Submitted by Existing-Papaya-8643 t3_10odek9 in Pennsylvania

Hey yinz— a group of us over at r/workingmoms have begun to organize with each other to build a movement for universal childcare in the US. Any parent or caregiver in this group probably understands how much money care costs (more than most mortgages) and how few spots there are in good daycares. The US Treasury calls American childcare a market failure 🙃. We think we can change all of this if we organize together to demand better.

We have a Zoom call this Wednesday, Feb 1 at at 8pmE//7pmC//5pmP to meet up and organize together. DM me and I’ll send you the details, we’d love to have you join in on this countrywide push for better care infrastructure for us, our kids, and neighbors.

We also have a new subreddit at r/universalchildcare which is one of the places we’ll touch base and share resources. We welcome all levels of commitment and involvement.

I’m a Children’s Librarian in the Pittsburgh area and I have to say helping parents who need care is probably the hardest part of my job; I can’t help people find spots that aren’t there.

Hope to see you or someone you can share this with on r/universalchildcare or at the Zoom call. DM me with any q’s or ideas.



You must log in or register to comment.

cigarmanpa t1_j6e56ac wrote

I say this with all the respect on the world, good luck


obsolete-man t1_j6e64d0 wrote

I'm all for universal childhood education, but your childcare is your responsibility not society's.


WhiskeyandScars t1_j6e90l0 wrote

Fun fact, education starts at birth. In the infant and one year old classrooms at daycare centers they have lesson plans and do educational activities with the babies. Things get progressively more academic from age 2. There are educational requirements for daycare centers.


Dredly t1_j6ecuhx wrote

I'm confused... so you are asking for universal paid for day care for kids from birth?

I'm all about universal health care, especially for children, but there already IS paid for, or heavily subsidized child care, at least in PA.


or are you asking for socialized services because people make too much for the program? The limits are 200% the federal poverty limit, or someone making up to ~17$ an hour.


Pink_Slyvie t1_j6ehf8n wrote

It's so out of touch it's not even funny. I'm in school, and hour household income is about 40k until I graduate, and thats assuming I can even get a job in this market.

We can barely afford rent, we can't afford food.

I could take a job making $100 even a day as soon as I graduate, 5 days a week. The cheapest childcare I've found is $500/wk, and that's just for before/after school.

Most other nations at this point provide childcare as a service, as an investment in the future.


defusted t1_j6ej7ya wrote

Well, you're an asshole. I have no kids but I'm still all for things like this and paying taxes for better schools because I don't want to be surrounded by morons like you. Making schools and daycare better is how you do that


Dredly t1_j6ekvii wrote

I'm not arguing against it being subsidized, I just don't understand what OP is trying to do, 100% coverage means the gov't will pay exactly X amount per child up to a certain point...


So are they trying to remove the current program and replace it, or just up the limit that people qualify for the subsidy at.


Existing-Papaya-8643 OP t1_j6el18f wrote

Thank you for this question— I’d agree with what people are writing below about the income limits being out of touch, and argue that PA childcare is not heavily subsidized. I meet a lot of people barely scraping by who do not qualify. I’m one of those families (two adults in FT jobs, constant employment since a teen, no major medical emergencies… and childcare is unaffordable. We aren’t living the highlife).

There’s also the question of room at quality centers. The waiting lists are incredibly long in my area. Additionally, high staff turnover is detrimental to young children’s development and higher wages and better conditions could prevent the turnover, but it’s not going to happen without a concerted effort to improve and budgets being strategically used.

I’m not going to say there aren’t a lot of things to work out, but I will say other countries (and even at the state level!) do this and it’s worth the investment on many levels (fiscal, personal).

Thanks for your q!


Existing-Papaya-8643 OP t1_j6enepy wrote

No, the issues are it needs to be affordable, accessible, and quality. That is what we want to organize to address. PA’s currently isn’t affordable or very accessible and there’s a wide spectrum of quality— your guess as to who can afford quality centers.

I want to be clear: we do not have an entire campaign and specific demands planned out yet. If you would like to be a part of that effort, Wednesday’s meeting would be a great place to start!


drxdrg08 t1_j6epdr6 wrote

Do you have a rough figure of what this program will cost and how it will be funded?

This seems like the first step in proposing a government run program.


