothers can work and the benefits are many. Of course it costs money but Sweden is an example of an egalitarian society.
5
Sweden would be a great aspirational goal. They do, however, depend on the US for their military defense; and until recently have been a very homogeneous society, which from a cultural and evolutionary standpoint supports greater community spirit and public investment. Unfortunately, despite the great talk, even the most Swedish of US politicians, Senator Bernie Sanders, walks the military Keynesianism walk. I.e., Bernie's strong support for basing the budget-busting F-35 fighter jet in Vermont, to the detriment of thousands of low-income, working-class, elderly and refugee constituents, who are all seeing a massive hit to their sole and biggest investment (their homes) because of Bernie's new expanded F-35 "not suitable for residential use" zone. Not to mention the attack on health from the extreme noise from the fighter jets. All so Patrick Leahy's real estate developer relatives can profit at the expense of those without the resources to defend their homes.
6
You have it backwards. Perhaps if America stops feeding the bottomless pit that is the military/industrial complex($600 BILLION/yr. and climbing)fighting what seems to be never ending conflicts around the world, you would have more than enough money for decent child care.
10
Sweden is also a very tiny, homogenous, non-diverse nation of nearly all white, middle-class, ethnically Christian people that never had any real poverty -- and which has no illegal immigration and very strict immigration laws.
They are 9 million people (in a cold remote area); we are 330 million....very diverse....huge underclass of very poor unskilled residents...massive illegal immigration and porous borders and no application of immigration laws.
Still don't see any difference, Jordan?
They are 9 million people (in a cold remote area); we are 330 million....very diverse....huge underclass of very poor unskilled residents...massive illegal immigration and porous borders and no application of immigration laws.
Still don't see any difference, Jordan?
5
What Trump should be doing is overhauling the Dept of Health and Human Services. What kind of Dept comes up with 7% of the Family Income-Gross or Net? Not Specified. The average cost of childcare is $16514 according to the article. To come up with 7% the Family would need to make $235,914. Absurd. Please come into the 21st Century and help these people.
11
It isn't really possible to make child care "less expensive." For one, it's going to cost $20-$30K in salary for the daycare worker. Then there are taxes on top of that, and overhead, like the building, toys, cleaning, utilities, and administration, etc. You want your daycare worker to have benefits too right? Health, and maybe commuting, or a 401K? Pretty soon you're getting close to $50K. There are student teacher ratios to take into account as well - you don't want only one person watching 10 kids, that would be mayhem. Lets say it's 4 kids per teacher, because that is what the law allows in PA. So you've got $50K in costs, and 4 kids, that works out to $12.5K per child, which is right around the average. You can quickly see how any increase (rent, benefits, salaries) immediately becomes a large increase to the family. Short of the government flat out paying everyone's bill there really isn't a way to make that less expensive without reducing necessary costs. If you were going to pay for it, who should get it? $12.5K is a lot of money to people that many less well off folks would consider rich. If you make a $100K a year, most people would have zero pity for you, but as 12.5% of your income, it's almost double the recommended daycare expense ratio. If you start taxing people to pay for it, and they can't get that care for their own kids (and still have to pay out of pocket for them) it's going to breed a lot of resentment, which is the last thing we need more of.
17
10 kids is too many, but only FOUR? seriously? That would be news to my mother in law, who singlehandedly raised SIX children with no outside help of any kind, in the 50s. They all turned out to be model citizens and successful adults.
Maybe 4 INFANTS, but with kids of 2-5, a competent sitter can care for at least 6 and more like 7-8 kids.
The left destroys any hope of improving childcare, because they IMMEDIATELY hop on the train to crazytown....it isn't enough to subsidize care. Nope! the caretaker has to have a master's degree in childhood education...earn $50K a year....work the lux schedule of a public union teacher (6 hours a day, all summer off with pay)....retire early with a huge pension....watch only 4 children a day.
Yup, that will only cost about $50K per child, per year....ergo, we do NOTHING year after year.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Maybe 4 INFANTS, but with kids of 2-5, a competent sitter can care for at least 6 and more like 7-8 kids.
The left destroys any hope of improving childcare, because they IMMEDIATELY hop on the train to crazytown....it isn't enough to subsidize care. Nope! the caretaker has to have a master's degree in childhood education...earn $50K a year....work the lux schedule of a public union teacher (6 hours a day, all summer off with pay)....retire early with a huge pension....watch only 4 children a day.
Yup, that will only cost about $50K per child, per year....ergo, we do NOTHING year after year.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
2
It isn't really possible to make child care "less expensive." For one, it's going to cost $20-$30K in salary for the daycare worker. Then there are taxes on top of that, and overhead, like the building, toys, cleaning, utilities, and administration, etc. You want your daycare worker to have benefits too right? Health, and maybe commuting, or a 401K? Pretty soon you're getting close to $50K. There are student teacher ratios to take into account as well - you don't want only one person watching 10 kids, that would be mayhem. Lets say it's 4 kids per teacher, because that is what the law allows in PA. So you've got $50K in costs, and 4 kids, that works out to $12.5K per child, which is right around the average. You can quickly see how any increase (rent, benefits, salaries) immediately becomes a large increase to the family. Short of the government flat out paying everyone's bill there really isn't a way to make that less expensive without reducing necessary costs. If you were going to pay for it, who should get it? $12.5K is a lot of money to people that many less well off folks would consider rich. If you make a $100K a year, most people would have zero pity for you, but as 12.5% of your income, it's almost double the recommended daycare expense ratio. If you start taxing people to pay for it, and they can't get that care for their own kids (and still have to pay out of pocket for them) it's going to breed a lot of resentment, which is the last thing we need more of.
7
So long as even the most liberal and progressive politicians continue to put military Keynesianism ahead of their own constituents, there will be no money in the budget to do this. Here's looking at you, Senator Bernie "F-35 Fighter Jet" Sanders. How many trillions have been spent on the budget-busting F-35 that could have gone to programs like this? Until then, people have to take responsibility and not have children they can't afford or live close to family who can help out.
BTW, this debate has been playing out in Vermont and the unfortunate result was unfunded universal child care mandates that passed the costs on to existing child cares, raising the rates for all parents statewide like us who pay. And the closing of many smaller daycares that could not meet the newer standards, leaving more parents scrambling. Ms. Miller and the NY Times state: "Liberals have proposed free public programs for children under 5 or capping child care expenses." The reality is nothing is free. Hence, the election of an old-school, Northeastern moderate Republican to Vermont's Governor's office this past November, after 6 years of disastrous one-party rule overreach from the Democrats.
BTW, this debate has been playing out in Vermont and the unfortunate result was unfunded universal child care mandates that passed the costs on to existing child cares, raising the rates for all parents statewide like us who pay. And the closing of many smaller daycares that could not meet the newer standards, leaving more parents scrambling. Ms. Miller and the NY Times state: "Liberals have proposed free public programs for children under 5 or capping child care expenses." The reality is nothing is free. Hence, the election of an old-school, Northeastern moderate Republican to Vermont's Governor's office this past November, after 6 years of disastrous one-party rule overreach from the Democrats.
5
Girls can do anything!
(except housecleaning)
(except housecleaning)
3
If adults cannot afford children, they should not have them. If they can only afford 1 child, then they should settle on having only 1. I already pay for schools and I don't have children, but I accept that. However, I don't want to subsidize another adult's poor decision to have children that they cannot afford.
18
And who do you think is going to be paying for your Social Security if no one can afford to have kids anymore? It takes 2 incomes to buy a house, so people have to work - look at the prices in NY and look at the childcare costs - most expensive state on the map! The working parents pay taxes too - for the roads you drive on and everything else.
8
In the case of Jasmin Cross...she's 35, not a teen mom.
Surely she knew she needed a job YEARS ago. What did she do from age 18 to age 30 (before having her first child) that precluded her attending college THEN -- when she had need of child care????
Until you can answer that question -- clearly and unambiguously -- this whole discussion is pure nonsense.
NOTE: if Ms. Cross had a good job, that paid $30K a year, she and her husband would jointly earn $65K and be able to afford child care without government handouts.
Surely she knew she needed a job YEARS ago. What did she do from age 18 to age 30 (before having her first child) that precluded her attending college THEN -- when she had need of child care????
Until you can answer that question -- clearly and unambiguously -- this whole discussion is pure nonsense.
NOTE: if Ms. Cross had a good job, that paid $30K a year, she and her husband would jointly earn $65K and be able to afford child care without government handouts.
5
The heartlessness and judgmental tone of these comments isn't really shocking given who runs the country. Having said that, I'd like to ask all who are putting a moral value of helping with childcare, how do you feel about a moral value on treatment if you get sick? If you have a disease due to stupidity (lung cancer - smoking for example) can we deny you care since you are undeserving of care because you're stupid to have smoked? To take the argument to next else, I don't want to pay for your cancer treatment since I don't think you are deserving of care and support. You're on your own....
