pooks
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 11, 2017 16:45:43 GMT -5
Posts: 625
Today's Mood: Angry
|
Post by pooks on Feb 13, 2019 10:59:01 GMT -5
I have thought about the broader economic impact of me not working. I have only worked 1 year in the last 16. In the one year I did work, I paid taxes, invested in a 401k, paid for daycare, paid someone to clean my house, ate out more, and used many more convenience services. I was a one woman economic stimulus.
At home, I am much more miserly. I have more time to cook, clean, and find deals on things, plus all that tax revenue lost.
|
|
Ryan
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 16, 2014 13:40:36 GMT -5
Posts: 2,202
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 13, 2019 11:20:43 GMT -5
The most glaring thing I've noticed is that, although all the moms stayed home when I was younger, our standard of living is MUCH, MUCH higher now.
Just comparing my parents home to mine. We rarely went out to eat, my dad fixed everything, we obviously didn't have ipads, iphones, netflix, we had basic cable and my dad wouldn't even pay extra money for a remote, we drove on all family vacations, and we had 5 kids in a 2000 SF house.
My family goes out to eat all the time, I don't fix everything, we have 4 ipads in the house, 2 phones, netflix subscription, Prime, cable, we fly on all family vacations, and we have 3 kids in a 3000 SF house. My wife works.
Maybe everyone is not as extreme, but just using Disneyworld as an example. I had tons of friends growing up that had never been to Disney, now I can't think of a single friend of mine that hasn't taken their kids to Disney at least once..most multiple times.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 13, 2019 11:29:15 GMT -5
The most glaring thing I've noticed is that, although all the moms stayed home when I was younger, our standard of living is MUCH, MUCH higher now. Just comparing my parents home to mine. We rarely went out to eat, my dad fixed everything, we obviously didn't have ipads, iphones, netflix, we had basic cable and my dad wouldn't even pay extra money for a remote, we drove on all family vacations, and we had 5 kids in a 2000 SF house. My family goes out to eat all the time, I don't fix everything, we have 4 ipads in the house, 2 phones, netflix subscription, Prime, cable, we fly on all family vacations, and we have 3 kids in a 3000 SF house. My wife works. Maybe everyone is not as extreme, but just using Disneyworld as an example. I had tons of friends growing up that had never been to Disney, now I can't think of a single friend of mine that hasn't taken their kids to Disney at least once..most multiple times. I agree. There are a LOT of things that have shifted in society from "wow, what a luxury" to "of course that's a need". I remember having a friend who had a Super Nintendo. We all wanted to go over to his house on the weekend because he was the only one. I went to Disney in Junior High and I had to report back to everyone what it was like because nobody else had ever been. I had my first cell phone when I went to college, and only because it was cheaper than the school's long-distance plan. We had 5 television channels until I left for college. If we weren't out somewhere because we HAD to be (sports games, etc) we didn't eat out. We got to order pizza after we opened presents on Christmas, that was a treat. We didn't even have internet until I left for college, and then only because my dad got a laptop for work and could dial in with the VPN. A lot of that stuff is great, it makes our lives easier, and for the amazing level of convenience it's worth the money...but it's still a massive shift. I'm pretty sure if I was living the way I lived when I was a kid, everyone would think we were the poorest people in town. I grew up that way, but I'm still pretty sure if someone told me they had NO cell phone, I'd wonder what the hell was wrong with them.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Feb 13, 2019 12:19:26 GMT -5
if you look back on old news programs, they predicted that by the year 2000 (or beyond) that we'd have all these amazing medical and transportation advances. We kind of do, but they are nowhere near as amazing as people then predicted they would be. We changed the definition of a "better life". Instead of massively faster and safer transport systems, we have phones that can do everything. We have super fast internet where we consume mass amounts of porn, cat videos, and everything in between. Meanwhile we haven't sorted out child hunger, human trafficking, and other atrocities. I think if the people from the 1950s making predictions on how life would be now could see us now, they'd be pretty disappointed. But hey, I really love how I look with the deer face Snapchat filter!
