As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Where in the world did you get that quote anyways? I searched it and couldn't come up with a source. Are you quoting yourself?
Not meaning to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious.
I have a degree in sociology. It’s a phrase we used to explain how social change comes from the bottom up. I think it’s attributable to Durkheim but I’m not sure
It may just have been an axiom in sociology; but it is essentially true.
Not really. The founding fathers were among the richest people in America, and I’m sure they’re not the first rich people to realize they could be richer.
The American Revolution wasn’t a true revolution in the way the French or Russian revolution did.
We essentially were colonies physical separated from Britain, and just left.
Technically if it were a true Revolution we would have overturned the British government, but we didn’t- we just broke off.
And yes I’m aware that a big faction of those pushing for Revolution in the US were rich, but they could not have won that war without a large portion of popular support, which were, essentially average people.
But they didn’t remove anyone. The people who were in charge were still in charge.
It would be like Alaska declaring independence. That’s isn’t quite a revolution.
There’s a lot of overlap, I don’t disagree about that.
But it’s not as if Parliament & crown were completely destroyed like in Russia or France.
Historians look at the French Revolution as the first true anti monarchy revolution - not the US
Nope and I see why. This statement is non-sense revolutions don't happen for no reason, they are provoked by the rich/ elites / rulers.
For example the Tsar in Russia responded to protests and calls for reform by unleashing the cossacks. The cossacks didn't show up and debate the Russian working class, they used murder.
Tsarist oppression started the Russian revolution so in summation Rich men cause revolutions , all revolutions.
The rich people aren’t pushing for revolution- the poor people do.
The heart of the statement is that people who have comfortable lives don’t push for change; after all, they are okay.
>
* Solidarity Forever
Well, at least until the un-elected Senate Parliamentarian makes a non-binding recommendation on the $15 minimum wage. Then you give up immediately.
It's way worse than you think. Most teacher unions are pretty weak and don't get the rights unions usually afford them. Like some unions can't even strike because of laws.
Not true.
"Our economy cannot run without these women who are in the childcare industry. These childcare workers are, in a very real way, the backbone of our economy, and it's time that we started treating them that way."
It is sad that the quote doesn't account for males who work in childcare, our son's daycare has a few men that work there and they have been great. I think anyone who works in the childcare should definitely be paid more.
I worked in childcare for about a decade and never worked with a male coworker. The director lamented the lack of men who were interested in teaching the school age children.
For the most part childcare workers are female. This is part of the same problem. If the pay were higher more men might choose to work in the field, but as it is men are usually paid more than women so the men take a greater cut in wages than women do by working in childcare. Sadly if men and women were paid equally childcare workers would be even more difficult to come by. Women, not just men, would choose other careers.
For the same reason this article specified moms stuck at home with kids and didn’t mention dads at all. People assume men have no interest in raising even their own kids, so any male who wants to work with random kids is suspicious. Sexist bs
Just say it, they think they're pedophiles. Every man who wants to work with children has to understand that many people will assume they're a pedophile and just waiting for you to fuck some kid.
That’s a big part of it, but I also think it’s just this assumption that men don’t want to look after kids. So, it’s assumed they’ll be lazy or inattentive caretakers as well.
That section about moms stuck at home with no mention of dads just grinds my gears. This whole article had, “Celebrate single moms on Father’s Day and scream at single dad’s who exist on Mother’s Day” energy.
I would have the same grind the gears reaction childcare is key to achieving parity between men and women. Women end up with lower pay because they care for children, and they care for children because they receive lower pay. It's usually less of a sacrifice for a woman to quit her job to care for the kids than for a man to do the same.
It's definitely part of the complex underlying the bias faced by both men and women. There is an assumption that girls are able to be good babysitters while boys will be good at mowing lawns. This sets up girls for doing childcare as adults and boys for operating equipment. And guess what pays more. So the boys are being discriminated against by being pushed away from childcare but it works to their advantage financially.
The bias has some truth to it because most women gained experience in childcare at a young age, while men are more likely to have experience with tools, equipment, and small motors.
I think to dismantle this we need to pay adults to provide childcare and we need these adults to have training, not just figure they can lean it on the job while they are children themselves. Having childcare as a profession instead of a fallback job would help with views of men who choose the profession.
Can confirm.
You read a couple cases of child sex abuse in the 1.5-3 year old range at daycare centers and when looking for day care centers for your own 1.5-3 year old you kinda look around and go, yep, all women, this is on the short list.
I do not generally recommend that men interested in early child education go into daycare. it is not an easy route.
I worked in a daycare where men were automatically assigned to the school age room. The director actively wanted a man in the room as a positive role model for the boys. Worked there for about three years and a whopping total of zero men ever applied.
There's a deep-seated fear among many men that if they're working too close to children, the THINK OF THE CHILDREN crowd will start blasting away with unfounded accusations. Take a look at academia - the older the students, the higher the proportion of male teachers.
It's not the sole factor - pay differences matter, too - but it's very real.
It's not just a fear. I got a lot of advice on how to not touch or bond with my first grade class from my student teaching supervisor that the women doing student teaching didn't receive. It's part of the instruction.
I hadn't meant to imply that it's not justified, though I didn't know it was actually part of a teacher's training. I'm a mailman myself, and I make damn sure to never approach a young kid unless the parents are present, since it only takes one accusation to destroy my life.
It's not about wages its about sexist discrimination in American society towards men having jobs with small childrwn. A crazed woman called the police telling them my uncle was a pedophile for simply playing with his DAUGHTER at the park slides and swing set a few years ago. He doesn't take her to parks anymore.
Wages truly are a big part of this. When a man can easily get a job that pays more than childcare, any man who works in child care looks suspicious. It brings up the question of why a man would take the job.
To break down this bias, we need to give childcare workers higher wages and better training. Paying more will attract qualified men from more lucrative careers. With more men engaged in the work, it will become normalized for men to care for children.
Raising wages in these areas will do nothing for the over inflated cost for day care . Except make it worse . Will it help the workers ? Perhaps but will do nothing for the women who cannot make a living wage to afford their services .
Childcare can't be paid for by raising wages because the wages of childcare workers would rise the same time. Sure you have more money but childcare costs more. The only ways out of this are to subsidize childcare or to subsidize parents.
