I was talking with my sister-in-law, a single mom who has two young children, and she shared with me that the monthly cost for her childcare is in excess of the monthly cost for her rent on a three bedroom apartment. This is for one school aged child who receives care before and after school and one child who stays at the daycare all day while mom is at work.

This figure is extremely high, and I can understand how it might be more fiscally responsible in a two parent household for one parent to work and one to stay home with the kids, but this isn't possible in a one parent household.

My questions for debate are:

Is the cost of quality child care in America unreasonable?

What can/should be done to assist parents in obtaining quality childcare?

Obviously my focus is on single-parent households, because they experience the bulk of the strain, but this issue effects two parent households as well, so please don't feel that you have to limit the discussion in any way.

I'd say the cost is too high for young adults, and since young adults are the folks who need the service the most, yep. Too high.



What we can do is help shoulder the responsibility of raising children. Just how this is done can take several forms. Neighborhoods could pitch in to help take care of kids, sort of the village idea. Lydia did this when raising her kids. Institutions could be created from tax revenue, but I think it's better when one works with the other parents nearby to figure out child care -- less chance of getting some pervert attracted to a child-oriented field. Privately owned/operated care centers could be subsedized through tax money, same risk as with the institution.

So what should be done is for people with children to combine resources and share responsibilities. Some people without children might feel a community responsibility to help out. Hey, what if everyone pooled just half of what they pay each month in child care? What could be done with that money? Maybe rent a separate apartment just where the kids can go? It'd be like an informal care center, just a congregating/play/entertainment place supervised informally by parents who figure out workable schedules.

Don't know if daycare laws apply. If so, there has to be some way to satisfy the laws and do it within community. If not, we've lost quite a bit since the 1970s.

Is the cost of quality child care in America unreasonable?

No. Child care providers also need to make a living, and are likely doing so by providing this valuable service...and we are speaking of a very low paying profession to begin with. Yes, the cost of childcare is prohibitively expensive. My mother-in-law told me that the average cost of full-time care for two children in Plano TX is around 1500 a month. That means a person has to make about 2000 before taxes to pay just for the care of those children. But, on the other hand, what is the childcare provider supposed to live on? The providers have expenses, and must pay taxes out of their earnings as well. The providers have maximum allowable capacities, and cannot take more than a certain number of children at one time.

Good care is simply expensive, and one of the major considerations when a two-income family decides to have children...is that second job worth the expense, coupled with the fact that someone else is going to be raising your children a large part of that time? When I was teaching in S Carolina, another teacher with two children told me that she did the math one day and found that, after taxes and daycare, she was working for exactly the amount of her truck payment every month. For single parents, the cost is almost insurmountably high without help. That's why so many single mothers I know went back to live with, or very near, their parents after they divorced. Free childcare.

What can/should be done to assist parents in obtaining quality childcare? I don't know. It is a tremendous problem.

Edited to add: One possible alternative is to encourage on-site daycare facilities at the places of business. Maybe offer tax incentives to those corporations, and the cost of care might be adjusted according to the salary of the employee. This is something the military does through its child development centers.

AM..there are already gobs of private run child care options..where women watch the children in their own home and charge far less than say the corporate alternative. Many parents feel uncomfortable with this option tho and some have no choice but to place their children in such a situation as it is all they can afford. Also many families do in fact have a relative who helps them out.

I disagree with you since the 70s gov wise on this issue we have not been lost. The age the state now agrees to take your child for school has greatly dropped. Here in VA they take them now at 5..in MD where my mum works now 4 and if you are in need even younger as every state has now in operation Head Start or what is sometimes called Early Start...and again they have been taking them younger and younger with this program too.


I don't feel the cost in the US is unreasonable..as when I lived in Switzerland it was just outright unattainable for many. You are given tax breaks on this money spent on child care I had thought too?
If we make child care any cheaper how will we ensure it's safety for children?
6 wk old babies are being placed in child care..we are not talking about walking talking toddlers here..but often tiny helpless and very vulnerable infants. I would fear a push to make something like this more cost effective and legally lax.

It seems like the bulk of the cost is for children under the age of five, because they require a larger amount of supervision, and they don't leave the facility during school hours.

Would it be feasible and desirable to offer, in the same vein as the stafford program, low-interest, government loans that would be used to cover the first five years of child care?

I realize that the stafford program is banking on the fact that people will complete their college education and improve their ability to pay back the loan. Because of this, I understand that this pattern of thought may not be reasonable. I'm merely trying to think of ways in which parents could qualify to spread these payments out over a larger period of time.

I would like to see employers be more innovative in providing childcare help at work. I think a lot of parents would be attracted to jobs where they could drop in on there children during the day because they were at an on sight child care center. Maybe a little more corporate welfare or a tax break system would encourage this trend.

Childcare can be gotten for cheap, but if you don't have any contacts for trustworthy cheap childcare it is a major burden.

I would also like to see this type of income based assistance to help mothers and single mothers from low income household get into the workforce and develop their skills while they are raising children. I think such a system could actually save the government money in welfare assistance and increase the wealth of such household, long term and short term.

Is the cost of quality child care in America unreasonable?

What can/should be done to assist parents in obtaining quality childcare?

As a national issue I really don't see any more important then this one Cyan. Thanks for raising it.