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 13, 2019 12:21:45 GMT -5
if you look back on old news programs, they predicted that by the year 2000 (or beyond) that we'd have all these amazing medical and transportation advances. We kind of do, but they are nowhere near as amazing as people then predicted they would be. We changed the definition of a "better life". Instead of massively faster and safer transport systems, we have phones that can do everything. We have super fast internet where we consume mass amounts of porn, cat videos, and everything in between. Meanwhile we haven't sorted out child hunger, human trafficking, and other atrocities. I think if the people from the 1950s making predictions on how life would be now could see us now, they'd be pretty disappointed. But hey, I really love how I look with the deer face Snapchat filter! It's a lot easier to find solutions to technical issues than it is to solve the issue of how to make human beings not be shitty. One day, our robot overlords, who I welcome, will probably figure it out for us.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 26,962
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Feb 13, 2019 12:24:04 GMT -5
The most glaring thing I've noticed is that, although all the moms stayed home when I was younger, our standard of living is MUCH, MUCH higher now. Just comparing my parents home to mine. We rarely went out to eat, my dad fixed everything, we obviously didn't have ipads, iphones, netflix, we had basic cable and my dad wouldn't even pay extra money for a remote, we drove on all family vacations, and we had 5 kids in a 2000 SF house. My family goes out to eat all the time, I don't fix everything, we have 4 ipads in the house, 2 phones, netflix subscription, Prime, cable, we fly on all family vacations, and we have 3 kids in a 3000 SF house. My wife works. Maybe everyone is not as extreme, but just using Disneyworld as an example. I had tons of friends growing up that had never been to Disney, now I can't think of a single friend of mine that hasn't taken their kids to Disney at least once..most multiple times. I'm older than most of you. Before we moved to the city, mom and dad owned a bowling alley. After it burned down, dad worked in a factory and mom was a stay at home mom. We did not own a car. Mom's brother ran the taxi company so she just called him if she needed to go some place that was too far to walk or if she was getting groceries. Her sisters also stopped by when they came to town to get their groceries. Mom usually took care of their kids while they shopped and her sisters would pick up anything mom needed. After we moved to the city, both mom and dad worked. They started working at a bowling alley. Mom was a waitress during the day shift (7-3) and dad was the manager in the evenings. That mean we needed two cars. They bought the first car before either one had a driver's license. Dad finally got a desk job at a tire factory. Mom was still a waitress. Dad worked at the bowling alley on Friday and Saturday nights. My sister and I spent every Friday and Saturday night with them at the bowling alley. We rarely ate out. We lived in a 958 sq ft house with 3 small bedrooms and 1 bathroom. After we had been there a while, my uncles built a garage. My sister and I wanted to go to Disneyland. We went the summer before my senior year of high school. My parents put all their change in a jar and that was the trip money. We actually went on a two week vacation, the only trip of that sort I went on as a child. Times were simpler. I think the house I have is too big for me but anything smaller would be difficult to sell. The biggest problem with this house is there is no master bathroom. It's fine for me. The townhouse on the other side of me has two small bathrooms in the space where my bathroom is. I'm guessing that means no tub or a very small tub. My tub is oversized. When the townhouse on the other side of was being built, the guy who bought it looked at both of our bathroom set ups and decided he liked the larger bathroom instead of the two small bathrooms. I do have a bathroom in the basement with just a shower. Our big entertainment was going to the double feature on Sunday afternoons. 25 cents unless it was a Disney movie. Then it was 35 cents. Some weeks we had some money for treats, but not always. All of my friends lived like this so I didn't feel deprived and I still don't think I was deprived. When my aunts and uncles came to visit and stayed all night, the adults got the three bedrooms and 11 kids slept on the living room floor. Yes, with one bathroom.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 13, 2019 12:35:01 GMT -5
It's the same situation with adult group homes/care facilities for people with developmental disabilities. My town has several of these companies and I am the Board President for a local non profit that works with the DD population. The care givers are paid squat and there's a really high turnover. You would think we'd place a higher value on the people we are hiring to care for our loved ones but once corporations get involved they screw the worker and reap the benefits for themselves. Google is telling me that most daycare can have 8 toddlers in a room with two teachers. So 8 toddlers at an average (MN) of $220 per kid equals = $1760.00 weekly "income" for that room of toddlers. 2 daycare workers at say $10 per hour (for large employers Minimum wage in MN is $9.86) at 40 hour per week will cost the daycare center $800. Leaving the center $960 per toddler room for overhead expenses. That seems like a lot to me. That's 120% for overhead? Dayum, If I could get away with tacking 120 percent for overhead on all of my road project bids I'd be freaking rich. We only factor in 20% for overhead and profit. Yes, 8 toddlers in a room with two teachers but you are assuming that daycares are only open 8 hours a day. When my children were in daycare, they had a morning shift (two full time workers) who started at 6:30 and then a change over in the afternoon because the daycare was open until 6pm. So it does not work out to $800 of salary a week (not even talking about taxes, workers comp, etc). we were entitled to 10 hours of daycare a day within the time frame they were open. I have known two people that owned daycare centers and they are not making bank. They were both hands on directors and both would have made more money working as a teacher in our local school district than running a daycare with a hell of a lot less hours and stress.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 26,962