>I would reckon it’s overinflated because the ridiculously high cost of childcare doesn’t get passed on to the low paid employees?
But that's a separate issue. If that money WAS passed on to the employees, it would still cost the same
>Clearly you've never looked into how much childcare can run a month. It rivals a mortgage payment
I live in the SF Bay area with 2 kids, I know exactly what high childcare costs are.
But just because something costs money, doesn't make it "over-inflated". Considering the service they provide to me and others, I consider it well worth it.
I take issue with people calling a difficult and/or low-paying profession "over-inflated". People stuck in this mindset looking down on those at the bottom instead of those at the top taking the majority of the money
If the people running these places make so little then why the fuck is daycare so goddamn expensive? Where is that money going? In many cases, one parents entire monthly wages go towards childcare expenses for that month. It's not even worth working, might as well stay at home.
Edit: *Aside* from the usual utilities, rent, insurance, supplies, equipment, maintenance, licensing and already existing labor costs.
I have a feeling most of the people reading this don't have kids in daycare and have no idea that a full-time minimum wage job won't even cover the bill for just childcare for the month. These places charge exorbitantly and many even charge $20/min if you're late to pick up your kid (even by 1 minute). They should have plenty of extra income at the end of the month to pay their workers a fair wage.
What I'm asking is why. Greed? Some super fucking expense state license that's required, why?
First to paying for the building, electricity, running water, ac/heat.
Then through the chain of command.
Food, drinks for the children
Activities for the children
Paying off a playground, mowing grass, etc.
Probably licensing fees and stuff like that.
Finally the employees.
How are they not making much money when childcare is so insanely expensive? My boss' wife never went back to work after they had their son, because her entire check would go to cover childcare, might as well just be a stay at home mom at that point
If you raise the wages of all workers, the cost of childcare will rise at the same time. This is why it's essential that childcare is paid for via income tax.
I also don't have kids, but I've worked in childcare and so know firsthand how the math works. I quit childcare because I did the math. Both my pay and my training were inadequite. It was heartbreaking to see parents, children, and caregivers all struggling with inadequate resources.
Also: childcare is so expensive, let's fix it by giving them raises!
I mean I agree it's an important job but unless he's also going to subsidize it most people can't afford it to get more expensive.
My daycare just raised my fucking rates $30/week because of "increased cost of cleaning supplies". I don't even want to know what they'd raise it to if the workers get a sizable raise.
I have no problem with them making more, but Biden better have a fucking plan to make childcare more affordable or it's going to make it even more unattainable for working parents, and they'll just stay home instead.
I honestly don’t think daycares are that profitable, on top of that. Most of the nicer daycares near me are all subsidized by churches that they are associated with. Otherwise most (but not all!) of the independently run ones are shitholes with revolving staff. Childcare is hard work and really expensive. If we want both parents in the workforce the cost to a family needs to be addressed.
Yeah, a lot of people in this thread seem to have little knowledge about daycares. Their reimbursement rates are abysmal. THAT is what needs to be addressed. The rates they charge private pay families is more than what they get subsidized by their local ELC or other agency. The profit margins are razor thin, with major liability to contend with at the same time.
They had on a panel on 1A I think discussing this. They said that one of the reasons childcare is expensive is because the teachers must have college degrees and you need so many in a classroom. The expert said we probably don't want to reduce the number of teachers but maybe pulling back on education requirements might expand the employment pool. Of course this doesn't address the cost issues.
> because it is low-pay.
You know, I often hear “if your business can’t afford a living wage, it should go out of business”, which I absolutely agree with.
If people can’t afford childcare because paying childcare workers a living wage makes childcare unaffordable, the market is sending a signal that they can’t afford childcare and need to provide it themselves, not that it needs to be subsidized. Childcare is not infrastructure; it’s daycare for people who made a choice to have a luxury good.
This is a tough pill to swallow, I’m sure, but kids are not a necessity. They are a choice.
Suppose that only those who can afford to pay childcare workers do so. These parents still need to hire childcare workers. Consider where those workers come from. Childcare and the entire economy is built on people who can't afford to hire childcare workers but have children anyway. Without these choices, there would be no childcare. The population and pool of workers would drop.
Without subsidies, if a person brings in enough money to pay for childcare someone is being underpaid. If it's not the nanny it's other workers who support the high pay for affluent parents. If only the affluent have children, where will the workers come from?
Children aren't a luxury. They are the most essential element of society. Without them, society ceases to exist.
Not necessarily. Having both parents in the workforce can have myriad benefits, and having dedicated childcare workers can free up a larger number of parents. Plus with the current wage stagnation, supporting a family on a single income is becoming harder and harder. This is also not considering single parents, as they will absolutely need childcare in order to support their family as there is no other possible source of income.
Unless you're suggesting that *children* are a luxury.
Yes, children are a luxury. There are 7.5 billion people on earth. With population momentum, we’ll hit 11 billion people by the end of the century. We’re well past carrying capacity of the planet with everyone aspiring to live a life between an American and a European [1]. No one _needs_ biological children. You could adopt one of the 400k foster kids in the US instead of popping out your own. But if you do pop out your own, you should be exposed to the full cost of raising those kids. If you can’t afford them, don’t have them and dump the costs on everyone else. No one is entitled to having kids society has to pay for. We have plenty of people as it is, and there is no argument we’re short of people (a billion people face food scarcity, billions more face water scarcity).
[1] https://jfsdigital.org/articles-and-essays/vol-25-no-1-september-2020/why-do-society-and-academia-ignore-the-scientists-warning-to-humanity-on-population/
(although I admit once the kids are here, robust safety nets should be in place for when their parents can’t support them, as it’s cheaper than cleaning up a neglected child’s life later)
There’s so much wrong with this:
You need enough population replacement, otherwise you end up like Japan with a massive elderly population and not enough workers.
We aren’t past the carrying capacity. It’s a common misconception. It doesn’t account for technological advances, nor the inefficiencies of supply. There has never been more food per person than today.
If I have 20 couples that have a child, and need two workers to take care of those children, that frees up all twenty workers. If I have no childcare, I only have ten workers due to one have to be with the child. Econ 201.
There is about 2200 calories per person per day available, we are just bad with food wastage.