19
I agree wtih you. I find myself to be a moral person. Most moral rule of all is the golden rule of treat others as you would treat yourself. I don't want to pay for your childcare caused by you having children. I don't want to pay for your medical care caused by you smoking. I am seriously looking for an answer to what is so morally wrong with doing for yours and yourself ?
2
One of our society's most expensive programs to support is our huge prison and criminal justice infrastructure, as the US has more incarcerated citizens than any other country.
Denmark and France have much smaller expense dedicated to their prison and criminal justice infrastructures. Both Denmark and France have universal preschool education, with teaching provided by college degreed professionals.
Anyone who argues that high quality child care is too expensive to consider for a public benefit fails to grasp the big picture.
Childcare is a mere fraction of the enormous cost of prisons.
In addition, the bulk of a person's character is formed during the pre-school years. Better developed character is vastly better for society.
Denmark and France have much smaller expense dedicated to their prison and criminal justice infrastructures. Both Denmark and France have universal preschool education, with teaching provided by college degreed professionals.
Anyone who argues that high quality child care is too expensive to consider for a public benefit fails to grasp the big picture.
Childcare is a mere fraction of the enormous cost of prisons.
In addition, the bulk of a person's character is formed during the pre-school years. Better developed character is vastly better for society.
24
I believe this whole discussion ultimately will have a a simple resolution. Either America decides to do the right thing and spend the money and/or offer tax rebates so parents can alleviate the costs of quality child care OR, continue on with the process that seems to be the preference of Republicans in that you build more jails so you can incarcerate more people currently than any other civilized country on the planet.
What is that old saying from a well known commercial?
``Pay me now or pay me later``.
What is that old saying from a well known commercial?
``Pay me now or pay me later``.
16
As does access to quality nutrition, and healthcare. Child care, real care, should be an imperative for our nation.
7
It takes an extended family, and it takes a village. We, as a nation, have steadily eroded both. Families are more spread out, so the combination of grandparents, older relatives and younger relatives that provided care for young children is simply unavailable. Parental leave is a sick joke in this country. Child care, and after school programs, enable parents to work, which is absolutely essential if the family is spread out and people seem to not even know their neighbors. The U.S. is simply not a child or family friendly country. As a citizen and a parent this makes me both sad and angry. We can do so much better.
29
What do you propose to help single and childfree citizens? Currently we are heavily financially penalized. Yet our status relieves society and the envyof many, many burdens and liabilities.
Let's fix that first. I want to pay the same amount of income tax as breeders at the exact same income level.
And i want the same SS retirement pay as married households whose total combined contributions are equal to mine. You can't be one economic unit when it's convenient and then suddenly entitled to two payouts.
Making unmarried childfree the cash cow of every one else's lifestyle choices is unfair.
(And please no 'my kid will pay your SS' -- he might contribute to the social good if he's not low IQ, addicted, abusive, special needs, criminal or otherwise a taker. I've contributed my share and more for decades with little in return.)
Let's fix that first. I want to pay the same amount of income tax as breeders at the exact same income level.
And i want the same SS retirement pay as married households whose total combined contributions are equal to mine. You can't be one economic unit when it's convenient and then suddenly entitled to two payouts.
Making unmarried childfree the cash cow of every one else's lifestyle choices is unfair.
(And please no 'my kid will pay your SS' -- he might contribute to the social good if he's not low IQ, addicted, abusive, special needs, criminal or otherwise a taker. I've contributed my share and more for decades with little in return.)
7
"The Department of Health and Human Services says child care should cost 7 percent of a family’s income at most — but 42 percent of families who buy care for young children spend considerably more than that"
I don't even know where to start here. Is any family able to limit their child care costs to 7% of their income? That is outrageous to me. That implies that a family (potentially with multiple young children) should pay $3,500 total for child care if they have an income of $50,000? $3,500/year would be $67/week or $9/day. How could any person think this is possible?
I don't even know where to start here. Is any family able to limit their child care costs to 7% of their income? That is outrageous to me. That implies that a family (potentially with multiple young children) should pay $3,500 total for child care if they have an income of $50,000? $3,500/year would be $67/week or $9/day. How could any person think this is possible?
38
This is the situation in Quebec, where government subsidized daycares cost $7/day for families in the lowest tax brackets. The cost increases gradually based on income but never exceeds $21.20/day.
7
I think a question that needs to be asked is - why is childcare so expensive. This reminds me of the discussion around healthcare where everyone gets into their corner about where the money comes from but forgets to ask why should it be so expensive. Perhaps we can discuss what can be done to tweak things to reduce cost instead of arguing about how to find more money to pay for it.
5
I think it's straightforward, especially when it comes to babies and toddlers. States have laws around caregiver to child ratio, and max enrollee size. Say a state requires 1 caregiver for every 4 children for kids under 30 months. And max class size is 16. Now say all the kids' parents make $100K (more than most families). If they are all paying $7K/year (7%, as recommended), that's $112K income for the center. If you take out running expenses (rent, maintenance, utilities, supplies), that's not that much per year for 4 people working full time. Add in that most parents need daycare for more than 8 hours a day - more like 10/day, or at least 9. That means the workers might be putting in 45-50 hours/week for - what? - $20K/year? The math doesn't add up.
20
The cost side of the equation is influenced by industry structure and the nature of the early care and education (ECE) business model. The industry is highly fragmented, which means there are many small, mom-and-pop businesses providing ECE. There is a limited ability to achieve economies of scale. Also, generally speaking, the business model itself relies on a low staff-child ratio. In NYC, pre-K classrooms are capped at 18 students. Classrooms are smaller for infants and toddlers. Ultimately, few ECE businesses are making substantial profits; many simply break even.
There is room to improve on the cost side of the equation through industry consolidation and shared services (wherein multiple small businesses share back office functions), but the most pressing issue is the ability of families to pay for early care and education. As the article rightly points out, early education is a financial burden for all but those well off enough to pay full tuition out of pocket, or those poor enough and lucky enough to get a spot in a subsidized program such as Head Start.
There is room to improve on the cost side of the equation through industry consolidation and shared services (wherein multiple small businesses share back office functions), but the most pressing issue is the ability of families to pay for early care and education. As the article rightly points out, early education is a financial burden for all but those well off enough to pay full tuition out of pocket, or those poor enough and lucky enough to get a spot in a subsidized program such as Head Start.
5
The numbers don't add up. $7K a year means parents are spending only $583 a month which is far from true. The true cost in most metropolitan areas is 1600-2000/month or 19-24K/year multiplied by 16 for a single class size =$384K. Most places have multiple infant and toddler rooms. So the actual money earned is quite substantial and something doesn't add up. Other questions are - where did the 1:4 class size number come from - research based or arbitrary? Is there a possibility of having personnel of various skill levels - so that ratios can be maintained without compromising on quality. Just need a little more scepticism or out of the box thinking.
3
Nobody questions the fact that quality daycare has substantial benefits for children. But this study is a poor example for making that point. It was overseen by Nobel laureate James Heckman, who won the Nobel in economics for his studies of childhood development. The more positive results he could show, the more it supported his prior analysis. So his bias is obvious and it is probably not surprising that many of his peers have questioned the technical findings underlying his conclusions.
Another problem here is that the daycare center studied was far from typical -- it had been designed to be cutting edge, using the latest research. It is not the sort of daycare center available to typical poor families and it is very expensive, too boot.
It seems to me that any boilerplate study could have been used to prove the point here. But when a Nobel Prize winner is hell-bent on proving the value of his research, and he is heavily criticized by his peers, his study is hardly the best available.
Another problem here is that the daycare center studied was far from typical -- it had been designed to be cutting edge, using the latest research. It is not the sort of daycare center available to typical poor families and it is very expensive, too boot.
It seems to me that any boilerplate study could have been used to prove the point here. But when a Nobel Prize winner is hell-bent on proving the value of his research, and he is heavily criticized by his peers, his study is hardly the best available.
11
What about the Danish study? That's not Heckman's work?
1
I do not trust Ivanka to speak for working moms.
Most working moms would find $750,000,000 to be plenty.
Most moms in that situation would parent their new baby, not their 70 year old father.
Lets see her put her kid into daycare at 6 weeks of age with tears streaming down her face and her boobs leaking.
Most working moms would find $750,000,000 to be plenty.
Most moms in that situation would parent their new baby, not their 70 year old father.
Lets see her put her kid into daycare at 6 weeks of age with tears streaming down her face and her boobs leaking.
111
Your last paragraph brought tears to my eyes, I have done it twice and the second time was no easier. There has to be a better way.
11
I also got teary-eyed reading that last sentence. I chose to be a stay-at-home mother to my two young children because there was no way I would ever leave them in the care of others. Sure, it meant a drop in our household income and sacrificing many of the pricey "things/stuff" in life but the "payoff" is priceless. I feel truly sorry for women who do not have the choice to raise their own children.