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Feb 13, 2019 12:36:49 GMT -5
I have audited tax returns and prepared tax returns for people who had in home day care centers. They barely made a profit.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 13, 2019 12:46:54 GMT -5
It's the same situation with adult group homes/care facilities for people with developmental disabilities. My town has several of these companies and I am the Board President for a local non profit that works with the DD population. The care givers are paid squat and there's a really high turnover. You would think we'd place a higher value on the people we are hiring to care for our loved ones but once corporations get involved they screw the worker and reap the benefits for themselves. Google is telling me that most daycare can have 8 toddlers in a room with two teachers. So 8 toddlers at an average (MN) of $220 per kid equals = $1760.00 weekly "income" for that room of toddlers. 2 daycare workers at say $10 per hour (for large employers Minimum wage in MN is $9.86) at 40 hour per week will cost the daycare center $800. Leaving the center $960 per toddler room for overhead expenses. That seems like a lot to me. That's 120% for overhead? Dayum, If I could get away with tacking 120 percent for overhead on all of my road project bids I'd be freaking rich. We only factor in 20% for overhead and profit. Yes, 8 toddlers in a room with two teachers but you are assuming that daycares are only open 8 hours a day. When my children were in daycare, they had a morning shift (two full time workers) who started at 6:30 and then a change over in the afternoon because the daycare was open until 6pm. So it does not work out to $800 of salary a week (not even talking about taxes, workers comp, etc). we were entitled to 10 hours of daycare a day within the time frame they were open. I have known two people that owned daycare centers and they are not making bank. They were both hands on directors and both would have made more money working as a teacher in our local school district than running a daycare with a hell of a lot less hours and stress. You got 10, ours is open for 12, and you can't necessarily stagger it so that it is 3 workers, it ends up being 4 (or more). And they're gonna feed my kid, transport my kid, when the teachers take breaks they have to continue watching my kid. I would absolutely expect the "overhead" (looking here like it is including everything except direct labor costs?) to be a lot higher for a business which is using the space it owns directly for the job it is doing...as opposed to a construction company where they are not working in that specific space. It's not transferable across vastly different business (as an example, if I own a business which rents out halls for special occasions...I might have "overheads" in the thousands of percents...what I'm selling is a space and I might employ one person occasionally to clean it up). We factor in roughly 15-20% in overhead and profit where I'm a pricing analyst. But part of the cost is the machine that we're running to produce the product. I might consider the classrooms to be the "machine" in this case. That square footage is how the job gets done, it's not some administrative expense. Same for renting out venues, the venue IS the product I'm renting out. The classroom space of a daycare is part of the thing I'm selling to people.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,233
|
Post by NastyWoman on Feb 13, 2019 14:22:05 GMT -5
I am of the same vintage as TheOtherMe so my personal experience (or lack thereof) with daycare is too old to be relevant. However, I do know that when DS2 and his family moved to Germany 2 years ago and they put DGS1 in day care over there, the annual daycare cost there was less than the cost of one MONTH in Seattle.
He is still in the program but by now it is more like pre-K. And this low cost includes just about everything they do. The only additional payments they made were very recently when they enrolled DGS1 in a program organized by the school for a number of skiing lessons. This was optional and less than half the kids participated.
Talk about more money being available to stimulate the economy.
|
|
chapeau
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 10:50:04 GMT -5
Posts: 1,649
|
Post by chapeau on Feb 13, 2019 14:33:32 GMT -5
I am of the same vintage as TheOtherMe so my personal experience (or lack thereof) with daycare is too old to be relevant. However, I do know that when DS2 and his family moved to Germany 2 years ago and they put DGS1 in day care over there, the annual daycare cost there was less than the cost of one MONTH in Seattle.
He is still in the program but by now it is more like pre-K. And this low cost includes just about everything they do. The only additional payments they made were very recently when they enrolled DGS1 in a program organized by the school for a number of skiing lessons. This was optional and less than half the kids participated.