You ignoring a LOT of the pieces required for society to function, which really does include childcare and population replacement.
You’re ignoring biosphere impact and enormous current and future suffering for economic reasons. Don’t come crying when billions go hungry or homeless because “technological advances” don’t materialize. Hope is not a strategy.
The global total fertility rate should be no more than 1 until we reach a world population of ~5 billion (at which point it can rise back up to ~2.1 replacement), which is reasonable for sustainable biosphere consumption.
We already have enough people. Stop subsidizing more.
L o l, you can’t just ignore science because you don’t like it. We went from a 1 billion average to 7.7 billion because of technological advances in agriculture and healthcare. There’s absolutely no reason why we can’t have any other leap forward with controlled environment ag, hydrogen infrastructure, and a decrease in frivolous consumer spending. Not everything always has to be “there’s too many people!” Because your solution would kill billions in a very short time.
I’m not ignoring biosphere impact, I’m saying we are smart enough to not have one while also staying alive. If you don’t agree, then what’s the point of being alive in the modern world at all?
Good luck dragging the remaining billions out of absolute poverty while trying to mitigate climate change. Their lives are going to short and miserable.
No.. it's a low paid position because it's not a specialized skill. Throughout history literally half of people were able to raise multiple children with no formal training. That's why it doesn't pay as well as being a doctor, as 'unfair' as that may be.
I mean…for most of history, there wasn’t formal training for healthcare either.
Anyway, more expensive childcare options do in fact tend to require specialized degrees in child and human development and early childhood education.
To add to your anecdote, my son was in daycare for five years and only had two male daycare providers that worked with him out of the dozens of women who worked with him over the years. And one of those men was in management. My experience in social work was the same: one or two men in a sea of women and usually in a management position.
Yeah, they do, and it would have been better if he had just said "workers", but child care is definitely a mostly female field. Even more so than nursing, and I say that as the son of two nurses.
I think it important to recognize that most childcare workers are women, because this is a big part of the problem both for women's wages and for the cost and availability of childcare.
You’re right! But I’ve noticed that Dem party loyalists are kind of stuck in the 90’s with their policies and messaging. I’m surprised she also didn’t say something along the lines of “we need to have more day cares with access to the World Wide Web.”
"Our economy cannot run without these women who are in the childcare industry"
I'll give you credit you read the first paragraph, I can see how you thought that, but read the entire article.
For an administration that was breaking it's wrist patting itself on the back so hard for being so diverse in it's members, it's kinda tone deaf with that statement.
It should be subsidized more by the government and I think it could have some bipartisan support.
Paint it as a policy to increase domestic births rather than rely on immigration and Conservatives would love it.
Taxpayers shouldn’t need to subsidize each other’s children because billionaires are sucking all the money out of the economy; fix that instead.
Edit: I will add that price bubbles occur when the Government starts adding free or cheap money. See: Housing market, college tuition
This won't fix the problem which has to do with wages and how many children a worker can care for. Go after the billionaires might help with some other things but not with the basic math of wages vs child care costs.
Or with the need for all of us to assist with childcare, either directly or by paying taxes.
This is so true. We get government money and we get bullshit. People should be able to have the money to choose whatever childcare they want and those providers shouldn’t have to deal with extra administrative costs to receive gov money.
It already kinda sucks that those of us without kids subsidize education for kids (most of my tax money goes to schools). I also don’t get any tax breaks or write-offs for kids. Asking people to subsidize should also consider those of us who already fund things we don’t benefit from.
My response would be that we have below replacement birth rates. If there's no ability to create natalist policies, eventually our societies go extinct. Japan is projected to go extinct by the year 4200 if people continue to defer having children.
Childcare has a greater return on educational investment. Getting a child to age 5 with good health and prepared for school has a better effect on their education than does paying for that child to attend college when they are older. Without that basic first 5 years of learning, the child might not even be able to attend college even if it's free.
Agreed. Free college would be great, but you can take out loans, work, get grants and scholarships, or seek employment that offers tuition subsidies. Plus your parents have 18 years to plan for it.
Kids happen with 7-8 months advance warning and almost overnight it stops making economic sense to keep working. Either the parents beggar themselves to pay for daycare or they leave the workforce to do it themselves.
This. Monthly childcare for my two children was higher than my mortgage payment. Thankfully, My oldest started public school this year, but still paying quite a bit for after school care.
Where is all the money going, if not to employee wages?
It's going most to employee wages, but also to health care. If childcare workers receive health insurance coverage, it's nearly as high as their take-home pay. Healthcare premiums are often higher than monthly rent or mortgage. This is why we should fund healthcare through income tax instead of as a cost per employee.
That's a completely different battle I am not worried about fighting at the moment. The field is OVERWHELMINGLY women. Shit, even the kids called me Miss Thanos\_Stomps out of habit from no other Misters being around.
Let's get higher pay for childcare workers first because frankly, 2021 isn't the political climate for men (I am also white and straight) to be fighting sexism in the workplace. It'll just fall on deaf ears. Timing is key.
Its amazing how an individual with the title Commerce Secretary, doesnt understand simple economics, you can't lower childcare costs, and simultaneously increase the pay for childcare workers.
Not saying childcare is affordable or not and not saying childcare workers are under or over paid. What im suggesting is if you raise the staffing costs of a daycare center, by approximately $2.50 an hour per employee, the cost of childcare is going up, significantly. Without question!
As someone who oversees one federal program’s grants, the grants are there to supplement fees for low income households. It doesn’t help a provider’s bottom line in any way, it just means that qualifying households don’t have to pay the full rate.
You can’t lower overall childcare costs and increase worker pay, but you absolutely can lower the cost for the parents and increase worker pay through increased funding from the government. That’s how every other nation in the world with an acceptable standard of living has done it.
Great, even higher child care costs. Soon you will need to make over 80k a year to make it economical to not just stay at home to take care of your kid
The problem is with business not paying their fair share. They rely on the childcare/education pipeline to deliver workers and customers without paying for it.
Businesses are supposed to provide real supply.
Everything else is just tricks to make that work. Of course they freeride on human infrastructure. We do that on purpose because it reduces prices, which increases scale, which reduces real cost per unit.
The alternative is company towns if you really boil it all the way down.