Dredly t1_j6eq7dy wrote

so you want it to be cheaper, despite the vast majority being privately owned and setting their own prices, (which are typically way above what the gov't would pay)


Accessible but nobody wants to do the job for the same reason nobody wants to be a teacher (but for less money, more stress, less time off, limited benefits, and worse parents),

and you want it to be better quality, which means higher standards, which means more costs, which means less places offering the service


I'm curious how much do you believe 8+ hours of child care per day should cost?


my wife was a preschool teacher at 3 different locations, nanny, and public school teacher and we looked into opening our own. We absolutely need to address this issue, I'm just really curious what the solution is other then "Make it better, free, and everywhere"


Azulmariposa99 t1_j6eqawy wrote

I’ve always thought it would get more political traction if a stipend was offered for childcare that either paid for daycare or paid stay-at-home moms to care for their children. Either (or both with part-time work) is a valid choice and it feels like would appease a wider political spectrum. I just wanted to share this idea in case it hadn’t been voiced.


Existing-Papaya-8643 OP t1_j6esdzq wrote

I want to make sure these questions are in good faith, and respond to the ones that are. Are you interested in organizing with others for, yes, affordable, accessible, and quality care? If so, you have the information you need from my original post and other answers.

I’m a full time working parent with limited time. I’m organizing in some of my spare time with hundreds of other people. I think childcare should be free to all. We pay taxes, significant taxes, and I’d like to see those taxes work for us.

Cheers! Hope to see you in an organizing call. It takes vision and optimism to work towards something new— come aboard if that’s you.


WhiskeyandScars t1_j6eskx2 wrote

From the link "Lightbridge Academy explains why daycare and their educational child care program are simply not the same thing."

Lightbridge is claiming they are more than a daycare.

Licenced day care centers have educational requirements to meet. There are even some that offer more intensive programs and kindergarten.

Lightbridge is a daycare.


Existing-Papaya-8643 OP t1_j6esx01 wrote

That has been mentioned by other parents! Someone just mentioned something similar— I’ll be sure to report back to the group. Our exact demands have not been defined yet, we’re building our base right now so that we represent more people than just a small group. …wanna join? 😉


Dredly t1_j6et0iv wrote

they are in good faith as I've witnessed the industry first hand, we also got out of the industry specifically because the parents (almost always mothers) were terrible to deal with because they wanted exactly what you are demanding without any idea or plan or knowledge on how anything works.


Good luck, the industry needs to evolve, I look forward to your solutions!


brattyb33 t1_j6etct6 wrote

This report from the PA Department of Human Services may have some data you’d be interested in reviewing. The Office of Child Development and Early Learning is required to do a market rate survey of child care providers every three years. Keep an eye out for an updated report sometime this year.


bboggio28 t1_j6etp1c wrote

Would this be different from the child care expense credit that’s deducted on your income tax filing? I think they did change it recently to be non refundable but admittedly I just let hr block figure it out when I file.


412Junglist t1_j6eurkr wrote

Yeah, I’m interested in universal health care for all, not just children and the elderly. So not sure if this is a good stepping stone, or futile overall.


Azulmariposa99 t1_j6evv4y wrote

I guess I am suggesting that something like that but one that is a more significant amount. For example, the child credit that paid people (it showed up in bank accounts monthly of people with direct deposit tax filings or they got it when they filed for taxes the following year) with children during Covid has expired and even just the small amount that it paid ($1-2000 I believe per child) apparently greatly reduced child poverty rates. Now that is different than a childcare focused one but it shows that just some amount more can clearly have a big impact on families.


Azulmariposa99 t1_j6ew5xs wrote

Great, thank you! I’m interested in potentially getting involved but things in my work and personal life are too hectic to get involved until later (maybe March?). I will definitely join the subreddit to keep up with news. As someone in education with a young child, I am very excited to see this type of effort!


drxdrg08 t1_j6ewg8o wrote

Not even roughly? Is it a $1B program or 3 orders of magnitude larger a $1T program?

I have some rough numbers in my head. There are currently 23 million children between 0 and 5 years old. This does not account for the fact that full day kindergarten is not available everywhere, and even school is not full day, so it would require additional care. Let's multiply 23 by 50% to roughly account for those older children.

How much would full time care cost when funded through a state program? Probably significantly more than private daycare costs now, since there is barely any profit margin in those businesses, and there are complaints that daycare workers are nor paid living wages.

So let's say $18K per child with all overhead. That adds up to $621B annually.