Talk about more money being available to stimulate the economy. A friend’s husband is from Germany. He was required to perform a year (or 2, can’t remember now) of national service after he graduated from high school. You could choose between the military or public service. He spent his national service time working in a day care center. I think he got a stipend, but whatever he was paid was low
|
|
sheilaincali
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 17:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by sheilaincali on Feb 13, 2019 14:41:44 GMT -5
In an effort to use easy, round numbers I did fail to factor in that most daycares are open more than 8 hours a day and likely have cross over shifts. You are absolutely correct. My base point, which I likely didn't make clearly, was that the daycare workers themselves are not getting rich working at a daycare. Of that $220 or so a week you are paying per kid only a small portion of that actually goes to the person physically responsible for watching your child. My nephew's daycare went out of business after 8 years. Problems they had- they built a huge brand new building. The plan was to rent out half of it for offices but they rarely had renters in it (it was a separate part with a different entrance). They included a huge gym but very rarely used it. They had a big custom kitchen installed and than decided it was cheaper to have a meal service deliver meals rather than pay a cook. They did not have a good business plan going into it. But they "should have" the owner had been the primary manager of a different daycare in two for 20 years before opening her own.
Also they didn't pay their builder so he filed liens and sued them for a boatload of money. They closed and sold the building.
Would overall daycare costs go down if licensure was less expensive? If insurance premiums were more affordable? I honestly don't know but it seems to me that the article is accurate and that the cost of daycare is significant hardship for working parents.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,233
|
Post by NastyWoman on Feb 13, 2019 14:45:24 GMT -5
I am of the same vintage as TheOtherMe so my personal experience (or lack thereof) with daycare is too old to be relevant. However, I do know that when DS2 and his family moved to Germany 2 years ago and they put DGS1 in day care over there, the annual daycare cost there was less than the cost of one MONTH in Seattle.
He is still in the program but by now it is more like pre-K. And this low cost includes just about everything they do. The only additional payments they made were very recently when they enrolled DGS1 in a program organized by the school for a number of skiing lessons. This was optional and less than half the kids participated.
Talk about more money being available to stimulate the economy. A friend’s husband is from Germany. He was required to perform a year (or 2, can’t remember now) of national service after he graduated from high school. You could choose between the military or public service. He spent his national service time working in a day care center. I think he got a stipend, but whatever he was paid was low My guess (and it is not more than that) would be that he earned whatever he would have earned in the military which IMO would make perfect sense. Must have been prior to 2011 though since that is when they ended the draft
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 13, 2019 16:47:34 GMT -5
In an effort to use easy, round numbers I did fail to factor in that most daycares are open more than 8 hours a day and likely have cross over shifts. You are absolutely correct. My base point, which I likely didn't make clearly, was that the daycare workers themselves are not getting rich working at a daycare. Of that $220 or so a week you are paying per kid only a small portion of that actually goes to the person physically responsible for watching your child. My nephew's daycare went out of business after 8 years. Problems they had- they built a huge brand new building. The plan was to rent out half of it for offices but they rarely had renters in it (it was a separate part with a different entrance). They included a huge gym but very rarely used it. They had a big custom kitchen installed and than decided it was cheaper to have a meal service deliver meals rather than pay a cook. They did not have a good business plan going into it. But they "should have" the owner had been the primary manager of a different daycare in two for 20 years before opening her own.
Also they didn't pay their builder so he filed liens and sued them for a boatload of money. They closed and sold the building.
Would overall daycare costs go down if licensure was less expensive? If insurance premiums were more affordable? I honestly don't know but it seems to me that the article is accurate and that the cost of daycare is significant hardship for working parents. I think people took your point to mean that while daycare workers weren't getting rich...that money then must be going to the daycare owners getting rich running the place. In many cases, it's going toward paying for the building they're in, training, etc. Also if you figure with breaks and all that, that it takes a 12-hour room 3 employees per day (which it can't, it has to be more unless they're working very split shifts), it's costing 1200/week in salary at $10x40. If they can only watch 8 kids @ $200/week...that's $1600. I wouldn't call that a "small portion" that goes to the person physically responsible for watching your child. Even with your numbers of $220/week...at 1760, and 1200 in salary, still no small portion. I don't think anyone thinks folks are getting rich working minimum wage or near-minimum wage jobs. But this also doesn't seem like a scenario where the business owner is getting rich either at those rates. Daycare costs are largely a direct correlation with laws which limit how many children a worker can legally watch. It's not that the rate can't get better with older kids (because the rate doesn't seem to change as more kids can be added compared to the price reduction) but there certainly seems to be a floor for the cost of infant care without allowing a worker to watch more children than they can today.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 13, 2019 18:40:44 GMT -5
In an effort to use easy, round numbers I did fail to factor in that most daycares are open more than 8 hours a day and likely have cross over shifts. You are absolutely correct. My base point, which I likely didn't make clearly, was that the daycare workers themselves are not getting rich working at a daycare. Of that $220 or so a week you are paying per kid only a small portion of that actually goes to the person physically responsible for watching your child. My nephew's daycare went out of business after 8 years. Problems they had- they built a huge brand new building. The plan was to rent out half of it for offices but they rarely had renters in it (it was a separate part with a different entrance). They included a huge gym but very rarely used it. They had a big custom kitchen installed and than decided it was cheaper to have a meal service deliver meals rather than pay a cook. They did not have a good business plan going into it. But they "should have" the owner had been the primary manager of a different daycare in two for 20 years before opening her own.