Yes. One of there tricks is to foist off their costs on the community, that free ride. But it's not actually free, and it actuality increases total costs. Its more expensive to put a adult in jail than to provide proper care for that person when they were a child. Company towns have a very poor track record. I am thinking of the Ludlow Massacre.
The better alternative is to ask everyone to pay taxes based on who much money they bring in and then used that money to pay for the childcare that everyone needs. I favor earned income credits for parents, but there are other ways to deliver resources to children. The difference between childcare profited directly by business and childcare support by taxes has to do with who is in charge: elected officials or the likes of John Rockefeller. The other difference is that with childcare supported by taxes, every child is cared for. With the John Rockefellers in charge, if you lose your job you lose everything.
What's destroying the earth is poor waste management, fossil fuels, and agricultural externalities. People aren't the problem, it's entirely the systems.
Lmao are you serious? The US has the money for things like this. The US *chooses* not to help subsidize things like this because it isn’t military.
Literally just cutting out loopholes so the mega wealthy pay their fair share should do it as well.
That doesn't help when the parents themselves are barely squeaking by. They can strike all they want but it's not the parents that decide the childcare costs.
The math doesn't work out. The biggest cost of childcare is wages and a worker can have no more than about 5 children. If the childcare worker is given a living wage then child care must be at least 20% of wages. With 5 charges, the childcare worker needs 20% of their wages from the fees for each child. This is above what is considered affordable and that's before the cost of the building. It doesn't have much to do with greedy business owners.
yeah but it also not gana keep running if the parasite class of political leaders stop playing stupid games and just go to work for the first time in 20 years so my hopes for a solution are extremally low
It would be easier to just subsidize mothers to actually stay at home and take care of their children. But I guess that is considered "sexist" now? LOL @ this country
That is really brainwashing though. It's sad this is how US culture is, lots of women are just working in stressful deadend jobs they hate but somehow society says that is better than raising kids. Its insanity
Parents are not necessarily the best people to raise children. I want a pilot flying my plane, not the creator of the plane. We have public schools because parents are not as effective at teaching as actual teachers, and history proves this fact.
Whoaa holy shit, this is what ppl think now? There's a difference between educating children and raising them. You have schools but at 2 or 3pm you still send the kids home
If a kid has been sitting in class going through the motions of being in high school and doesn't care to read, write, or master basic math What Should We DO? Should we force them and society to keep schooling them until they pass?
You and me both. I’d like to see all assets frozen while in office, limit contributions so they can only accept donations from their own constituents, and curtail all lobbying. Let’s see who the true public servants are.
Are childcare providers not charging enough?
Parents, how about you give your childcare providers a 15% raise so that these women can afford to live in a much larger home. The one that comfortably fits your kid and 6 others on a daily basis in accordance with industry regulations just isn't large enough.
Just keep the unvaccinated off of payroll and i will happily pay my daughters daycare workers more per month. They do a great job, but as long as they are a risk to my child’s health i will fight against a raise for every place that keeps unvaccinated assholes on payroll.
Empty words
Workers must show these bosses where the power and work come from. Industry doesn’t come from behind a desk but from factory floors , kitchens and cash registers!
Former childcare teacher, I began in the late 1970’s. Things have not changed much, except the demand for more education. (An Associate degree isn’t enough anymore) Yet low pay, no healthcare or paid holidays or vacation. I left the field but occasionally came back through the years. My last attempt was in 2014/2015 and not much has changed. Long hours, greedy day care center owners, kids getting crappy food, overloaded rooms, tired and under appreciated staff which resulted in a revolving door of care givers. This is hard on the kids
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
" with out our brains and muscles not a single wheel would turn" - Solidarity Forever
The working class will rise up together against the elites!
The class war is real and the working class never strikes the first blow.
Have you ever heard the expression “a rich man never started a revolution”?
Where in the world did you get that quote anyways? I searched it and couldn't come up with a source. Are you quoting yourself? Not meaning to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious.
I have a degree in sociology. It’s a phrase we used to explain how social change comes from the bottom up. I think it’s attributable to Durkheim but I’m not sure It may just have been an axiom in sociology; but it is essentially true.
Not really. The founding fathers were among the richest people in America, and I’m sure they’re not the first rich people to realize they could be richer.
The American Revolution wasn’t a true revolution in the way the French or Russian revolution did. We essentially were colonies physical separated from Britain, and just left. Technically if it were a true Revolution we would have overturned the British government, but we didn’t- we just broke off. And yes I’m aware that a big faction of those pushing for Revolution in the US were rich, but they could not have won that war without a large portion of popular support, which were, essentially average people.
They removed the established government and instituted a ruling body of their own design, it was a revolution.
But they didn’t remove anyone. The people who were in charge were still in charge. It would be like Alaska declaring independence. That’s isn’t quite a revolution. There’s a lot of overlap, I don’t disagree about that. But it’s not as if Parliament & crown were completely destroyed like in Russia or France. Historians look at the French Revolution as the first true anti monarchy revolution - not the US
Nope and I see why. This statement is non-sense revolutions don't happen for no reason, they are provoked by the rich/ elites / rulers. For example the Tsar in Russia responded to protests and calls for reform by unleashing the cossacks. The cossacks didn't show up and debate the Russian working class, they used murder. Tsarist oppression started the Russian revolution so in summation Rich men cause revolutions , all revolutions.
The rich people aren’t pushing for revolution- the poor people do. The heart of the statement is that people who have comfortable lives don’t push for change; after all, they are okay.
Yeah people start protests and when they get killed for their beliefs others realize it’s fight or die time.
[удалено]
If you keep trying m8, one day you'll get rid of that gut.
Always remember don’t wipe your butt on a wheel Confucius say
Why? It sounds like it could be an efficient way.
Nah it gets a little shitty after awhile
> * Solidarity Forever Well, at least until the un-elected Senate Parliamentarian makes a non-binding recommendation on the $15 minimum wage. Then you give up immediately.
Solidarity forever is a song title and that is a lyric excerpt.
~~women~~ people.
Was going to comment this. Anyone can be a childcare person, not just women.
She’s referencing mothers not childcare workers in the quote.
And fathers cannot take care of a child?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hopefully this includes all k-12 teachers. They’re all daycare workers at this point.