There are roughly 125M households in the USA, and half of them don't pay any federal taxes. That comes out to roughly $10,000 in extra taxes per tax paying household. Every year.


WhiskeyandScars t1_j6ex7pe wrote

No. I've seen horrible parents at all income levels. Though at both ends of the income spectrum you start to see a parental disconnect. With both extremes parents are prioritizing something over the kids, where quality time is concerned. Lower income parents miss out from necessity to work multiple jobs to pay bills. The higher income families often went away and the kids had babysitters or they were also tied up in work because they value work more.

This is just my personal opinion and feeling from working in early childhood education.


drxdrg08 t1_j6f0sr3 wrote

I'm just showing you how expensive this program might be, since you said you don't have even rough figures.

To put it into perspective, $612B is twice the size of Medicare tax collections, and those tax collections are a 12.4% tax on income.


Chemical_Miracle_0 t1_j6f1zi0 wrote

If the goal is to expand child care to more families who can’t afford it and drive down costs, wouldn’t it make more sense to expand on the current childcare assistance programs already offered? We could allocate gov funding to give out business loans to encourage more daycare/pre-K centers. A lot of the current expense is due to crazy demand and limited capacity. I’d be willing to bet expanding access to the current means tested system and encouraging more childcare business to open would be more pragmatic and likely to succeed in regards to the goals in the current political climate compared to pushing for universal.


Dredly t1_j6f20ia wrote

To be fair, OP can't respond to this because they literally have no idea what they are doing or talking about.


I asked them what their proposal was, they don't have one. OP (based on post history) is just pissed because this issue suddenly impacts them in the last 2 - 3 months.


They want it free, everywhere, and high quality... and nfc how to do any of htat


Dredly t1_j6f4t9o wrote

Just pointing out, this was done previously to a pretty sizeable extent under the public welfare system, in the 80s/90s. The problem is who gets the money? is it based on income or family size? number of children? location? how much is the right amount?


If its done wrong, we end up with a society problem of a heavy incentive to have more children to continue earning income while ensuring low on paper income, which means the parent must live in subsidized housing while ensuring no skill growth, no tax revenue, etc.


If its done right, its a huge increase in costs to tax payers as we pay a "living salary" to people who aren't in the work force, and very quickly falls back into the above.


The current choice isn't normally "I don't want to stay with my kid" its "I cannot afford it", even while making good money, so how much money would need to be paid out of the gov't budget to parents who want to stay home, and for how long? Do we just let them take an advance on their SS? New "Student Loans" that are gov't backed?....


Dredly t1_j6f61u5 wrote

We did this before in the 80's/90's... the "Stipend to stay at home mothers" was called Welfare, they received preferential treatment in public / subsidized housing and vouchers, free food via WIC, monthly payments in cash, free medical coverage etc


It basically failed society because instead of empowering women to have skills and gain experiences that could be marketed, they more or less became dependent to remain low income (or lose housing) and have more children to increase income.


I'm not saying there shouldn't be a much better program then what we have now... but paying people to have kids and stay home historically has not worked well in the US


queensekhmet t1_j6f6bsi wrote

They are obviously in the very first stages of trying to organize around an issue that deeply affects many people in this country. Just because she doesn't have a written proposal with a budget doesn't mean they can't work towards making positive change.

Should she not reach out to people to have discourse about this just because she doesn't know all the answers yet? Childcare and it's associated costs is a huge issue and financial burden in this country that needs to be addressed and people absolutely should be trying to find effective solutions to this crisis.


relaxed-bread t1_j6f72na wrote

I don’t have kids, but I think it’s a very worthwhile cause. I wonder if there would be funding available through the Community Services Block Grant. If counties could apply and use the money to fund child care, whether via voucher or program administration, it could make a huge impact in alleviating child poverty in the state.


Jiveturkwy158 t1_j6f7i1e wrote

If this is the approach please avoid the pitfalls of federal student loans. Making funding more available allowed schools to charge more as there was no over site of cost. Highly encourage some kind of cost cap based on COL in that area (or other metric) or the benefits may be squandered to inflated costs.

Truly best of luck!