Also they didn't pay their builder so he filed liens and sued them for a boatload of money. They closed and sold the building.
Would overall daycare costs go down if licensure was less expensive? If insurance premiums were more affordable? I honestly don't know but it seems to me that the article is accurate and that the cost of daycare is significant hardship for working parents. Of course it is because it isn’t cheap to provide. But daycare is a lot cheaper than hiring someone to come to your home and watch your children. I did both over the years and daycare was much, much cheaper. Children are expensive but blaming the daycare owner for the cost is not the answer. I’ve know a few people that work around this by working opposite shifts or flex schedules.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 23:44:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2019 20:26:01 GMT -5
When I was a young child, families helped with the children. It was possible because there weren't as many dual income families. I treasure my memories of my great grandmother walking me to and from the bus stop and spending afternoons with her until my Mom got home from work, going to visit relatives in the country for a week or 2 in the summer, and all the days and afternoons I spent with my grandmother, tagging along with my older cousins or hanging out with my Mom's best friend's kids.
My Mom had a decent income for most of my childhood, but I'm sure her money went a lot farther not having to pay daycare costs, even back then. And I would not have had a lot of the good memories I have with my family if I'd gone to daycare and after school care while she worked.
I remember paying $100/week for my kids to go to daycare, one full time, one part time. I couldn't afford to pay for both to go full time. The most I made was $7.40/hour when they were going to daycare. I'm still not sure how I managed to pay that. They only went for a couple of years. I had a lot of family support (babysitters) while I was raising my children too.
Now it costs almost $200/week per child for my grandchildren. That's at a daycare I'm not even overly impressed with. Our family has changed so that my daughter doesn't have the support system I did. I still have to work, my Grandmother would be too old to watch kids even if she was still alive, my Mom and Aunt aren't in good enough health to watch kids all the time anymore, I don't have any friends that are SAHW willing to babysit sometimes, like my Mom's friends were, and there are no older cousins to watch my grand babies like mine did me. My children's paternal grandparents and aunt also helped a lot with my kids, my daughter doesn't have that either.
I empathize with her in regards to the child care issues and I've helped her with the costs sometimes. My income alone is more than the median household income for the area, and if I had to pay for 2 kids to go to daycare, I would struggle. A good daycare for 2 children would cost more than double my mortgage payment.
I'm not saying that family has an obligation to help with children or judging parents that choose or have to send their children to daycares. It's just another way that times have changed since I was a child and since I was raising my own children. If I wanted to have a baby (absolutely do not!), I couldn't afford it.
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Feb 14, 2019 13:48:37 GMT -5
Also, I would venture to say that the great majority of day care providers/workers are women who are entitled to earn pay that is commensurate with the enormous responsibility and importance of caring for a child.
Nobody is entitled to any level of pay just because their job is "important"...pay is based on supply and demand...and there is an enormous supply of people who are able to fill day care provider jobs. There are lots of jobs which don't require any special skills which are VERY important, but they could be done by many many people. (You can argue they are skilled, but all that is subjective and varies, I'm speaking really to the qualifications to do the job, which in my state is that you are 18, and if you want to be licensed you need a HS diploma or GED). This doesn't mean there aren't some very good workers out there, in fact that's why we take our kids to a daycare 10 minutes away in a different town in a direction neither of us work...as opposed to the numerous in-home daycares in our town or the center in our town...they are much much better. Some are going to be entitled to earn pay because they are very GOOD at their job, and as such have a different supply/demand dynamic...but nobody is entitled to a specific level of pay above minimum wage for doing low skill work that most of the population is perfectly qualified to do. I actually agree with you.
I guess I might have been trying at playing devil's advocate. Perhaps not too well.
So when people argue that the cost of day care is too high, are they also considering these day care workers? Would their view on "livable wage" include these workers? If one were to break down the costs of running a day care center that is licensed and follows all rules in running such a facility I suspect that it becomes a large number. Just like any other business that is providing a licensed service to the public.
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Feb 14, 2019 13:49:47 GMT -5
Also, I would venture to say that the great majority of day care providers/workers are women who are entitled to earn pay that is commensurate with the enormous responsibility and importance of caring for a child.