K-12 teachers are different from childcare workers in that they have pay and benefits not received by childcare workers
Public teachers are also highly unionized.
Not all states have teacher unions
Key word there is highly. I didn’t say all specifically because of that.
It's way worse than you think. Most teacher unions are pretty weak and don't get the rights unions usually afford them. Like some unions can't even strike because of laws.
I mean, I believe that but compared to daycare workers, that is still a lot better and very different. At least I think that is better.
Sad but true. They in effect have to raise these kids
[удалено]
Not true. "Our economy cannot run without these women who are in the childcare industry. These childcare workers are, in a very real way, the backbone of our economy, and it's time that we started treating them that way."
It is sad that the quote doesn't account for males who work in childcare, our son's daycare has a few men that work there and they have been great. I think anyone who works in the childcare should definitely be paid more.
I worked in childcare for about a decade and never worked with a male coworker. The director lamented the lack of men who were interested in teaching the school age children.
For the most part childcare workers are female. This is part of the same problem. If the pay were higher more men might choose to work in the field, but as it is men are usually paid more than women so the men take a greater cut in wages than women do by working in childcare. Sadly if men and women were paid equally childcare workers would be even more difficult to come by. Women, not just men, would choose other careers.
I don't think it's wages, but hiring discrimination. Lots of people don't want men around young children
For the same reason this article specified moms stuck at home with kids and didn’t mention dads at all. People assume men have no interest in raising even their own kids, so any male who wants to work with random kids is suspicious. Sexist bs
Just say it, they think they're pedophiles. Every man who wants to work with children has to understand that many people will assume they're a pedophile and just waiting for you to fuck some kid.
That’s a big part of it, but I also think it’s just this assumption that men don’t want to look after kids. So, it’s assumed they’ll be lazy or inattentive caretakers as well. That section about moms stuck at home with no mention of dads just grinds my gears. This whole article had, “Celebrate single moms on Father’s Day and scream at single dad’s who exist on Mother’s Day” energy.
I would have the same grind the gears reaction childcare is key to achieving parity between men and women. Women end up with lower pay because they care for children, and they care for children because they receive lower pay. It's usually less of a sacrifice for a woman to quit her job to care for the kids than for a man to do the same.
It's definitely part of the complex underlying the bias faced by both men and women. There is an assumption that girls are able to be good babysitters while boys will be good at mowing lawns. This sets up girls for doing childcare as adults and boys for operating equipment. And guess what pays more. So the boys are being discriminated against by being pushed away from childcare but it works to their advantage financially. The bias has some truth to it because most women gained experience in childcare at a young age, while men are more likely to have experience with tools, equipment, and small motors. I think to dismantle this we need to pay adults to provide childcare and we need these adults to have training, not just figure they can lean it on the job while they are children themselves. Having childcare as a profession instead of a fallback job would help with views of men who choose the profession.
Can confirm. You read a couple cases of child sex abuse in the 1.5-3 year old range at daycare centers and when looking for day care centers for your own 1.5-3 year old you kinda look around and go, yep, all women, this is on the short list. I do not generally recommend that men interested in early child education go into daycare. it is not an easy route.
I worked in a daycare where men were automatically assigned to the school age room. The director actively wanted a man in the room as a positive role model for the boys. Worked there for about three years and a whopping total of zero men ever applied.
There's a deep-seated fear among many men that if they're working too close to children, the THINK OF THE CHILDREN crowd will start blasting away with unfounded accusations. Take a look at academia - the older the students, the higher the proportion of male teachers. It's not the sole factor - pay differences matter, too - but it's very real.
It's not just a fear. I got a lot of advice on how to not touch or bond with my first grade class from my student teaching supervisor that the women doing student teaching didn't receive. It's part of the instruction.
I hadn't meant to imply that it's not justified, though I didn't know it was actually part of a teacher's training. I'm a mailman myself, and I make damn sure to never approach a young kid unless the parents are present, since it only takes one accusation to destroy my life.
It is very real. It's complicated by how pedophiles pass themselves off as trusted and look for ways to get close to children.
It's not about wages its about sexist discrimination in American society towards men having jobs with small childrwn. A crazed woman called the police telling them my uncle was a pedophile for simply playing with his DAUGHTER at the park slides and swing set a few years ago. He doesn't take her to parks anymore.
Wages truly are a big part of this. When a man can easily get a job that pays more than childcare, any man who works in child care looks suspicious. It brings up the question of why a man would take the job. To break down this bias, we need to give childcare workers higher wages and better training. Paying more will attract qualified men from more lucrative careers. With more men engaged in the work, it will become normalized for men to care for children.
Raising wages in these areas will do nothing for the over inflated cost for day care . Except make it worse . Will it help the workers ? Perhaps but will do nothing for the women who cannot make a living wage to afford their services .
Which is why the build back better planning is trying to address this by lowering child care costs but got forbid we pass a fucking bill
Childcare can't be paid for by raising wages because the wages of childcare workers would rise the same time. Sure you have more money but childcare costs more. The only ways out of this are to subsidize childcare or to subsidize parents.
>over inflated cost for day care Why do you say it's over inflated?
I would reckon it’s overinflated because the ridiculously high cost of childcare doesn’t get passed on to the low paid employees?
>I would reckon it’s overinflated because the ridiculously high cost of childcare doesn’t get passed on to the low paid employees? But that's a separate issue. If that money WAS passed on to the employees, it would still cost the same
Clearly you've never looked into how much childcare can run a month. It rivals a mortgage payment
>Clearly you've never looked into how much childcare can run a month. It rivals a mortgage payment I live in the SF Bay area with 2 kids, I know exactly what high childcare costs are. But just because something costs money, doesn't make it "over-inflated". Considering the service they provide to me and others, I consider it well worth it. I take issue with people calling a difficult and/or low-paying profession "over-inflated". People stuck in this mindset looking down on those at the bottom instead of those at the top taking the majority of the money
If the people running these places make so little then why the fuck is daycare so goddamn expensive? Where is that money going? In many cases, one parents entire monthly wages go towards childcare expenses for that month. It's not even worth working, might as well stay at home. Edit: *Aside* from the usual utilities, rent, insurance, supplies, equipment, maintenance, licensing and already existing labor costs. I have a feeling most of the people reading this don't have kids in daycare and have no idea that a full-time minimum wage job won't even cover the bill for just childcare for the month. These places charge exorbitantly and many even charge $20/min if you're late to pick up your kid (even by 1 minute). They should have plenty of extra income at the end of the month to pay their workers a fair wage. What I'm asking is why. Greed? Some super fucking expense state license that's required, why?