1
Child care for our two kids costs about twice our mortgage. It is ridiculously expensive. While there were indeed less expensive options around (all still more expensive than our mortgage)...none of them seem like good places to care for our children. And I felt bad for parents who have no other choice but to send their children to those places. While we are fortunately enough to be able to afford it, but imagine the money we could save for them for college or even just to get a head start in life as young adults if quality child care was more affordable. As it is now, we won't be able to start saving for college or go on vacations beside camping until they are old enough to go to school. While it is unfortunate it is certainly minor compared to the million who in order to afford childcare have are not able to save money to afford a down payment for a home or have to eat cheap and unhealthy food. As a nation we should be making it as easy as possible for children to succeed. The wealthiest on the the top get richer and rich and pay less and less taxes while the rest of us suffer for their benefit. I am not asking for return to 90% tax rates, I am asking for a return to rational tax rates and wages that allow made the United State the most stable and successful nation in the world instead of now where we seem to fall further and further behind other developed nation in almost ever metric besides GDP.
64
Egads...sorry about the bad grammar. I should have proofread before hitting submit.
2
There is no doubt in my mind that money improves quality of life. It doesn't matter if the money goes to child care, mortgage, food, health care, or car repair. Money = happiness.
My problem with the research is that it fails to address the underlying behavior, and by doing so, implies that poor parents are victims instead of responsible parties.
People who have kids that they cannot afford are either incredibly short-sighted (don't think things through), selfish (expect tax payers to foot the bill), or incredibly unlucky (ie. condom breaks).
Slightly unrelated, but I would like to point out that while liberals love to complain about the cost of birth control, any co-pay is significantly cheaper than a child. If you can't do that math, you definitely should not be raising a human.
My problem with the research is that it fails to address the underlying behavior, and by doing so, implies that poor parents are victims instead of responsible parties.
People who have kids that they cannot afford are either incredibly short-sighted (don't think things through), selfish (expect tax payers to foot the bill), or incredibly unlucky (ie. condom breaks).
Slightly unrelated, but I would like to point out that while liberals love to complain about the cost of birth control, any co-pay is significantly cheaper than a child. If you can't do that math, you definitely should not be raising a human.
27
Once a baby is born it is short sighted for a nation not to help it thrive and grow into the most productive possible citizen. Punishing a child for the mistakes of its parents will create another generation that has babies it can't afford. How does that help you?
it has been repeatedly shown that money invested in small children pays itself back in large multiples. Just the money saved from not sending the eventual adults to prison is worth it. then the added productivity of a well rounded well educated adult that can have a good career is an added bonus.
The problem with the right is that you are penny wise and pound foolish. You say if the parent shouldn't have had the child, then let the child go uneducated while the parent works, let the child go hungry if the parent can't afford to feed it, let the child go without books, or clothes.
All of these things put the child behind, making them more likely to make poor life choices, do drugs, have a hard time finishing school or get a job, and more likely to go to prison. All of these bad outcomes have a cost not only for the family, but for all of society, and those costs are far more than helping the child out in the first critical years.
Invest in humans more than machinery to have a flourishing society.
it has been repeatedly shown that money invested in small children pays itself back in large multiples. Just the money saved from not sending the eventual adults to prison is worth it. then the added productivity of a well rounded well educated adult that can have a good career is an added bonus.
The problem with the right is that you are penny wise and pound foolish. You say if the parent shouldn't have had the child, then let the child go uneducated while the parent works, let the child go hungry if the parent can't afford to feed it, let the child go without books, or clothes.
All of these things put the child behind, making them more likely to make poor life choices, do drugs, have a hard time finishing school or get a job, and more likely to go to prison. All of these bad outcomes have a cost not only for the family, but for all of society, and those costs are far more than helping the child out in the first critical years.
Invest in humans more than machinery to have a flourishing society.
37
I agree with every word except one small point. Liberals don't complain about paying for birth control--if they did they would be FOR de-funding Planned Parenthood, and they definitely are not. I found it's the conservatives who not only oppose birth control on moral grounds, they consider it the woman's responsibility to bear the cost. They're all like, "Don't expect me to pay for your birth control"
21
Are you actually saying that having a child is a luxury reserved for the rich? Because it takes having a whopping income these days to be able to afford health insurance, safe housing, food, transportation, and good day care. This is not even thinking about a crisis such as the birth of a child with extreme medical needs, mental health issues, behavioral disorder, etc. Are people supposed to save millions of dollars before they dare to have a child, to provide for all possible scenarios?
7
Do people somehow not realize, long before they decide to have children, that children require money and sacrifice and 24/7 care?
Why is this a surprise to so many new parents? Do they think that children are a fashion accessory to be put on a high shelf in the closet when inconvenient?
How did generations of parents become so oblivious to how the real world works?
Why is this a surprise to so many new parents? Do they think that children are a fashion accessory to be put on a high shelf in the closet when inconvenient?
How did generations of parents become so oblivious to how the real world works?
26
It's a good pint and I think the answer is that many do realize that child care is costly, but not just how costly. Unless they were involved with the decisions their parents made as to child care and its cost and continued to be informed, they may not realize how much diapers and shoes and childcare cost altogether.
They may also not realize how one big change can impact the figures. It can be anything from needing to buy a new furnace to moving to one person returning to school to a major illness among any member of the household. Even being imaginative about worst case scenarios might not be sufficient.
They may also not realize how one big change can impact the figures. It can be anything from needing to buy a new furnace to moving to one person returning to school to a major illness among any member of the household. Even being imaginative about worst case scenarios might not be sufficient.
6
When I was a child, daycare (and college) were nowhere near what they are today, even when adjusting for inflation. Full-time care for our toddler is $3,000 a month. Even as a smart, financially secure adult, no, I did not realize quite how much decent daycare would be. It would have changed things, but it's absurd.
20
I think you may be oblivious to how the real world works. First, the relative cost of child care over generations has increased exponentially; we spend a much larger percentage of our income than our parents may have. Second, the cost of living has also increased over generations, so we ultimately have less spending money than our parents did. Neither of those things are the "fault" of parents today, yet they have to face those facts everyday as they raise their children and earn their income. Third, the whole point of a society is to regenerate itself. It is in everyone's best interests to replace each generation and to insure that each child born is well cared for. For your social security and other old age needs to be paid for, you need a healthy and well educated generation of children behind you. If you don't understand that you don't understand how the real world works.
32
All valid points in the study, but is it stating the obvious that if you make 35k, waitress on weekends, and can't provide care for one child, having a second isn't the best decision? Or if you do, you can't be say "the system" isn't set up for your success. That mentality just confounds me. "Think of the children" is cliche, but what do you really want? Just to work at any old job so the government has to do all the planning for you?
I understand the desire to work when you have children (to some extent) but I do not understand the desire to work a crappy job for a crappy salary. And this just doesn't apply to poor people;I also don't get the 90-hour workweek style of parenting either. They are only little once...enjoy it and spend some time with them. Family > money.
I understand the desire to work when you have children (to some extent) but I do not understand the desire to work a crappy job for a crappy salary. And this just doesn't apply to poor people;I also don't get the 90-hour workweek style of parenting either. They are only little once...enjoy it and spend some time with them. Family > money.
18
So what you're saying, in so many pirouettes, is only the rich or well-off deserve to have children.
28
An old canard that misses the point in it's fast track to it's ideological goal.
The motivation or ability of anyone to have a child isn't the point for the rest of us sharing this country. The central that question that ought come prior to what you've expressed is: what is the most beneficial organization of our resources for our mutual benefit?
Outrageously priced childcare does nothing but ensure cycles of poverty and poor greymarket care. You and I regardless of our thoughts about who should have how many when, have a stake in making sure that once here, children are safe and given every chance to succeed.
Don't let your moralizing get in the way of our shared needs.
The motivation or ability of anyone to have a child isn't the point for the rest of us sharing this country. The central that question that ought come prior to what you've expressed is: what is the most beneficial organization of our resources for our mutual benefit?
Outrageously priced childcare does nothing but ensure cycles of poverty and poor greymarket care. You and I regardless of our thoughts about who should have how many when, have a stake in making sure that once here, children are safe and given every chance to succeed.
Don't let your moralizing get in the way of our shared needs.
13
Sometimes, all it takes is for the condom to break or any other birth control to fail and then the trajectory of your life changes.
4
While I wholeheartedly agree that irresponsibility is not to be rewarded, many of my fellow commenters seem to forget the following. We cannot not reward the "irresponsible" parent without also unfairly punishing the child for something of which they are in no way culpable. I have no kids and would not plan to have kids until I feel that I am financially able to support them. However, life happens. A mother may have a child with someone she loves only to have the relationship fall apart. A person may incorrectly assume that they are able to support a child. It may be the parents fault that they had a child and could not afford it. I do not believe it is fair to punish the child because because we think the parent was not responsible.
74
My husband's father died, unexpectedly at a young age leaving a wife and seven children. He provided a very good income, each child was lovingly expected and that was not enough.
14
Very well put, thank you! I am so tired of judgmental people who really don't understand the complexity of situations and like to talk before they think.