Dredly t1_j6f7sew wrote

They are posting in a state forum with the first rule being "posts must be relevant to PA", recruiting people to go join non-pa subs is supposedly not supposed to be done, on a topic they have no idea what they are talking about, and trying to get people to join a call which isn't related to PA...


so no, she shouldn't be posting it in this forum without understanding how it in any way applies to PA unless it is specific to PA, according to the rules.


cabinetsnotnow t1_j6f81un wrote

I'm not at all trying to be an ass here, because I 100% believe charging parents thousands per month for childcare is predatory. But why can't the government force childcare businesses to put a reasonable cap on what they charge?


WhiskeyandScars t1_j6f8wxx wrote

I can't really say from a day care employee point of view. My experiences employed by a daycare were limited to one center in a predominately low income area. I covered at a center in a higher income area, but was not there long enough to get a feel for the families.

As an aside, I moonlight as a face painter. From working birthday parties and community events, yes, horrible parents are pretty equally distributed.

TBH, I see more honest family interaction when I'm face painting than I did as a daycare employee.

Edit for clarification.


cabinetsnotnow t1_j6f9esy wrote

Another issue I have with this is that using welfare seems to be something that is passed on from generation to generation now. So if we start paying parents to stay home with their kids, what's to stop their kids from becoming adults and having kids and just never actually entering the workforce? Nothing. I think there are better ways to help support parents.


squirreltalk t1_j6f9ew5 wrote

Fully support what you are doing. The fact that the childcare tax credit was not renewed is arguably the biggest fumble of the previous congress. And as you said, childcare is literally a market failure. It needs subsidy or something.


brattyb33 t1_j6f9p7p wrote

Personnel costs have a huge impact on the overall cost of child care. According to a 2020 study about the true cost of care in PA, “Personnel costs constituted 80% of total child care costs, at the median, with a significant number of providers exceeding 70%.” The child to staff ratios in child care play a big role. For example, there’s a required ratio of 4:1 infants per staff member in the PA child care regulations. I’m not arguing for changes there (I can’t imagine caring for 2 infants on my own, let alone 4), just sharing another perspective about what can drive cost in this sector.


drxdrg08 t1_j6faria wrote

Because contrary to popular opinion on Reddit, the federal tax system in this country is highly progressive, and highly re-distributive.

The top 20% of income earners pay 75% of federal taxes. And roughly the bottom 50% of income earners pay no federal taxes at all.

Almost 60% of households paid no federal taxes in the last 2 tax filing cycles when the economy was going through the pandemic.


cabinetsnotnow t1_j6fazgr wrote

To be frank, I already pay over $4,000 per year for school taxes and obviously that amount will always gradually increase over time. It's not reasonable to expect others to just keep forking out more and more of their income for parents and kids. People without kids who are struggling financially and go without food and housing usually have an impossible time getting help from the government already. While people with kids just keep getting more help. At what point does it end?


Dredly t1_j6fb3ms wrote

The average cost per child in pre-k daycare is about 750 - 850 a month - lets round it up to 1k a month


which breaks down to about 1k a month (12k / year) per child.

There must be (according to the law) no more then a 1:4 ratio of staff to children for infants, this increases to 1:5 for toddlers, and 1:6 for older toddlers... which means AT MOST, each staff person is bringing in 48k, 60k for toddlers, and 72k for Older toddlers in revenue a year caring for the very young. That is total income, assume that there needs to be a boss (who can fill in to cover days off / sick days etc), rent etc... the total income potential is terrible.


so what would you consider a "reasonable cap"? the "several thousand a month" is either very premier "private school" level, multiple kids, or in a very high COL like NYC or Seattle/San Fran



Dredly t1_j6fcmgc wrote

That is another society issue that was witnessed pretty heavily, but its part of the larger problem of how do we fully support parents / child care workers without destroying an industry that is essential (pre-k care), punish/lock people into a series of almost servitude to the gov't (reliance on welfare/subsidies), be fair to those who choose not to have kids..


in other countries, its generally a "the employer must eat the cost of it". In the US that would just result in a massive reduction in hires of women who may have children as they aren't going to pay 6 months+ of wages to a parent for doing nothing to help their bottom line


-js23 t1_j6fcrco wrote

Am I though? If it isn’t “society’s responsibility” to provide assistance, then what else is going to happen?