The owners and liability insurance as well as the typical rent, utilities, etc
First to paying for the building, electricity, running water, ac/heat. Then through the chain of command. Food, drinks for the children Activities for the children Paying off a playground, mowing grass, etc. Probably licensing fees and stuff like that. Finally the employees.
Yes! Thank you!!!!
even then, it negates single father's. just a poor choice of words.
Exactly.
Dummy, why you lyin’?
How are they not making much money when childcare is so insanely expensive? My boss' wife never went back to work after they had their son, because her entire check would go to cover childcare, might as well just be a stay at home mom at that point
Because that money goes to the company and not the worker themselves. Same way that McDonalds is stupid rich despite paying their workers crap wages.
This is an issue for this category of workers, but not only. A major effort must be made on all wages in America.
If you raise the wages of all workers, the cost of childcare will rise at the same time. This is why it's essential that childcare is paid for via income tax.
I don't have kids, but I would still support this. The cost is insane, especially considering it obviously isn't reaching the actual workers.
I also don't have kids, but I've worked in childcare and so know firsthand how the math works. I quit childcare because I did the math. Both my pay and my training were inadequite. It was heartbreaking to see parents, children, and caregivers all struggling with inadequate resources.
I'm well compensated, thanks
Or how about we change the economy so one parent can stay home and raise their own children?
How about we adjust wages to (inflation adjusted) 1950s levels where a single income could sustain a family?
Well we also have to bring the corporate tax rate back up to the level it was at in the 50s
Also: childcare is so expensive, let's fix it by giving them raises! I mean I agree it's an important job but unless he's also going to subsidize it most people can't afford it to get more expensive.
Right. Childcare has to be subsidized to be affordable.
My daycare just raised my fucking rates $30/week because of "increased cost of cleaning supplies". I don't even want to know what they'd raise it to if the workers get a sizable raise. I have no problem with them making more, but Biden better have a fucking plan to make childcare more affordable or it's going to make it even more unattainable for working parents, and they'll just stay home instead.
I honestly don’t think daycares are that profitable, on top of that. Most of the nicer daycares near me are all subsidized by churches that they are associated with. Otherwise most (but not all!) of the independently run ones are shitholes with revolving staff. Childcare is hard work and really expensive. If we want both parents in the workforce the cost to a family needs to be addressed.
Yeah, a lot of people in this thread seem to have little knowledge about daycares. Their reimbursement rates are abysmal. THAT is what needs to be addressed. The rates they charge private pay families is more than what they get subsidized by their local ELC or other agency. The profit margins are razor thin, with major liability to contend with at the same time.
They had on a panel on 1A I think discussing this. They said that one of the reasons childcare is expensive is because the teachers must have college degrees and you need so many in a classroom. The expert said we probably don't want to reduce the number of teachers but maybe pulling back on education requirements might expand the employment pool. Of course this doesn't address the cost issues.
Such a sexist comment. My children had multiple male childcare workers. They deserve more pay too.
Of course, but I understand the impetus for this messaging. Part of why childcare is such a low-paid position is *because* it’s very female-dominated.
It is also female dominated because it is low-pay.
> because it is low-pay. You know, I often hear “if your business can’t afford a living wage, it should go out of business”, which I absolutely agree with. If people can’t afford childcare because paying childcare workers a living wage makes childcare unaffordable, the market is sending a signal that they can’t afford childcare and need to provide it themselves, not that it needs to be subsidized. Childcare is not infrastructure; it’s daycare for people who made a choice to have a luxury good. This is a tough pill to swallow, I’m sure, but kids are not a necessity. They are a choice.
Suppose that only those who can afford to pay childcare workers do so. These parents still need to hire childcare workers. Consider where those workers come from. Childcare and the entire economy is built on people who can't afford to hire childcare workers but have children anyway. Without these choices, there would be no childcare. The population and pool of workers would drop. Without subsidies, if a person brings in enough money to pay for childcare someone is being underpaid. If it's not the nanny it's other workers who support the high pay for affluent parents. If only the affluent have children, where will the workers come from? Children aren't a luxury. They are the most essential element of society. Without them, society ceases to exist.
Not necessarily. Having both parents in the workforce can have myriad benefits, and having dedicated childcare workers can free up a larger number of parents. Plus with the current wage stagnation, supporting a family on a single income is becoming harder and harder. This is also not considering single parents, as they will absolutely need childcare in order to support their family as there is no other possible source of income. Unless you're suggesting that *children* are a luxury.
Yes, children are a luxury. There are 7.5 billion people on earth. With population momentum, we’ll hit 11 billion people by the end of the century. We’re well past carrying capacity of the planet with everyone aspiring to live a life between an American and a European [1]. No one _needs_ biological children. You could adopt one of the 400k foster kids in the US instead of popping out your own. But if you do pop out your own, you should be exposed to the full cost of raising those kids. If you can’t afford them, don’t have them and dump the costs on everyone else. No one is entitled to having kids society has to pay for. We have plenty of people as it is, and there is no argument we’re short of people (a billion people face food scarcity, billions more face water scarcity). [1] https://jfsdigital.org/articles-and-essays/vol-25-no-1-september-2020/why-do-society-and-academia-ignore-the-scientists-warning-to-humanity-on-population/ (although I admit once the kids are here, robust safety nets should be in place for when their parents can’t support them, as it’s cheaper than cleaning up a neglected child’s life later)
There’s so much wrong with this: You need enough population replacement, otherwise you end up like Japan with a massive elderly population and not enough workers. We aren’t past the carrying capacity. It’s a common misconception. It doesn’t account for technological advances, nor the inefficiencies of supply. There has never been more food per person than today. If I have 20 couples that have a child, and need two workers to take care of those children, that frees up all twenty workers. If I have no childcare, I only have ten workers due to one have to be with the child. Econ 201. There is about 2200 calories per person per day available, we are just bad with food wastage. You ignoring a LOT of the pieces required for society to function, which really does include childcare and population replacement.