7
Yes, I would like to meet some of these people that some how have been able to have full control of their lives from cradle to grave. Unfortunately, despite the comments of some, they have never existed, that is of course, unless one has been born in to wealth and never has had to worry about the idea of how their children are going to be cared for during their formative years. In addition to your examples of failed relationships/divorces, there are also the instances of the death of one of the spouses and a circumstance which I am quite familiar with in cases of stay at home moms who have have finally had to leave an abusive relationship along with their children. This last circumstance is much more common than one would want to believe.
The children ultimately have to be cared for especially where a single parent has to work and NOT have to go on welfare which christian-right conservatives so self-righteously think is abused.
The children ultimately have to be cared for especially where a single parent has to work and NOT have to go on welfare which christian-right conservatives so self-righteously think is abused.
16
Just as we have the Gross National Product or "GNP" economic index, we need to develop a U.S. childcare index.
It would be a simple ratio - total federal collars spent on childcare, divided by total dollars spent on weapons systems during any given time period. It could be called the GMP - "Gross and Mean Performance Indicator".
Typical news broadcast: Today, as the Trump administration prepared to send troops send troops to Ulan Bator, it was revealed that the GMP fell to record lows last quarter...
At least we would know where we stand.
It would be a simple ratio - total federal collars spent on childcare, divided by total dollars spent on weapons systems during any given time period. It could be called the GMP - "Gross and Mean Performance Indicator".
Typical news broadcast: Today, as the Trump administration prepared to send troops send troops to Ulan Bator, it was revealed that the GMP fell to record lows last quarter...
At least we would know where we stand.
6
Warning: These comments may be from a long gone era.
I can't help but think it is ultimately in the best interests of a child to be cared for by one of the parents and, probably the mother would be the ideal situation in many if not most scenarios. Pretty tough to replace a mother's love with a Nanny or a child care worker. Yes, I fully realize this does not always apply so my comments apply to most situations but certainly not all.
Another broad statement coming up: A mother's job is the most important job in the world. Giving that up for career opportunity and/or more material possessions just doesn't seem to be the ideal way to go. If you need the income to keep a roof over your head and food on the table it becomes understandable.
I was lucky enough to earn a very good living which allowed my wife to stay home with the children when they were young. Of course, the opposite scenario is probably just as plausible where the wife earns the income and the husband stays home. But as stated previously the better of the 2 choices is a stay at home mom would be my guess. Again, not all the time but I assume most of the time.
We may have lacked some of the possessions that others were capable of buying in our newly constructed neighborhood but we just felt it would be best for the child. I guess I just find it incredibly hard to believe that sending both parents off to the workplace is one of the better solutions to be had.
Of course, your mileage may vary I suppose.
I can't help but think it is ultimately in the best interests of a child to be cared for by one of the parents and, probably the mother would be the ideal situation in many if not most scenarios. Pretty tough to replace a mother's love with a Nanny or a child care worker. Yes, I fully realize this does not always apply so my comments apply to most situations but certainly not all.
Another broad statement coming up: A mother's job is the most important job in the world. Giving that up for career opportunity and/or more material possessions just doesn't seem to be the ideal way to go. If you need the income to keep a roof over your head and food on the table it becomes understandable.
I was lucky enough to earn a very good living which allowed my wife to stay home with the children when they were young. Of course, the opposite scenario is probably just as plausible where the wife earns the income and the husband stays home. But as stated previously the better of the 2 choices is a stay at home mom would be my guess. Again, not all the time but I assume most of the time.
We may have lacked some of the possessions that others were capable of buying in our newly constructed neighborhood but we just felt it would be best for the child. I guess I just find it incredibly hard to believe that sending both parents off to the workplace is one of the better solutions to be had.
Of course, your mileage may vary I suppose.
20
I disagree with "A mother's job is the most important job in the world." As long as people think this way, women will be narrowly defined and looked upon only as caretakers. In your view, a woman is truly unlucky if she is born with fierce intelligence, ambition, and a competitive nature- those traits will be wasted as she is relegated to diapers and housekeeping, a victim of her gender. Being June Cleaver is just not enough for some women and that is ok. The kids turn out just fine, I promise. The key is a marriage partner that helps with childcare and housekeeping. Luckily, modern men are getting a lot better at this. It is possible to strike a balance.
54
Totally agree. I have so many friends that sacrificed so much to stay at home. And people always forget it's fun!! Days with my daughter will beat some stuffy meeting with a banker 24/7.
8
Reply to Pandora,
Thinking "a mother's job is the most important" doesn't undermine women. There are so many different ways to build a life.
I'm a stay at home mom and when my kids were little I was very tight on money, time and energy -- yet I still found motherhood left more time for my intellect than my previous corporate job. Betty Friedan should have addressed the "Career Mystique" as well as the feminine one!
Children don't necessarily have to go to daycare for a woman to be able to be a full human -- artistic, writing, participating in her community and so on.
Thinking "a mother's job is the most important" doesn't undermine women. There are so many different ways to build a life.
I'm a stay at home mom and when my kids were little I was very tight on money, time and energy -- yet I still found motherhood left more time for my intellect than my previous corporate job. Betty Friedan should have addressed the "Career Mystique" as well as the feminine one!
Children don't necessarily have to go to daycare for a woman to be able to be a full human -- artistic, writing, participating in her community and so on.
9
The best care provider for any boy is his mother.
18
Show me the facts.
9
That may work in the storybooks, but not necessarily in real life. I'm a working mom with a son who's doing just fine growing up in the care of me, babysitters, relatives, after-school programs. He's exposed to so much more in life--people and experiences—and I get the benefit of exercising my education and raising a great kid. I can do this because I'm lucky enough to have a decent income and a strong network of friends and care providers. I can tell you this, I would not be my son's best care provider if I wasn't working. I would lose out on the rewarding work experiences that inspire projects we together at home, motivate me to teach my son about computers and group projects, help me meet other people with kids who become family friends, etc.
27
You can forget about getting anything humane and helpful done while the cruel Republicans are in office. Articles like this remind us of how good life could be if government weren't being controlled by a small group of psychopaths.
29
What Trump did is work backwards. The ridiculous caps are calculated if you take 16514 and divide by 7%. But that 7% figure is unreal for struggling Parents with Children. What Trump should have done is work ground up. Start with Families paying over the 7% now and get their childcare expenses lowered. That 7% is unreal for working middle/lower income class Parent--make only them the focus.
3
Why don't we do the smart thing and offer universal preschool to all parents regardless of income level? Even the upper class might consider putting their children into a public high quality preschool. As long as we restrict the help we give to people to the very poor or barely above water in terms of income people, these programs will be ripe for cutting. Programs that help everyone across the spectrum garner more support. It's far cheaper to spend that money to allow parents to go to school, go to work, take care of themselves and other family members than it is to incarcerate a person, pay for therapy to deal with neglect or abuse, or foster care if the parent leaves the child at home alone because she can't afford to do otherwise. Then again, Americans are known for doing exactly the opposite of what needs to be done.
79
This is so true. I'm a 33 year old democrat and I used to believe that "conservatives" have a different set of solutions (free-market) to what ails this country, but that they honestly believe these ideas would work if implemented properly. I now know that they consciously push these "solutions" knowing full well that they only help their donors. As a result, their primary concern is distorting the truth about how to blame Democrats when their dangerous agendas are proven nonsensical. I sincerely hope there are right leaning voters out there who can relate.
15
Because it would be crazy expensive, and all the care providers would have to be public union school teachers, with master's degrees and belong to their costly, powerful, evil union.
And we already have free preschool. It's called KINDERGARTEN.
In my parents day, school started at First Grade, age six.
In modern day Finland (best schools in the WORLD), school starts at SECOND Grade, age 7!!!
Also: it is ridiculous to allege that we must give free day care, or "all the kids will end up incarcerated". That's just crazy talk.
And we already have free preschool. It's called KINDERGARTEN.
In my parents day, school started at First Grade, age six.
In modern day Finland (best schools in the WORLD), school starts at SECOND Grade, age 7!!!
Also: it is ridiculous to allege that we must give free day care, or "all the kids will end up incarcerated". That's just crazy talk.
4
Concerned Citizen, once again you display your biases against helping anyone other than yourself and your inability to read. I didn't write this: "Also: it is ridiculous to allege that we must give free day care, or "all the kids will end up incarcerated". That's just crazy talk."
France has universal preschool for all. Kindergarten is not free preschool in America. We pay for it and, in most states, children are expected to attend it. I thought you objected to the idea of formal schooling starting at age 7. You have indicated your dislike of Finland's system before. Then again, since your moniker is being used by two people it's hard to keep track of which Concerned Citizen I'm dealing with. Until then, try to be consistent in your distaste for spending money where it makes sense.
France has universal preschool for all. Kindergarten is not free preschool in America. We pay for it and, in most states, children are expected to attend it. I thought you objected to the idea of formal schooling starting at age 7. You have indicated your dislike of Finland's system before. Then again, since your moniker is being used by two people it's hard to keep track of which Concerned Citizen I'm dealing with. Until then, try to be consistent in your distaste for spending money where it makes sense.