Besides, what I said is based in reality, Americans are literally dying RIGHT NOW because they can’t afford to go to the doctor because of the mind numbingly stupid joke that is our healthcare system is.


bushwhack227 t1_j6ffji2 wrote

It's not true. Half of households don't make enough to pay anything in federal income taxes, after all the various credits and deductions. However, they still pay Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes


Muscadine76 t1_j6fgk5g wrote

The estimate this year of nonpayers for federal income tax is closer to 40% and 1/3 of those households are retired people who mostly live on Social Security. Most of the rest are households with low or no income, especially those raising children, or else that have things like short term major business losses or medical bills. It doesn’t particularly make sense for people to be paying income tax in those situations.

Also, most everyone is paying some form of taxes: sales, excise, property, payroll. Those taxes are generally regressive in that they’re a much greater burden for low to moderate income households. Federal taxes offsetting that somewhat is a good thing.


drxdrg08 t1_j6fgnsl wrote

They do. And state and local taxes, which are less progressive. But the major difference between federal income taxes and Medicare/FICA taxes is that they are generally paid back when someone retires.

It's more of a mandatory government savings plan than a tax that goes who knows where.


pm_your_masterpiece t1_j6fm4to wrote

Can child free people opt out? No offense but I don't need to pay for anyone's childcare.


Barnard_Gumble t1_j6fpdyv wrote

To keep from alienating people you might want to avoid using words like “our demands.” Just doesn’t sound very good. Talk to people about what you think the government or society should do for working people. Don’t think you can demand anything of anyone else. Get people on your side with good ideas.


ActionPark33 t1_j6fvdwn wrote

Michael Jackson said if you can’t feed your baby then don’t have a baby. Don’t have kids you can’t afford then expect the state to pick up the tab.


defusted t1_j6fvyv6 wrote

And where do you think that federal funding comes from?


big-D-ronnie t1_j6fypid wrote

Lol this is average redditor 101:

-Post something similar to op.

-Have a bunch of random redditors validate simply based on feels, devoid of any logic or facts.

-Redditors make a comment based on fact/without their "feels" involved.....

-Immediately: "yOu'Re AtTaCKinG MeEeEeee!!" Followed by immediate downvotes all because you're not a part of the hive voice mentality, that is endemic in these Reddit subs.

Lol look at all of the downvotes drxdrg08 got, all because he used facts and logic haha.

For the record, I have kids and yeah I don't think it's fair for you to have to subsidize mine or anyone elses.


4moves t1_j6fyy16 wrote

thats nice. can i have health care please. i can watch my child so long as i dont die


CarrotTotal4955 t1_j6g0y54 wrote

"I had kids and now I'm entitled to free childcare!!! It's not my responsibility to figure out how it'll be funded or executed!" 🤣🤡


No_Marionberry4370 t1_j6g2dam wrote

What would be better is if one parent could work and make enough money to support a family so the other one could stay home and care for the kids.


RedHeadedStepDevil t1_j6g2kac wrote

Not that I’m on the universal child care bandwagon, but access to quality and affordable child care, especially for low-income households, actually saves money for all of us in both the short term and long term.

In the short term, when affordable child care is available, families can work and/or go to educational training programs. Employers are more likely to have reliable employees of the employees aren’t worried about where their kid is while they’re at work. Kids in a quality child care learn what they need to start school ready to learn, which means teachers can teach instead of spending time playing catch up (or worse) when kids are in the classroom. Although it’s considered long term, kids who do well in school are more likely to graduate, stay out of the judicial system, and become productive members of society.

As far as long term, the National Forum on Early Childhood Policy and Programs has found that high quality early childhood programs can yield a $4 – $9 dollar return per $1 invested. A 2009 study of Perry Preschool, a high-quality program for 3-5 year olds developed in Michigan in the 1960s, estimated a return to society of between about $7 and $12 for each $1 invested. There are several other studies which demonstrate the return on investment in regards to affordable and accessible child care.

So while child free people might want to opt out, they should probably do so when they’re living on an island by themselves, because access to affordable and quality child care is one of those things where the entire community (and beyond) benefit from it—not just the people using it.


jshaf007 t1_j6g38cm wrote

schools and bus systems are already in place, for the life of me, i do not understand why they can’t offer more services (summer, after school daycare, etc) even if they had to charge, it would be way more efficient than bussing kids to alternate day cares for a few extra hours


akjmax t1_j6g4iyq wrote

You don’t think you would benefit from a society that is bettered by kids being properly educated during their critical development years? Or so that moms (& dads) can continue working and contribute to society, instead of choosing to stay home with their kids? You don’t have to have children to benefit from universal childcare; it takes a village.


drxdrg08 t1_j6g5zek wrote

That's not true. Social Security is a re-distributive system.