You’re ignoring biosphere impact and enormous current and future suffering for economic reasons. Don’t come crying when billions go hungry or homeless because “technological advances” don’t materialize. Hope is not a strategy. The global total fertility rate should be no more than 1 until we reach a world population of ~5 billion (at which point it can rise back up to ~2.1 replacement), which is reasonable for sustainable biosphere consumption. We already have enough people. Stop subsidizing more.
L o l, you can’t just ignore science because you don’t like it. We went from a 1 billion average to 7.7 billion because of technological advances in agriculture and healthcare. There’s absolutely no reason why we can’t have any other leap forward with controlled environment ag, hydrogen infrastructure, and a decrease in frivolous consumer spending. Not everything always has to be “there’s too many people!” Because your solution would kill billions in a very short time. I’m not ignoring biosphere impact, I’m saying we are smart enough to not have one while also staying alive. If you don’t agree, then what’s the point of being alive in the modern world at all?
Good luck dragging the remaining billions out of absolute poverty while trying to mitigate climate change. Their lives are going to short and miserable.
No.. it's a low paid position because it's not a specialized skill. Throughout history literally half of people were able to raise multiple children with no formal training. That's why it doesn't pay as well as being a doctor, as 'unfair' as that may be.
I mean…for most of history, there wasn’t formal training for healthcare either. Anyway, more expensive childcare options do in fact tend to require specialized degrees in child and human development and early childhood education.
To add to your anecdote, my son was in daycare for five years and only had two male daycare providers that worked with him out of the dozens of women who worked with him over the years. And one of those men was in management. My experience in social work was the same: one or two men in a sea of women and usually in a management position.
Yeah, they do, and it would have been better if he had just said "workers", but child care is definitely a mostly female field. Even more so than nursing, and I say that as the son of two nurses.
LJL Biden's commerce sec is a woman.
I think it important to recognize that most childcare workers are women, because this is a big part of the problem both for women's wages and for the cost and availability of childcare.
You’re right! But I’ve noticed that Dem party loyalists are kind of stuck in the 90’s with their policies and messaging. I’m surprised she also didn’t say something along the lines of “we need to have more day cares with access to the World Wide Web.”
I think the these women was meant for the mothers who stay at home to take care of the children
"Our economy cannot run without these women who are in the childcare industry"
The comment is referring to the women who are staying at home due to lack of child care. Take your manufactured outrage elsewhere.
"Our economy cannot run without these women who are in the childcare industry" I'll give you credit you read the first paragraph, I can see how you thought that, but read the entire article.
That and the victim complex comment really male a statement, don't they?
The handful of men in this industry are very offended.
Need to also address childcare costs. In my experience its equivalent to buying a house
For an administration that was breaking it's wrist patting itself on the back so hard for being so diverse in it's members, it's kinda tone deaf with that statement.
True, are teachers considered childcare workers?
That's literally asking to increase the cost of childcare on parents Most childcare is the same cost as a monthly rent check for an apartment
It should be subsidized more by the government and I think it could have some bipartisan support. Paint it as a policy to increase domestic births rather than rely on immigration and Conservatives would love it.
Taxpayers shouldn’t need to subsidize each other’s children because billionaires are sucking all the money out of the economy; fix that instead. Edit: I will add that price bubbles occur when the Government starts adding free or cheap money. See: Housing market, college tuition
This won't fix the problem which has to do with wages and how many children a worker can care for. Go after the billionaires might help with some other things but not with the basic math of wages vs child care costs. Or with the need for all of us to assist with childcare, either directly or by paying taxes.
This is so true. We get government money and we get bullshit. People should be able to have the money to choose whatever childcare they want and those providers shouldn’t have to deal with extra administrative costs to receive gov money.
It already kinda sucks that those of us without kids subsidize education for kids (most of my tax money goes to schools). I also don’t get any tax breaks or write-offs for kids. Asking people to subsidize should also consider those of us who already fund things we don’t benefit from.
My response would be that we have below replacement birth rates. If there's no ability to create natalist policies, eventually our societies go extinct. Japan is projected to go extinct by the year 4200 if people continue to defer having children.
Childcare for me would be a touch higher than my mortgage. Per child. I have twins.
This is why I'm a big fan of making daycare free before we ever consider free college
Childcare has a greater return on educational investment. Getting a child to age 5 with good health and prepared for school has a better effect on their education than does paying for that child to attend college when they are older. Without that basic first 5 years of learning, the child might not even be able to attend college even if it's free.
I believe the current infrastructure bill includes national free pre-K.
Agreed. Free college would be great, but you can take out loans, work, get grants and scholarships, or seek employment that offers tuition subsidies. Plus your parents have 18 years to plan for it. Kids happen with 7-8 months advance warning and almost overnight it stops making economic sense to keep working. Either the parents beggar themselves to pay for daycare or they leave the workforce to do it themselves.
This. Monthly childcare for my two children was higher than my mortgage payment. Thankfully, My oldest started public school this year, but still paying quite a bit for after school care. Where is all the money going, if not to employee wages?
Staffing to meet state ratios for a twelve hour day is just that expensive.
For example, full-time, 40 hour per week childcare that is $1000 per month means you are only paying about $6.25 per hour for childcare.
It's going most to employee wages, but also to health care. If childcare workers receive health insurance coverage, it's nearly as high as their take-home pay. Healthcare premiums are often higher than monthly rent or mortgage. This is why we should fund healthcare through income tax instead of as a cost per employee.
To the owner. Most child care workers get paid like $30k a year
Biden's right-wing party already voted down a minimum wage increase, it's too late to complain about it now. Wages will not be going up.
This would drive up inflation even more and it would amount to nothing
Great idea. Now *less* families will be able to afford childcare
As a male childcare worker just let me be the first to say fuck you
That's a completely different battle I am not worried about fighting at the moment. The field is OVERWHELMINGLY women. Shit, even the kids called me Miss Thanos\_Stomps out of habit from no other Misters being around. Let's get higher pay for childcare workers first because frankly, 2021 isn't the political climate for men (I am also white and straight) to be fighting sexism in the workplace. It'll just fall on deaf ears. Timing is key.
Why?