2
The Trump $500,000 Jointly, $250,000 Individually will only make sense if childcare is 25% of gross income. The article states that average cost daycare is $16,514 a year and that Cross Partner makes $35,000 a year so that is 47% of gross income. This needs to focus on only struggling Parents with Children-middle to lower income families no where near the $250,000-$500,000 range. Get Real Trumps.
5
A pre-school tax credit would add less of a burden to the national debt (which is already $20 trillion and growing) if illegal immigrants would not be able to claim it. The latter have been applying for Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (I.T.I.N.) from the I.R.S. with which to file federal income tax forms. While virtually no illegal immigrants earn enough to pay income taxes, they have been using their I.T.I.N. numbers to claim cash under the current Child Tax Credit. The I.R.S. says it does not have the jurisdiction to determine the legal status of tax filers, so it pays their claims.
Illegal immigrants have been claiming money for children who were not born in this country and who do not live in this country. Under the current Child Credit, the I.R.S. has been paying illegal immigrants billions of dollars a year.
Congress should be careful to limit any pre-school tax credit to the families of citizens and legal immigrants. This would add less to the national debt and make it more palatable to taxpayers.
Illegal immigrants have been claiming money for children who were not born in this country and who do not live in this country. Under the current Child Credit, the I.R.S. has been paying illegal immigrants billions of dollars a year.
Congress should be careful to limit any pre-school tax credit to the families of citizens and legal immigrants. This would add less to the national debt and make it more palatable to taxpayers.
15
What is your source for this, these are some really big claims.
6
Do you have any evidence of this? At my children's elementary school, most undocumented workers did not apply for free and reduced school lunch because they did not want to bring attention to themselves.
6
Those are some major claims. Any evidence to back them?
We have to start thinking long-term about how to invest in the human capital of our country. An investment that returns $7.30 for every dollar spent is a good deal- same with long-acting and reversible contraceptives. Colorado showed us that for every dollar spent on these birth control devices, the US taxpayer saved $5 on Medicaid. We have to stop the knee-jerk "No!" reaction to high upfront costs for things. Building prisons and drug rehabilitation programs on the back end are far more expensive monetarily and for society as a whole.
While I am aware that academic gains have been shown to be temporary for Head Start programs, I do wonder if the non-cognitive skills gained in Head Start are undervalued. The ability to behave, sit still, meet expectations, function as part of a group, and work together are all important skills for young children to learn. A child with average academic ability but good social skills and confidence will do just fine in life. Look at our President!
While I am aware that academic gains have been shown to be temporary for Head Start programs, I do wonder if the non-cognitive skills gained in Head Start are undervalued. The ability to behave, sit still, meet expectations, function as part of a group, and work together are all important skills for young children to learn. A child with average academic ability but good social skills and confidence will do just fine in life. Look at our President!
25
Resistance to upfront cost is due to the complete corporatization of the US. THEY WANT prisons - it's an extremely lucrative business. An educated self-reliant populace is less easy to steal money from...
9
You have buried in your last paragraph the fact that under the Trump plan, annual savings would be $20 or less for families with income below $40K. Average annual savings would be $190. But savings for the rich could be quite substantial indeed; also buried at the end of the article are the facts that: (1) the cost of care will be deducted from taxes, which means the benefit is greatest for those who have the highest taxable income; and (2) the benefit is capped at $500,000 jointly or $250,000 individually. That cap is obscene. This is just another GOP Give-to-the-Rich plan, cloaked in Care-for-the-Poor garments by your own writer. Don't compare this, in your opening lines, to anything the Democrats have ever even considered proposing.
21
" the cost of care will be deducted from taxes, which means the benefit is greatest for those who have the highest taxable income"
Typical "progressive" comments,they believe that those who do not pay any income taxes should receive the most benefits while those who pay the most
taxes should not receive any benefits. As Maggie Thatcher said, "Socialism work great until it runs out of other people's money".
Typical "progressive" comments,they believe that those who do not pay any income taxes should receive the most benefits while those who pay the most
taxes should not receive any benefits. As Maggie Thatcher said, "Socialism work great until it runs out of other people's money".
10
A bit myopic Charles. The purpose of child care is to benefit society. And the benefit is greater if the lower income families are assisted than if the wealthy families are assisted.
Focus has to be upon the USA as a whole.
Focus has to be upon the USA as a whole.
12
Only a 3% difference. Hmmm. And then the fine print: "The small sample size — 37 boys in the programs who stayed in the study — means the difference was not very precisely estimated.". This article also touts the Denmark study, yet neglects to mention that those participants began childcare at age 3, not at birth.
Also note: "For well-off children, some studies have linked day care, especially low-quality care early in life, to achievement and behavior problems."
We really need more balanced and objective assessment of when and how daycare benefits or detracts from child cognitive, emotional, and social development. Right now, researchers on both sides of this debate seem to design and analyze research based on their personal biases.
Also note: "For well-off children, some studies have linked day care, especially low-quality care early in life, to achievement and behavior problems."
We really need more balanced and objective assessment of when and how daycare benefits or detracts from child cognitive, emotional, and social development. Right now, researchers on both sides of this debate seem to design and analyze research based on their personal biases.
23
A couple of honest posters here mentioned that they HATE being with the children -- find it boring -- want a fun exciting life without child care responsibilities -- so they "dump" their kids in day care or with a nanny.
Let's be clear on this: a lot of people would love to dump the care of their kids on the Federal government -- including illegal aliens -- and if it was free, such facilities would be SWAMPED. The costs would be astronomical!
If you want health care reform, and universal health care....you'd better pick your battles. You can't have everything. More people need heath care than day care!
Let's be clear on this: a lot of people would love to dump the care of their kids on the Federal government -- including illegal aliens -- and if it was free, such facilities would be SWAMPED. The costs would be astronomical!
If you want health care reform, and universal health care....you'd better pick your battles. You can't have everything. More people need heath care than day care!
1
Why can't Americans have what citizens in other nations have? Health care AND subsidized child care. AND subsidized college tuition, through medical school.
3
Child care is the ultimate hypocrisy of the republican party when pro-life matters when the baby isn't born, but when the child becomes a citizen life all of sudden doesn't matter anymore.
Spending on social programs like affordable child care and school have to be cut so we can make a few more fighter jets or tanks .
Spending on social programs like affordable child care and school have to be cut so we can make a few more fighter jets or tanks .
70
The Republicans are missing out here. They might be able to slant child care to produce more right wing stalwart fundamentalists.
2
How about a compromise??? First, free and widely available contraception. Then, subsided childcare, BUT only but those making LESS than an agreed upon amount, for EACH geographical area. I for one, don't wish for MY tax dollars going to a relatively well-off couple, having their 4th or 5th child. But FIRST, education and contraception. For the record, my husband and I had ONE child. That's enough. Just saying.
13
Universal childcare isn't expensive to society . What IS expensive is failed trickle down economics, and rampant corruption in how the tax code is implemented. I'm guessing there is enough ill-gotten cash stashed in Panama, the Caymans, etc to ensure that all Americans get the early childhood education that could lift generations to come. NYT: Reaganomics failed, stop paying lip service to the talking points of this tragedy.
35
We have a couple generations of young American men, ( ALL races), who have entirely lost their way in the world and will be a huge burden upon society if they don't find something productive to do with themselves. If we don't start paying more attention to them when they are younger, it will cost us in huge ways both financial and sociologically in the future. There are millions adrift.
23
Programs for poor mothers basically end up rewarding poor planning and penalizing married couples. The absolute best daycare is probably mom (or a blood relative). Shouldn't governments work towards making that more affordable for everyone?
If I look at how my kids' public school worked -- which they were glad to rush home from after only six hours -- I have to wonder what will happen to tots who go to care for ten hours a day?
Also, daycare workers will probably always be badly paid. It's market value because everyone wants to do it (kids are fun). On the other hand, almost anyone can do a good job with it -- you'd think humans had a parenting instinct or something ;) I see these 20 year old girls in my neighbourhood leading the tinies on their rope and they are so sweet to them. But two girls with sixteen preschoolers is not the same as one absolutely committed mom.
If I look at how my kids' public school worked -- which they were glad to rush home from after only six hours -- I have to wonder what will happen to tots who go to care for ten hours a day?
Also, daycare workers will probably always be badly paid. It's market value because everyone wants to do it (kids are fun). On the other hand, almost anyone can do a good job with it -- you'd think humans had a parenting instinct or something ;) I see these 20 year old girls in my neighbourhood leading the tinies on their rope and they are so sweet to them. But two girls with sixteen preschoolers is not the same as one absolutely committed mom.
16
There is so much wrong in your comment it's hard to know where to begin.
The idea that anyone is banging down the door to work in childcare because "kids are fun" is patently ridiculous. Kids are fun, sure. For an average of about 15 minutes out of an 8 hour workday. The rest of the time they're demanding, aggressive, whiny, clingy, dirty, hungry, overtired, and probably need changing. More and more they are presenting with behavior disorders, developmental delays, and overworked parents who are struggling to afford care.