Lower income people get more benefit out of it than they paid into it. In other words, the system skews payments towards the lower end at the expense of the upper end.


drxdrg08 t1_j6g7djn wrote

> The estimate this year of nonpayers for federal income tax is closer to 40%

The figure is over 50% any year if you factor in redistribution that happens after taxes. If you pay $3000 in federal taxes but receive $30,000 in Medicaid coverage, SNAP and housing assistance, then that doesn't mean you are a "taxpayer" in the context of paying for new government programs.


CRCUSFRK360 t1_j6g7qzh wrote

I was a single father from the time my son was 8 months old. I was never on government assistance, child support, nor did I have family to help. If you have a child it's your responsibility. I worked 14hrs a day roofing houses to pay child care and pay my bills. No excuses. No handouts If you want to succeed nothing is holding you back. My son is now 20, an officer in the Navy. Suck it up.


pm_your_masterpiece t1_j6g8bt2 wrote

How about this: instead of people with kids getting a tax refund, all that money goes to support the children. That way those of us that are child free no longer subsidize you. All that cash can support your schools and eliminating school taxes, feed the kids, give them healthcare, and childcare. People with children get waaaaay too many benefits already. Stop taking my money.


pm_your_masterpiece t1_j6g9ooo wrote

Look, it sounds like a bunch of people who couldn't afford children, had them, and now expect everyone else to pay their way. No.

ETA: I'm child free. I'm willing to have a good faith conversation about this. But you'll have to answer very hard questions about the value of your child to society and their impact on my life and how much of my money you should get.


RememberCitadel t1_j6gvtmu wrote

Vastly depends on the school, many do offer some extended year programs for students that need it.

From a more practical perspective it is because teachers contracts specify they get that time off, and because the summer is used for the majority of school renovations, upgrades, and repair.

The last one is a big thing, majority of non emergency projects cannot be done when students are in the building bothe because it distracts students and becuase it may be dangerous. For instance taking the school's power offline to replace a transformer or water offline to replace pipes.

Every summer schools absolutely cram everything they can into those months to get the building ready to go for the next year.


KaiserSozes-brother t1_j6hhywf wrote

I thought Pennsylvania was stuck in some political deadlock where they couldn’t even pass legislation? Best of luck I guess?


Jotakave t1_j6hjjwl wrote

Wasn’t there an initiative a while ago for universal PreK in PA that didn’t materialize? Maybe looking at their efforts or what went wrong would be a good place to start. I think this idea is very noble but I wonder about the practicality and implementation issues. I’m also a librarian and I’ve seen things change since the pandemic. A lot of centers that I visit on my outreach are short staffed because they can’t afford to pay a $15/hr wage. I’ve ran into old daycare workers that now are working in target or elsewhere because it’s just easier and pays more. IIRC Quebec has some sort of universal daycare but I think that’s the only province in Canada to offer it, maybe another place to start looking for models. Good luck


DeepCommunication110 t1_j6hn2lm wrote

Breeder mentality written all over this. I'm not paying anything extra for you to stay home and collect.


Muscadine76 t1_j6i5bh9 wrote

Now you’re either doubling down on disingenuousness or just aren’t familiar with what a “fact” actually is. If I pay $100 a month for house insurance for a year and at the end of that year my house burns down and I’m given $250,000 to rebuild, that doesn’t mean I was never an “insurance payer”. If I donate $10 to my local food bank every few months, then lose my job for a year and get $100s of dollars in food support from the pantry, that doesn’t mean I’m not a donor.


Zenith2017 t1_j6i6bfr wrote

I can believe the amount of mouth breather conservative haters here, but it's still disappointing. Good on you OP


TacoNomad t1_j6i9rwy wrote

"hey, I'm starting up a movement, let's get together and discuss"

"give me all the answers now. Now. NOW!"

"Hey bruh, we literally just started, we don't have all the answers yet. We have some people working on it"

"I pulled a number out my ass that is 10x higher than the real data that exists! Poor people mumble mumble mumble, amirite?"

"lol, k"

And that's your response?

You think OP should just make up phoney numbers like the commenter did, rather than conduct actual research?

Just say you don't care and keep scrolling.


mbear45 t1_j6iaszu wrote

Not all parents work full time. Some parents like my husband and I were able to work alternate schedules (I know not everyone can do that) and there are a lot of stay at home parents. Kids and parents need down time and a lot look forward to summer breaks (as do teachers, they have lives too). So while this would be nice for some, I think there are a lot more that would disagree.