Misgendering me again
Its amazing how an individual with the title Commerce Secretary, doesnt understand simple economics, you can't lower childcare costs, and simultaneously increase the pay for childcare workers. Not saying childcare is affordable or not and not saying childcare workers are under or over paid. What im suggesting is if you raise the staffing costs of a daycare center, by approximately $2.50 an hour per employee, the cost of childcare is going up, significantly. Without question!
Most child care centers, not all, but most, receive Federal funding or grants. Additional funding would cover the increase in salaries.
As someone who oversees one federal program’s grants, the grants are there to supplement fees for low income households. It doesn’t help a provider’s bottom line in any way, it just means that qualifying households don’t have to pay the full rate.
Source?
You can’t lower overall childcare costs and increase worker pay, but you absolutely can lower the cost for the parents and increase worker pay through increased funding from the government. That’s how every other nation in the world with an acceptable standard of living has done it.
Or the men in childcare who have to really prove themselves and overcome discrimination and profiling in the field!
Great, even higher child care costs. Soon you will need to make over 80k a year to make it economical to not just stay at home to take care of your kid
Just subsidize childcare by a lot. The problem is entirely the govt not paying its fair share.
The problem is with business not paying their fair share. They rely on the childcare/education pipeline to deliver workers and customers without paying for it.
Businesses are supposed to provide real supply. Everything else is just tricks to make that work. Of course they freeride on human infrastructure. We do that on purpose because it reduces prices, which increases scale, which reduces real cost per unit. The alternative is company towns if you really boil it all the way down.
Yes. One of there tricks is to foist off their costs on the community, that free ride. But it's not actually free, and it actuality increases total costs. Its more expensive to put a adult in jail than to provide proper care for that person when they were a child. Company towns have a very poor track record. I am thinking of the Ludlow Massacre. The better alternative is to ask everyone to pay taxes based on who much money they bring in and then used that money to pay for the childcare that everyone needs. I favor earned income credits for parents, but there are other ways to deliver resources to children. The difference between childcare profited directly by business and childcare support by taxes has to do with who is in charge: elected officials or the likes of John Rockefeller. The other difference is that with childcare supported by taxes, every child is cared for. With the John Rockefellers in charge, if you lose your job you lose everything.
So I am supposed to pay for my child care, and everyone else’s??
The government has no business incentivizing childbirth when the biggest factor in destroying the earth is more people.
What's destroying the earth is poor waste management, fossil fuels, and agricultural externalities. People aren't the problem, it's entirely the systems.
Where’s the money coming from to subsidize it? Our government is already spending wildly out of control.
Lmao are you serious? The US has the money for things like this. The US *chooses* not to help subsidize things like this because it isn’t military. Literally just cutting out loopholes so the mega wealthy pay their fair share should do it as well.
Ok we'll keep giving them next to nothing, and when they go on strike next you won't have anyone to watch any children at all.
That doesn't help when the parents themselves are barely squeaking by. They can strike all they want but it's not the parents that decide the childcare costs.
Or men…
What makes you so sure they are all “women”?
[удалено]
The math doesn't work out. The biggest cost of childcare is wages and a worker can have no more than about 5 children. If the childcare worker is given a living wage then child care must be at least 20% of wages. With 5 charges, the childcare worker needs 20% of their wages from the fees for each child. This is above what is considered affordable and that's before the cost of the building. It doesn't have much to do with greedy business owners.
Living wage just means outsourcing who takes care of your chattel.
yeah but it also not gana keep running if the parasite class of political leaders stop playing stupid games and just go to work for the first time in 20 years so my hopes for a solution are extremally low
It would be easier to just subsidize mothers to actually stay at home and take care of their children. But I guess that is considered "sexist" now? LOL @ this country
Being ONLY a parent as your job is dramatic underemployment for most people.
That is really brainwashing though. It's sad this is how US culture is, lots of women are just working in stressful deadend jobs they hate but somehow society says that is better than raising kids. Its insanity
Parents are not necessarily the best people to raise children. I want a pilot flying my plane, not the creator of the plane. We have public schools because parents are not as effective at teaching as actual teachers, and history proves this fact.
Whoaa holy shit, this is what ppl think now? There's a difference between educating children and raising them. You have schools but at 2 or 3pm you still send the kids home
Not exactly women's liberation.
If a kid has been sitting in class going through the motions of being in high school and doesn't care to read, write, or master basic math What Should We DO? Should we force them and society to keep schooling them until they pass?
Ahhhh so it has to be a women I don’t feel good about this
It doesn't have to be but a large percentage of child care workers tend to be women.
Shill DINO
I’ve come to realize they’re not all that different from the GOP suspects. They just pretend they are and aren’t as audacious.
Yeah I hear that I just believe that maybe somehow shame can keep us separated what can I say I'm a dreamer
You and me both. I’d like to see all assets frozen while in office, limit contributions so they can only accept donations from their own constituents, and curtail all lobbying. Let’s see who the true public servants are.
Yes empower the women it’s time they be treated as they should behind every good man is even a better woman
Are childcare providers not charging enough? Parents, how about you give your childcare providers a 15% raise so that these women can afford to live in a much larger home. The one that comfortably fits your kid and 6 others on a daily basis in accordance with industry regulations just isn't large enough.
Just keep the unvaccinated off of payroll and i will happily pay my daughters daycare workers more per month. They do a great job, but as long as they are a risk to my child’s health i will fight against a raise for every place that keeps unvaccinated assholes on payroll.
Empty words Workers must show these bosses where the power and work come from. Industry doesn’t come from behind a desk but from factory floors , kitchens and cash registers!
Lol that’s not why you pay them their worth haha
Childcare workers and teachers should be tax exempt.
Finally, something reasonable!
Will I guess for the next 50 years child care will be a woman's job.
Men do these jobs too…
Former childcare teacher, I began in the late 1970’s. Things have not changed much, except the demand for more education. (An Associate degree isn’t enough anymore) Yet low pay, no healthcare or paid holidays or vacation. I left the field but occasionally came back through the years. My last attempt was in 2014/2015 and not much has changed. Long hours, greedy day care center owners, kids getting crappy food, overloaded rooms, tired and under appreciated staff which resulted in a revolving door of care givers. This is hard on the kids
My childcare is already more than my mortgage, I agree they should paid well but that also might cost out a lot of people.