This isn't exactly true/accurate. Yes- I fully believe that teachers and caregivers are amazing and should be paid accordingly. However, most daycare centers pay their daycare workers peanuts. One of my extra kids worked at a daycare while in high school/college. She made minimum wage. Her co-workers that had been there longer make I think $0.50 more an hour than her. A close friend of mine has a bachelor's in early education and is certified to teach elementary school- as a pre-school teacher she is not well paid. I already am aware that their pay levels are low....
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Feb 14, 2019 15:33:22 GMT -5
My kids' before and after school daycare is ridiculously expensive, considering these are school age kids, and each worker is there to cover as much as 12 or more kids. I don't even know because there are 4 or 5 workers, and a mass of kids. It could be as much as 20 kids for each worker. I pay over $8/hr for my 2 kids, with a 2nd kid discount. Its in the school, so facilities and insurance are already there. Shifts are a bit staggered for the full days, and so are the amount of kids being there.
As far as other centers, I don't know. I think it varies, but it's a bit frustrating when the school seems to view it as a cash cow more than a service.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 23:44:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2019 16:20:07 GMT -5
The YMCA runs all the after school/no school/snow day care programs in this area. They cover all the schools, public, private and charter. None of the schools have their own programs.
They just started doing this maybe 5 years ago and I really like it. They bus the kids to three locations East, West and Central depending on which one your school is closest too. Carrot's school hosts the West site kids, so he stays at his school. But, they also take them to any after school activities, swim lessons or swim team, dance classes at the conservatory...and give a 30% discount on all these activities. I pay $150/month and he can be there as late as 6pm...maybe 6:30, not sure as I always get him before 5.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Feb 14, 2019 21:51:01 GMT -5
The US definitely needs to pull its head out of its bicentennial or something and finally put in to action paid maternity leave. I'd be happy if heads came out of asses enough to give even 8 weeks paid, but I honestly think Canada's system is a good one and should be modeled. I lean towards just subsidizing child care instead of giving credits. For one, struggling parents would need the money when they're paying the daycare bill not a lump sump the next year. ETA: Looked it up because it varies by province. Quebec just gives every family with a child under 18 an amount based on income & # of kids. Whereas Ontario requires a contribution from the parents and pays anything over that if childcare costs exceed the parental contribution. That method is intriguing because it has everyone contribute the same amount based on income so those that live in HCOLA or areas with limited child care choices (and likely higher costs). It's based on a certain percent of income in a couple of tiers. globalnews.ca/news/2985338/child-care-subsidies-what-parents-in-every-province-need-to-know/Quebec also gives a year of paid maternity/paternity leave and daycare costs $140 a month for the average Joe. It will never happen in the USA....it's socialism, dontcha know? We WANT women to go back to work, so her job is secure while on mat leave, and daycare is more than affordable. From the link.... American politics has a deeply embedded sexist streak, and family policies—such as child care and paid leave— have traditionally been treated as softer, second-tier concerns, in part because they’ve been seen as “women’s issues.” Here, womens' issues are paramount, not a "second-tier concern." And while women sit at home getting paid for not doing their work, who is actually working the job they are getting paid not to do? I've worked in offices where I had to pick up the slack of women on maternity leave. That was extra work I had to do and did not get paid anything more for it. More work, more hours, more stress while the ladies sat at home changing diapers...and now they want to sit at home changing diapers and get paid for it, while other people do their jobs for them. So yeah - fuck you ladies
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Feb 14, 2019 22:09:55 GMT -5
Quebec also gives a year of paid maternity/paternity leave and daycare costs $140 a month for the average Joe. It will never happen in the USA....it's socialism, dontcha know? We WANT women to go back to work, so her job is secure while on mat leave, and daycare is more than affordable. From the link.... American politics has a deeply embedded sexist streak, and family policies—such as child care and paid leave— have traditionally been treated as softer, second-tier concerns, in part because they’ve been seen as “women’s issues.” Here, womens' issues are paramount, not a "second-tier concern." And while women sit at home getting paid for not doing their work, who is actually working the job they are getting paid not to do? I've worked in offices where I had to pick up the slack of women on maternity leave. That was extra work I had to do and did not get paid anything more for it. More work, more hours, more stress while the ladies sat at home changing diapers...and now they want to sit at home changing diapers and get paid for it, while other people do their jobs for them. So yeah - fuck you ladies Fuck your mother for having you. 😜
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 15, 2019 1:05:39 GMT -5