Mijbr090490 t1_j6ibgl6 wrote

Good job. There are others that aren't as fortunate. I worked my ass off since I was 14 and bought a house at 25. I make over 80k a year with no formal education. I know my situation doesn't universally apply to everyone and I'm not going to hold that against them. I will fight for everyone to have a better, easier chance at success.


drxdrg08 t1_j6ic2g6 wrote

> If I pay $100 a month for house insurance for a year and at the end of that year my house burns down and I’m given $250,000 to rebuild, that doesn’t mean I was never an “insurance payer”.

Your analogy does not make sense. Government means tested benefits are not one time payments.

If your house burns down every year, and you get $250,000 every year while you only pay $1200 every year into the insurance pool... that's an accurate analogy.

If you give $1 to the government in taxes, and the government gives you $10 right back, that doesn't mean you can be counted on as a source of taxes for the next redistribution program that the government comes up with. This isn't rocket science to understand. This is basic math.

But I highly suspect that it's not that you don't understand, you just want to ignore inconvenient facts. That's what Reddit does, come up with a false narrative and ignore basic facts.


ross570 t1_j6ij4za wrote

I don’t understand why people want to create more dependency on over sized government?


TacoNomad t1_j6im2gd wrote

No chips. You should not call fathers baby daddy. They should be fathers. If the father is subsidizing the mother, that's their familial choice. Why do I care?

Father's have equal responsibility. So it's not subsidizing a mother to be a mother. It's subsidizing parents to be parents because it would help out both "mommy" and "baby daddy" as you say.


cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j6iq4ov wrote

Hahahahah I guess so but I am not going to make it easy to get handouts. There are lots of ways around it if you want to be a stay at home mommy and can’t afford it. Work weekends, work alternating shifts, baby sit, work from home. Many many people make it work.


TacoNomad t1_j6iqubp wrote

I didn't assume that the father was. You did.

Did you read the post? The post doesn't imply any gender roles.

The comment implied gender roles, but the person should have said parent instead of mother. In either case, you're assuming that "baby daddies" are fully supporting their kids and the mothers are just taking a stipend from your wallet. That's why it's weird.


PorkrollEggnCheeze t1_j6iwht7 wrote

There's the PA Pre-K Counts program, which provides free pre-k to families making up to 300% of the federal poverty level. That's how my son went to pre-k last year. From what our family advocate told me when we signed up, the demand is greater than the amount of kids they're able to serve though.


Jotakave t1_j6ixjzu wrote

Right. So even that year of preK is not available to all due to lack of funds or whatever. I can’t imagine what it takes to expand that service to earlier stages. I’m glad you were able to utilize the program. The campaign I was referring to is on I’m not sure if your program was related to this organization.


Zenith2017 t1_j6jcos6 wrote

Given the cost of childcare it's certainly an easy choice for many low income parents. It costs tens of thousands per kid per year - frequently more than these people even take home for that years work.

At the end of the day, you and I will pay for these kids, it's just a choice of upstream by subsidizing childcare, or downstream by subsidizing all the issues resulting from absent parents and inadequate support. It's literally cheaper to support daycare than not, similar to how preventative healthcare is cheaper than responsive healthcare.

Edit - and if you're expecting people to stop having kids, that's just completely unrealistic


cabinetsnotnow t1_j6kkewg wrote

I'm not saying that I shouldn't pay any school taxes. Educated kids become educated adults who go into society, so I get why paying for education is important.

What I'm saying is that I don't think I should be expected to keep paying for more and more expenses that should fall on parents who chose to have kids. If the problem is that daycares are overcharging parents for their services, then do something about that. Taxpayers picking up the tab should not be the default solution to everything.


Zenith2017 t1_j6krniv wrote

(my MIL owns a daycare small business)

The insurance $$$$, the pay for experienced staff so you can scale up a little, licensing of all sorts, not to mention plenty of food, diapers, toys, equipment, spaces, education content, you name it. There's of course a ton that goes into the full scope of managing a brick and mortar business, and the daycare is no exception. It's a whole operation, y'know?

There are home daycares too which seems fine to a relative outsider. That's what she did before; but scaling up to have like 10 skilled employees and a few different classes across an age range was key for growth.