Childcare is not for the faint of heart, and the idea that it requires no skill, education, training, or recognition as a profession is a relic from a time that no longer exists.
And, as someone who has worked both in Child Protective Services and Daycare, the idea that the best child care is provided by mothers simply because they are mothers is absurd. More mothers abuse and / or kill their children than fathers or other males by a statistically significant margin.
Finally, "poor planning? Are you for real? Because every child of every married couple was planned and every child or every unmarried couple was not?
In what century did yo compose your comment?
The idea that anyone is banging down the door to work in childcare because "kids are fun" is patently ridiculous. Kids are fun, sure. For an average of about 15 minutes out of an 8 hour workday. The rest of the time they're demanding, aggressive, whiny, clingy, dirty, hungry, overtired, and probably need changing. More and more they are presenting with behavior disorders, developmental delays, and overworked parents who are struggling to afford care.
Childcare is not for the faint of heart, and the idea that it requires no skill, education, training, or recognition as a profession is a relic from a time that no longer exists.
And, as someone who has worked both in Child Protective Services and Daycare, the idea that the best child care is provided by mothers simply because they are mothers is absurd. More mothers abuse and / or kill their children than fathers or other males by a statistically significant margin.
Finally, "poor planning? Are you for real? Because every child of every married couple was planned and every child or every unmarried couple was not?
In what century did yo compose your comment?
153
The evidence simply doesn't support your suppositions. The fact is that high quality day care is found to help children, and THEIR children.
16
Reply to ljt,
Women kill more children simply because mothers care for so many more children than men. Statistically speaking the best protection for children is for their biological father to be in the home. I've never heard that daycare provided any protection that way.
I understand that not all children can be planned. And I don't think women should have to have abortion or do adoption. At the same time, it's hard for middle class parents to watch poorer people get benefits that they can't simply because they exercised self discipline and waited (in my case for eight years before having a child).
Lastly, of course childcare is hard -- it's not a vacation, that's for sure. But it's less hard than, say, coal mining. And takes less skill than, I was going to say surgery, but probably less training even than carpentry.
Women kill more children simply because mothers care for so many more children than men. Statistically speaking the best protection for children is for their biological father to be in the home. I've never heard that daycare provided any protection that way.
I understand that not all children can be planned. And I don't think women should have to have abortion or do adoption. At the same time, it's hard for middle class parents to watch poorer people get benefits that they can't simply because they exercised self discipline and waited (in my case for eight years before having a child).
Lastly, of course childcare is hard -- it's not a vacation, that's for sure. But it's less hard than, say, coal mining. And takes less skill than, I was going to say surgery, but probably less training even than carpentry.
7
High quality daycare is according to this article, very important to our society for many reasons.
Realistically, fewer weapons and a smaller defense budget would fund this improvement in our society easily.
Instead of destroying people, we could build our better selves.
Let's do it.
Realistically, fewer weapons and a smaller defense budget would fund this improvement in our society easily.
Instead of destroying people, we could build our better selves.
Let's do it.
17
How often have you heard, oh, the sports guy spouting wisdom like, "I know its a lot of money, but more power to him. I say, if the market will bear paying LeBron $865 gajillion bucks a year, more power to him. If the market didn't think he was worth, he'd never get it."
Thing is, the market is stupid. It has no goals, it considers no future, justice is a laughable concept devoid of meaning or import.
Even Adam Smith, The Founding Marketeer, Dad of the Invisible Hand, the great enabler of America, was emphatic that the market needs help. Lots of it.
So relative to day care, people like Adam From PA a few slots below need to abandon their reductionist arguments leading from the perverse incentive of affordable day care to women who have more children and more children because, gosh, it's so easy these days.
Or perhaps they could consider a different incentive for a change. The one that should be encouraging them to think of children, wherever they come from, as a community responsibility and our best opportunity for an excellent future. How laggard would we be not to put our best effort into making the most of that chance?
And, relative to LeBron (sorry, man, I know you're one of the good ones...), to help the market rejigger its thinking to recognize that people who care for and educate, encourage and engage our children ought to be paid way more than a living wage.
The market, as it so often is, is wrong. Because it's just the market, not the meaning of America.
Thing is, the market is stupid. It has no goals, it considers no future, justice is a laughable concept devoid of meaning or import.
Even Adam Smith, The Founding Marketeer, Dad of the Invisible Hand, the great enabler of America, was emphatic that the market needs help. Lots of it.
So relative to day care, people like Adam From PA a few slots below need to abandon their reductionist arguments leading from the perverse incentive of affordable day care to women who have more children and more children because, gosh, it's so easy these days.
Or perhaps they could consider a different incentive for a change. The one that should be encouraging them to think of children, wherever they come from, as a community responsibility and our best opportunity for an excellent future. How laggard would we be not to put our best effort into making the most of that chance?
And, relative to LeBron (sorry, man, I know you're one of the good ones...), to help the market rejigger its thinking to recognize that people who care for and educate, encourage and engage our children ought to be paid way more than a living wage.
The market, as it so often is, is wrong. Because it's just the market, not the meaning of America.
10
See, the thing to do is to get Lebron to use his couple of extra million dollars to open well-funded quality childcare centers all across the country. They could even be named after him so that he could have bragging rights. He'd pay for them, so they'd offer free childcare to all and sundry, and he could claim them as charitable deductions on his income tax. We could make it a thing for all rich athletes, actors, actresses, lottery-winners, CEOs and such to, and they could compete to see who had the best childcare center around. Rich individuals could also build and subsidize women's health centers, and colleges and trade schools, and pay for new roads and bridges. If the ancient Romans could sponsor monuments and the Catholic Church could sponsor hospitals and orphanages, then why couldn't LeBron James and other multimillionaires do it, too?
1
Single parenthood should not be rewarded. Married parenthood should be rewarded. I am an atheist, but I care about people. Marriage is the most important thing for child development. Particularly for boys. People who are not married before the baby is born are choosing for their boys to fail. A government that subsidizes this is choosing this. In effect, the government is fathering these children. And it is a bad father.
31
So, mothers whose partners die while they are pregnant should be punished? Mothers whose partners walk out on them while they're pregnant should be punished? Where is the consequence for the father in these situations?
58
You are pointing at corner cases. If the partner is unreliable, do not conceive a child with that person. If you become pregnant outside of marriage, abort the pregnancy. That is all I am saying. We are talking about well over 50 percent of mothers today, not some corner case for which I should be financially responsible.
9
Not just the mother being punished because their partner died or walked out. Apparently, it's ok to punish the child and grandchild, too, because that's who benefits from having good daycare. Let's punish the woman and her family to the third generation because her partner died, or left, or she left when he was abusive, etc. That sounds totally reasonable...
17
The last thing we need is for more government programs to undermine families. Whatever the "upside" or the "need," the program will be ripe for the ambitions of social engineers and busybodies. If anything, we should deregulate childcare. Parents ought to form cooperatives for minding children, curtail their lifestyle, or perhaps not have children in the first place.
13
Oh Mario, so you think government-supported daycare "undermines" families because of "social engineering?" Let's see, what are children taught in the typical daycare? To share is a big value, and we all agree on that, don't we . . . oh wait, many Republicans don't seem to agree on sharing. Let the poor starve and go without medical care seems to be their mantra. Good daycare helps children acquire the skills that lead to early reading and a love of books. Don't we all agree on that? Oh wait . . .maybe children shouldn't read science books . . . or books that showcase strong women . . . or . . . Hmmm. Okay, Mario, I see what you mean.
13
Children are a big responsibility. If you don't want that responsibility, or can't manage that responsibility, then the responsible thing to do is to not have children—not demand that they become everyone else's responsibility, through the progressive policies of big government.
The problem of childcare is not that government isn't subsidizing it.
The problem of childcare is not that government isn't subsidizing it.
10
What are children taught in daycare......this is not a republican nor democrat issue, this is pure economics. What it teaches all our children that the pursuit of the almighty dollar in America is more important than the family unit. Pure and Simple
1
It's great that child care assistance has been shown to have long-term economic benefits for society, but there's an even more fundamental reason to do it: basic fairness. Don't we owe all children a fair shot? They cannot choose the circumstances they're born into.
97
"The program was 'expensive', but ..... the researchers concluded that it returned $7.30 for every dollar spent."
That's not 'expensive '...that's a money-saving and money-making jackpot that every civilized country (except the United States of Me, Myself and I) figured out decades ago.
"Too complicated" for the Grand Old Poverty party to understand.
That's not 'expensive '...that's a money-saving and money-making jackpot that every civilized country (except the United States of Me, Myself and I) figured out decades ago.
"Too complicated" for the Grand Old Poverty party to understand.
229
Your sentence is not correct that affordable care, long a goal of Democrats, in now being championed by Ivanka Trump. While giving lip service to this huge problem, Ms. Trump is simply championing tax credits that will be benefit only those who earn enough income to use them. By contrast, Democrats have long advocated plans that would help all working parents, and not the already fortunate.