Quebec also gives a year of paid maternity/paternity leave and daycare costs $140 a month for the average Joe. It will never happen in the USA....it's socialism, dontcha know? We WANT women to go back to work, so her job is secure while on mat leave, and daycare is more than affordable. From the link.... American politics has a deeply embedded sexist streak, and family policies—such as child care and paid leave— have traditionally been treated as softer, second-tier concerns, in part because they’ve been seen as “women’s issues.” Here, womens' issues are paramount, not a "second-tier concern." And while women sit at home getting paid for not doing their work, who is actually working the job they are getting paid not to do? I've worked in offices where I had to pick up the slack of women on maternity leave. That was extra work I had to do and did not get paid anything more for it. More work, more hours, more stress while the ladies sat at home changing diapers...and now they want to sit at home changing diapers and get paid for it, while other people do their jobs for them. So yeah - fuck you ladies They get a temp worker for a year. It doesn't cost the employer extra, as mat leave benefits are from Unemployment Insurance. Fuck you, too.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 15, 2019 7:33:42 GMT -5
And while women sit at home getting paid for not doing their work, who is actually working the job they are getting paid not to do? I've worked in offices where I had to pick up the slack of women on maternity leave. That was extra work I had to do and did not get paid anything more for it. More work, more hours, more stress while the ladies sat at home changing diapers...and now they want to sit at home changing diapers and get paid for it, while other people do their jobs for them. So yeah - fuck you ladies They get a temp worker for a year. It doesn't cost the employer extra, as mat leave benefits are from Unemployment Insurance. Fuck you, too. You can replace low level employees easily. Higher level employees are now that easy to replace temporarily. I oversaw the finance department of a company in Quebec. We hired two different temp Controller and it was a disaster. Beyond the additional workload that other people had to pick up, temp workers are very expensive. The company I just left had headquarters in the UK (or at least one layer). The head Financial Reporting person went on maternity leave and they brought a temp in to cover for a year. In that year they brought in consultants and had to create a 5 year plan in a certain format. This “temp” is the one that was charged with designing the format. Problem was that he was not versed in the systems and organized it in a way that required dozens of hours of manual manipulation from each of the companies (we were one company out of 30). I caught it and had many calls with both the consultants and headquarters but the format had been approved and there was no time to revamp. The answer was that he didn’t understand but he is doing the best he can to cover for x during the worst time possible. So yes, we can get temp workers but they are not the equivalent of a full time employee with knowledge behind them. Temps work great at certain levels but much harder at higher levels
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,631
|
Post by raeoflyte on Feb 15, 2019 17:44:51 GMT -5
They get a temp worker for a year. It doesn't cost the employer extra, as mat leave benefits are from Unemployment Insurance. Fuck you, too. You can replace low level employees easily. Higher level employees are now that easy to replace temporarily. I oversaw the finance department of a company in Quebec. We hired two different temp Controller and it was a disaster. Beyond the additional workload that other people had to pick up, temp workers are very expensive. The company I just left had headquarters in the UK (or at least one layer). The head Financial Reporting person went on maternity leave and they brought a temp in to cover for a year. In that year they brought in consultants and had to create a 5 year plan in a certain format. This “temp” is the one that was charged with designing the format. Problem was that he was not versed in the systems and organized it in a way that required dozens of hours of manual manipulation from each of the companies (we were one company out of 30). I caught it and had many calls with both the consultants and headquarters but the format had been approved and there was no time to revamp. The answer was that he didn’t understand but he is doing the best he can to cover for x during the worst time possible. So yes, we can get temp workers but they are not the equivalent of a full time employee with knowledge behind them. Temps work great at certain levels but much harder at higher levels So it's women's fault because we're the only one's capable of carrying a child? Or it's women's fault for daring to have more than a low level position during child bearing years?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 15, 2019 18:01:23 GMT -5
You make it as hard as humanly possible for women to stay in the workforce. No paid mat leave. No guaranteed job to come back to. No subsidized daycare. This discourages women from having children. Then you piss and moan about immigration. Who is going to pay the future social security costs, etc., which are looming over the horizon? Who is going to work in your chronic are homes? Your birthrate is lower than what is needed to keep perpetuating your society. It's at a 30 year low. Either take in more immigrants or make it easier for women to have families, instead of throwing obstacles in their way.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Norwegians to come to the USA. They don't want to lower their standard of living.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 15, 2019 18:04:00 GMT -5
You can replace low level employees easily. Higher level employees are now that easy to replace temporarily. I oversaw the finance department of a company in Quebec. We hired two different temp Controller and it was a disaster. Beyond the additional workload that other people had to pick up, temp workers are very expensive. The company I just left had headquarters in the UK (or at least one layer). The head Financial Reporting person went on maternity leave and they brought a temp in to cover for a year. In that year they brought in consultants and had to create a 5 year plan in a certain format. This “temp” is the one that was charged with designing the format. Problem was that he was not versed in the systems and organized it in a way that required dozens of hours of manual manipulation from each of the companies (we were one company out of 30). I caught it and had many calls with both the consultants and headquarters but the format had been approved and there was no time to revamp. The answer was that he didn’t understand but he is doing the best he can to cover for x during the worst time possible. So yes, we can get temp workers but they are not the equivalent of a full time employee with knowledge behind them. Temps work great at certain levels but much harder at higher levels So it's women's fault because we're the only one's capable of carrying a child? Or it's women's fault for daring to have more than a low level position during child bearing years? How did I say it was anyone’s fault. But as someone who has dealt with higher level temp employees, I can tell you it is not as easy as “just get a temp”. In the end, it means more work for those left behind (again, my experience). And that goes for whether it is a man out on disability or a woman out on maternity leave.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 15, 2019 18:07:48 GMT -5
You make it as hard as humanly possible for women to stay in the workforce. No paid mat leave. No guaranteed job to come back to. No subsidized daycare. This discourages women from having children. Then you piss and moan about immigration. Who is going to pay the future social security costs, etc., which are looming over the horizon? Who is going to work in your chronic are homes? Your birthrate is lower than what is needed to keep perpetuating your society. It's at a 30 year low. Either take in more immigrants or make it easier for women to have families, instead of throwing obstacles in their way. Don't hold your breath waiting for Norwegians to come to the USA. They don't want to lower their standard of living. www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/3429950/canada-fewer-children-census-216/amp/And yet the US birthdate is higher than that in Canada. If Canada is so great for working moms, why aren’t they having more children?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Feb 15, 2019 18:16:33 GMT -5
You make it as hard as humanly possible for women to stay in the workforce. No paid mat leave. No guaranteed job to come back to. No subsidized daycare. This discourages women from having children. Then you piss and moan about immigration. Who is going to pay the future social security costs, etc., which are looming over the horizon? Who is going to work in your chronic are homes? Your birthrate is lower than what is needed to keep perpetuating your society. It's at a 30 year low. Either take in more immigrants or make it easier for women to have families, instead of throwing obstacles in their way. Don't hold your breath waiting for Norwegians to come to the USA. They don't want to lower their standard of living. www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/3429950/canada-fewer-children-census-216/amp/And yet the US birthdate is higher than that in Canada. If Canada is so great for working moms, why aren’t they having more children? The answer is right there in your article. You didn't read it? They don't WANT more children. Whether as a surgeon, teacher or another profession, McDaniel says the notion of motherhood isn’t always a priority for women. “Women are seeing themselves in a larger mosaic of roles than just mothers,” she said.
McDaniel said that increasingly, people living in G7 countries are becoming more concerned about the impact human populations are having on the planet and could contribute to families planning to have fewer children.
“People may want the experience of parenthood but you can get that if you have one maybe two,” she said. “And you’re not creating an ecologically heavy footprint.”
Furthermore we take in far, far more immigrants than you do, to make up for it. We don't piss and moan about brown people. And we certainly don't advocate for "shooting them at the border", like you charmingly and compassionately do. You have a choice. Take in more brown people or make it easier for American women to raise families. Pick one.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 15, 2019 18:20:40 GMT -5
The answer is right there in your article. You didn't read it? They don't WANT more children. Whether as a surgeon, teacher or another profession, McDaniel says the notion of motherhood isn’t always a priority for women. “Women are seeing themselves in a larger mosaic of roles than just mothers,” she said. McDaniel said that increasingly, people living in G7 countries are becoming more concerned about the impact human populations are having on the planet and could contribute to families planning to have fewer children. “People may want the experience of parenthood but you can get that if you have one maybe two,” she said. “And you’re not creating an ecologically heavy footprint.” Furthermore we take in far, far more immigrants than you do, to make up for it. We don't piss and moan about brown people. And we certainly don't advocate for "shooting them at the border", like you charmingly do. You have a choice. Take in more brown people or make it easier for American women to raise families. Pick one. My point was that Canadians have made it very easy for women to raise children and tour birth rate is lower than the US. So perhaps being ultra generous with benefits is not the answer to an increased birth rate And you sure bitched and moaned about Muslim immigrants many of times over the years. Are they lily white? And I’m pretty sure we have way more “brown immigrants” than Canada but I would have to do some research
|
|