All other advanced countries are able to provide affordable child care for its citizens. It isn't rocket science. However, as long as we have a majority of Republican men in Congress who devalue women and often have extremist faiths that believe women belong at home or by the side of their man (to keep him from straying, a la Mike Pence's concern), we will not see progress.
All other advanced countries are able to provide affordable child care for its citizens. It isn't rocket science. However, as long as we have a majority of Republican men in Congress who devalue women and often have extremist faiths that believe women belong at home or by the side of their man (to keep him from straying, a la Mike Pence's concern), we will not see progress.
203
My state has free child care for poor families. This and many other government incentives lead to a birthrate grossly distorted by race and class. In effect, the governments child care policy embeds enough racism that demographic outcomes are heavily affected. While this is a poor rationale to have Ivanka Trumps childcare tax deduction put into place, instead we might just agree that a variety of people should have the ability to have children, not only the poor.
4
This article essentially says that
1.) in the present, society should fully pay for people's the outcomes of people's reproductive decisions, single mothers, two parent families making $35,000 who have 1 child and then another...
2.) in the future, society should agree to put policies in place that ensure that this problem worsens. Since these day cares pay low wages to female workers than its likely that an expansion in centers combined with high quality standards will lead to more women hired at these low wages. If these women have children then society has to cover the costs of their day care, which expands the need for day cares and creates more of these low-wage jobs for women. If those women have children...
1.) in the present, society should fully pay for people's the outcomes of people's reproductive decisions, single mothers, two parent families making $35,000 who have 1 child and then another...
2.) in the future, society should agree to put policies in place that ensure that this problem worsens. Since these day cares pay low wages to female workers than its likely that an expansion in centers combined with high quality standards will lead to more women hired at these low wages. If these women have children then society has to cover the costs of their day care, which expands the need for day cares and creates more of these low-wage jobs for women. If those women have children...
6
Childcare costs are a burden even for the wealthy. How can society grow if we either discourage people from having children or punish them for having children by not allowing them to return to the workforce? Let me give you my real-life example:
My spouse and I are expecting twins. Our take home pay is about $120,000/year,
Our housing is about 2,000/mo. Student loans are 2,300. Let's add a conservative $833 for food for a family of four/ month. In my area, conservatively, infant childcare is 1250 per child per month. So 2500 for twins. OK, we are up to $91,600/year. Now, let's reduce my take home salary, since maternity leave is 12 unpaid weeks. Let's adjust that down to 110,000 for this year. Great. Now, I've got $18k left for everything else. Phew! Now, imagine that we started off with less than $120k. OK? It's not reasonable to expect that only couples making over 100k per year can have children.
My spouse and I are expecting twins. Our take home pay is about $120,000/year,
Our housing is about 2,000/mo. Student loans are 2,300. Let's add a conservative $833 for food for a family of four/ month. In my area, conservatively, infant childcare is 1250 per child per month. So 2500 for twins. OK, we are up to $91,600/year. Now, let's reduce my take home salary, since maternity leave is 12 unpaid weeks. Let's adjust that down to 110,000 for this year. Great. Now, I've got $18k left for everything else. Phew! Now, imagine that we started off with less than $120k. OK? It's not reasonable to expect that only couples making over 100k per year can have children.
33
@ Loora
Lots of places in the US less expensive to live in.
Lots of places in the US less expensive to live in.
3
But in those places she wouldn't make the same salary. She would make less.
2
Bottom line here is that you want to take a middle ground imo.
If you listen to the die hard neo cons, that offer no help, or measly tax breaks, you end up with families entering the poverty zone or worse.
If you listen to the wild eyed liberals, you get the welfare state, the govt supporting the child instead of the parent.
If you listen to the die hard neo cons, that offer no help, or measly tax breaks, you end up with families entering the poverty zone or worse.
If you listen to the wild eyed liberals, you get the welfare state, the govt supporting the child instead of the parent.
8
I grew up poor so no childcare and I was left to my own devices p. I think being socialized with other children would of made me fit into society. Now I've 165 IQ but I can't hold a job because the metrics of success are not defined by intelligence but rather social skills. Look at Stephen Colbert, he was socialized and now excels.
8
I volunteer in childcare and find it wonderful - for me it's free entertainment and joy - tiny kids come and hold my hand to bring me to see something they've made - ah
for the kids I see free play is powerful learning in socialisation - kids who start off with gimme! and snatch quickly find themselves wondering why nobody wants to play with them. Then they learn to get more friends they need to give more to others.
I've seen kids transformed from little monsters that would bully and terrorise others two years ago into well-socialised young people with lots of friends who want to play with them today - it's wonderful to see.
Mostly I just sit silent and listen - that's my pleasure - compared to some other staff who mostly shout - today three kids said I was their favourite teacher - I think because I mostly smile on their activities compared to other staff who shout stop! at the first sign of anything that 'might not be safe!'
for the kids I see free play is powerful learning in socialisation - kids who start off with gimme! and snatch quickly find themselves wondering why nobody wants to play with them. Then they learn to get more friends they need to give more to others.
I've seen kids transformed from little monsters that would bully and terrorise others two years ago into well-socialised young people with lots of friends who want to play with them today - it's wonderful to see.
Mostly I just sit silent and listen - that's my pleasure - compared to some other staff who mostly shout - today three kids said I was their favourite teacher - I think because I mostly smile on their activities compared to other staff who shout stop! at the first sign of anything that 'might not be safe!'
49
Your comment made me smile, bless you!
2
In civilized countries with universal single payer healthcare, mothers can take three years off from a job (guaranteed return). (I don't know how much $$ mother receive during this period.) This article puts me in mind of "The Handmaidens Tale." So women are now to function as breeders and keep the child overnighters? This all gets really silly. BTW often the mothers need as much help education-wise as the children. I don't know the answers to this complicated question but some people do well with young children and some don't. Ditto with other adults.
6
Childcare should be part of a flexible tax-funded, subsidized national educational plan. For the first years of life parents could choose home care and subsidies/tax breaks or care attached to a university and public school system, which would include early screening and special education as needed, credits for student interns in early education/child psychology programs, and requirements for parent involvement/education as well as a sliding pay scale based on income that would be affordable for all. Ideally, children's preschool education would be connected to their K-12 education. Getting more parents back to school and work and more children onto a level playing field before Kindergarten would help families and prevent the need for more expensive care and a good deal of the school-to-prison pipeline. Children entering Kindergarten without preschool experience can be one-two years behind, and may never catch up. They require remediation in Kindergarten! The U.S. should plan for success and use the country's tax resources for its people rather than wasting so much money on the back end on remediation, drugs, and prisons. We need health care for all, cradle to grave, and education for all, cradle to grave. It's much more costly, inefficient, and ineffective to have every family scramble, make-do, or fail to. We know that people have children, get sick, get old, and die. So plan and fund these realities!
29
Allowing parents to choose home care and get a tax break or a subsidy is akin to vouchers and would undermine any public option.
2
I didn't go to preschool and I hold two doctorates. Guess I never "caught up."
4
Or, since the world is overpopulated, and the U.S. is overpopulated, don't encourage people to have more children than they can afford. Pay people enough (a living wage) that they can afford child care if they one child. Having private employers underpay workers, and then having taxpayers subsidize childcare, is the worst way forward.
31
That would be great if everyone had access to affordable/free, effective birth control. But until that time, affordable, safe childcare is needed.
28
Umm... you claim over population, but the amount of land used in the US is quite little compared to how much is still wilderness or just undeveloped. Even food production is a waste at this point with much of it being thrown out as it 'expires' on store shelves because of a lack of people to purchase it.
2
"Pay people enough (a living wage) that they can afford child care if they one child. "
The greater the pressure for a "living minimum wage", the greater will be the incentive for companies to replace increasingly more expensive no-skill / low-skill workers with increasingly less expensive and more efficient automation. The end result will be more unemployed former minimum wage workers.
The greater the pressure for a "living minimum wage", the greater will be the incentive for companies to replace increasingly more expensive no-skill / low-skill workers with increasingly less expensive and more efficient automation. The end result will be more unemployed former minimum wage workers.
1
The problem is that we don't regard childcare, especially for the youngest, as skilled work that requires a decent wage to attract experienced, skilled caregivers. "It's just babysitting." High quality care is expensive--it requires a low child:caregiver/teacher ratio, and the teachers need to be paid well enough that they stay on the job. Because childcare pays so poorly, teachers are less likely to stay.
We also run into a cultural stumbling block where we treat this as a morality question: children are a choice and it's up to the parents, particularly mothers, and the best care is for the child to stay home (not necessarily true). Americans are more likely to think of assistance for children in terms of how it benefits the parents.
The reality is that children will be in childcare, and it benefits them and us for that care to be high quality.
We also run into a cultural stumbling block where we treat this as a morality question: children are a choice and it's up to the parents, particularly mothers, and the best care is for the child to stay home (not necessarily true). Americans are more likely to think of assistance for children in terms of how it benefits the parents.
The reality is that children will be in childcare, and it benefits them and us for that care to be high quality.
114
Children are a choice only when contraceptives and abortions are readily available. The republicans want to curtail abortions and contraception but do not want to bear the financial burden of child care. This country needs to discourage women from having children they cannot take care of and don't want and do everything they can to prevent their birth which is the opposite of what is happening
16
Children are, currently, still a choice, fortunately.
5
Milly Durovic:
You write: "...This country needs to discourage women from having children they ... don't want...."
Childbearing is a proof of sexual competence both to the parents and to the neighborhood. This psychological factor needs to be considered along with possible desire for children.
You write: "...This country needs to discourage women from having children they ... don't want...."
Childbearing is a proof of sexual competence both to the parents and to the neighborhood. This psychological factor needs to be considered along with possible desire for children.
Subsidies for high-quality child care is not only ubiquitous in civilized societies around the world, but is enormously beneficial for mothers, families, and the children they raise.
So why does The Upshot oped on this subject have to begin its main paragraph with this sentence: "Helping parents pay for that care would be expensive for society, too."
Why the conservative spin? Why The Upshot's constant pandering to conservative viewpoints?
Subsides for child care, paid maternal leave, paid medical leave, minimum wage that is a living wage, are all necessary for our society and for "struggling families." Too bad that The Times' Upshot column feels the need to always pander to the far right.
So why does The Upshot oped on this subject have to begin its main paragraph with this sentence: "Helping parents pay for that care would be expensive for society, too."
Why the conservative spin? Why The Upshot's constant pandering to conservative viewpoints?
Subsides for child care, paid maternal leave, paid medical leave, minimum wage that is a living wage, are all necessary for our society and for "struggling families." Too bad that The Times' Upshot column feels the need to always pander to the far right.
71
To say "helping parents pay for that care would be expensive for society, too," is not necessarily pandering to conservatives. It is stating a truth and then also making an argument as to why the investment may be worthwhile.
If the election results and complete Republican control of Congress haven't convinced us otherwise, the USA is a center-right country. Bill Clinton understood this. The NY Times has traditionally been a center-left paper, although it is more and more a strange hybrid of pure left while simultaneously catering to 1%er social liberals. I guess people who attend the same events and go to the same private schools as the Sulzberger family?
If the election results and complete Republican control of Congress haven't convinced us otherwise, the USA is a center-right country. Bill Clinton understood this. The NY Times has traditionally been a center-left paper, although it is more and more a strange hybrid of pure left while simultaneously catering to 1%er social liberals. I guess people who attend the same events and go to the same private schools as the Sulzberger family?
2
Government-funded childcare programs aren't going to be high-quality because they're never going to pay enough to attract enough high-quality caregivers.
The problem isn't who is paying for it or how many bureaucrats there are monitoring it, the problem is the low salary for the actual caregivers. Zero educated and stable and caring people are going to work for peanuts (and those are the traits young children need most in a caregiver).
Pay much, much more or get mediocre (at best) care. Last summer, I walked by an adorably and expensively dressed child being berated loudly and demeaningly by a nanny (in a uniform) in Central Park! I stopped and stared at the nanny but that didn't stop her. I'd wager the parents spent more on kids clothes than they paid the nanny.
You get what you pay for.
The problem isn't who is paying for it or how many bureaucrats there are monitoring it, the problem is the low salary for the actual caregivers. Zero educated and stable and caring people are going to work for peanuts (and those are the traits young children need most in a caregiver).
Pay much, much more or get mediocre (at best) care. Last summer, I walked by an adorably and expensively dressed child being berated loudly and demeaningly by a nanny (in a uniform) in Central Park! I stopped and stared at the nanny but that didn't stop her. I'd wager the parents spent more on kids clothes than they paid the nanny.
You get what you pay for.
20
Some Headstart programs are wonderful and there is additional help for more disabled (language/behaviour issuPes) children. Food served at lunch is excellent unlike that in public schools. People are well paid to run these schools.
Problem is educational gains fade when kids go to school, which suggests that the public school system needs fixing... and it does. (I have worked in both sectors.) PS I am not esp. in favor of the "integrated" (I mean skill level and behaviour) classroom. Badly behaving and disruptive children need their own setting-- so the classroom is not run like the army -- which less skilled teachers often resort to). Children who can learn faster should not be held back by the needs of their less apt classmates. (Separate by reading lvel -- easy.) This may seem unfair but to whom is it actually unfair?
Problem is educational gains fade when kids go to school, which suggests that the public school system needs fixing... and it does. (I have worked in both sectors.) PS I am not esp. in favor of the "integrated" (I mean skill level and behaviour) classroom. Badly behaving and disruptive children need their own setting-- so the classroom is not run like the army -- which less skilled teachers often resort to). Children who can learn faster should not be held back by the needs of their less apt classmates. (Separate by reading lvel -- easy.) This may seem unfair but to whom is it actually unfair?
7
My observations from a career in a major city inner city public schools are much different. Yes, Head Start students in the early grades do much better than students who did not attend. That is because the Head Start students got knowledge and skills the other children did not. Once in kindergarten, those extra learning opportunities disappear. If parents need help teaching basic skills like alphabet and numbers, how can we expect them to be proficient with long division, deductive reasoning and scientific method?
We need to provide the educational assistance each child needs. Just as the benefits of Head Start help preschool children to be ready for kindergarten, continued support through elementary, middle and high school will help students perform well at every level.
Disruptive and badly behaving students grow up into disruptive and badly behaving adults, especially if their education is deficient. Early intervention for these students is better for them and cheaper for society than preparing a prison cell for their adult life.
Yes, this requires the belief that all children deserve the opportunity for a good life. Don't they?
We need to provide the educational assistance each child needs. Just as the benefits of Head Start help preschool children to be ready for kindergarten, continued support through elementary, middle and high school will help students perform well at every level.
Disruptive and badly behaving students grow up into disruptive and badly behaving adults, especially if their education is deficient. Early intervention for these students is better for them and cheaper for society than preparing a prison cell for their adult life.
Yes, this requires the belief that all children deserve the opportunity for a good life. Don't they?
46
Public schools do "separate" students by reading level during small group reading instruction; this can happen during math too, although there is also whole group instruction. Sometimes children who are out of control do need to be separated, but for the most part, instead of sending children off and rewarding them for not regulating their behavior, all children and the teacher need Responsive Classroom/behavior management training and practice. In other words, part of going to school is social-emotional learning; it's not separate from academic learning. We don't get to just toss the unpleasant children away; teachers have to learn children and families as well as disciplines. That's why teaching is so challenging and important and so much more than teaching a subject. I think that preschool should be better connected to public school; they should not exist as separate from the feeder schools.
6
One point this article didn't mention is how poorly early childcare educators are paid. It is endlessly frustrating how little value is placed on this field as serious high skilled work. If we want high quality care for children and families that will truly benefit individuals and society in the long run than we need to compensate and respect the people who do the work. $17,000 is considered expensive?What do we really care about as a society? Not young children and the people who educate and nurture them. Early childhood education is not babysitting it is high skilled, intellectual work. Raise the salaries in the field to attract and retain good teachers. Everyone will benefit in the long run.
192
$17,000 a year for one child is expensive if you only make $40,000, and after taxes and withholdings (including retirement savings, hopefully), take home much less. I agree with you, early childhood educators SHOULD be paid much more; they provide a wonderful and highly important service. But I'm not sure how to make that happen without some sort of subsidy or another creative solution.
7
Much of this is just economics. Ongoing childcare is generally used to allow parents to work. If childcare costs more than the parent makes, it wouldn't make sense. If it costs more than say 70% of what a parent might make, they might think it's not worth it. Add in a second child and it doubles. You've got a niche for high-paid home nanny's perhaps that offer higher credentials, but generally the mass-market child care provider has a low rate. And often times we don't need someone with a Masters in child development and speaks 3 language, we just need someone to keep an eye on a Toddler for several hours.
4
It goes along with how little we invest in after school programs in poor neighborhoods, teaching and schools, how we seize upon whatever currently "looks good" to fix education, how little we invest in programs that will help everyone, not just the poor because at heart America is a punitive country. We reward lying, cheating, stealing, backstabbing and other bad behavior with money, power, and sometimes the presidency.
We also view children as an expense rather than an investment. It's why we're so content to blame poor children for their academic deficiencies while we offer rich kids tutoring and give them more of a break for juvenile offenses. We don't like angry young minorities and we penalize them accordingly with prison, foster care, poor schools, lousy housing, etc. The only reason Trump got as far as he did is his race and his money. Others doing what he's done would be pariahs.
We also view children as an expense rather than an investment. It's why we're so content to blame poor children for their academic deficiencies while we offer rich kids tutoring and give them more of a break for juvenile offenses. We don't like angry young minorities and we penalize them accordingly with prison, foster care, poor schools, lousy housing, etc. The only reason Trump got as far as he did is his race and his money. Others doing what he's done would be pariahs.
2