Is the cost unreasonable. I think that is subjective, but for the purpose of your enquiry in regards to single parents. The answer is it is unreasonable for the typical single parent.

My wife ran an "in home" daycare when our Son was small. The prevailing rate was $90.00 per child, per week. We felt that that was highway robbery, so we charged $60.00 per week. We were not looking to get rich, just to help with the costs of our lives.

I think anyone who runs a daycare will tell you that the stress and the cost associated with running a good daycare are "through the roof". Just to get our qualified cost us many thousands of dollars, and I mostly spent my weekends doing repairs and modifications associated with the needs of the daycare.

The day starts at least 2 hours before the normal start of the day and ends no earlier then 7 or 8 pm.

I bring the above up because the "nature of the beast" is that not many would be willing to take this up for an extended period of time, and surely not for low pay. So there is a pressure on the parent that they are not always aware of. Oh, and lets not forget that, with every news story about an abuse that happened at a daycare, the provider becomes less and less likely to want to stay in the business.

Should the Government suppliment daycares, or provide perhaps some funds to those that can't find quality daycare?

I truley find this unacceptable since it is the "Government" that created excessive costs associated with day to day living expenses that, in a way makes daycare expensive in the first place. When I say "Government" I actually mean the people who pressure government to take care of EVERYTHING.

Look at the cost of housing for the parent of the child. A house in my community that was bought just 7 years ago, at a cost of $75,000 is now worth $125,000. In real estate terms this means that to rent this house, the typical landlord will charge a monthly rent of $1,250.00 today, when 7 years ago the house would have rented for $750.00. The $500.00 difference can not go toward child care.

I then have to ask myself why the home's value raised so quickly? Part of this dramatic rise is that the replacement value of the home has increased because of environmental regulations on lumber production. Yes we saved the forrest, but at what cost?

The same can be said for regulations in regards to Automobile manufacturing and even emissions control (try tuning up a car today, you basically can't, increasing the cost to the single parent, from having Dad do it for $20.00, to a professional do it for $200.00).

We all like to ask the government to regulate things, but the reality is that each of these regulations increases the cost of basic needs, and, I am afraid to say, the burdon is reflected the greatest on those the least able to afford those associated costs.

I was just rambling, and, no I don't have any easy answers to the question. If push came to shove, I would have to say that, yes, I would support some kind of financial assistance to the Single Parent, but I fear that this would only be another regulation that would increase the cost to the next generation. I would hope that we had learned our lesson by now.

I hope this did not offend anyone, I was simply kicking around some ideas.

Red

One of the reasons for high cost is regulation. The sitter we used for my three oldest had to close her doors due to regulation. It was impractical for her to attempt to bring her at home business up to the code. I did not see any inadequacies and was very disappointed she quit watching children.

I wish I could remember the specific rules but I believe one of them was the requirement to have a specific crib for each child under and age (something like two). There was not enough room for our sitter to do this. It creates high overhead when there is a child who is there three times a week and has a crib assigned to them. A friend of mine wants to work part time but can not find a sitter as sitters are charging nearly the same on a weekly basis for a child who is there three times a week compared to five times a week.

Regulations do make it more expensive, especially for those who need part time help watching their children.

If both parents work less and modify their schedules, the need for outside help can be decreased considerably. This will require employers to be more flexible in hours. Being self employed helps.

Grey Seal:

The requlation that you spoke of is exactly the one that made us quit accepting children under the age of 36 months.

To get our basement level certified to accept daycare, the State told us we would have to put in an egress window. The cost of doing this was $1,500.00, and that was with me doing the work, not an outside contractor. After the State came in and certified us as complient, the local governmental body came in and said to qualify for thier regulation we would have to add 2 more.

Of course I did not, and while discussing this with the "State" authority, one of them let it slip that the only reason my City required this was that it then made my house a "daylight basement" and my tax assessment would increase.

Again, these regulations basically put our "value priced" daycare out of business.

Is the cost of quality child care in America unreasonable?

I think the cost for child care in tis country is too high especially for those whose income is less than $30,000. When someone considers the cost of paying rent, grocery, gas, car insurance, utilities bills, phone, etc., they tend to add up. When ever there is a situation where childcare is equal or more than your rent, you 've got a major problem. I think its a problem that gets ignored quite a bit from our government.

What can/should be done to assist parents in obtaining quality childcare?

The government should raise the income level for those who should qualify for child care vouchers. Also, they should base it on the amount of expenses vs. income.

Is the cost of quality child care in America unreasonable?

The cost is not unreasonable IF you can afford it.
What I mean by this is, when considering having a child, the cost of childcare as well as formula, diapers, healthcare, etc. should be considered.
It is getting to be that having a child is a "luxury" if you will.

For the single parent, the mother or father who has sole responsibility of the child, if the other parents is dead, the additional income from the deceased parent helps with the costs of raising a child.
For the single parent who is divorced, a good Judge can rule that the other parent pay for child care so the other parent can work.
For the single parent who doesn't have an ex-spouse to help out, the Feds will help with childcare costs.

We are talking about quality childcare, a licensed daycare center or licensed daycare home; they are more expensive than leaving your child with the neighborhood stay-at-home mom, but with licensed childcare you have the added benefit of knowing that your child is being taken care of a professional.

Mom and dad have already raised you and possible more, I don't believe they should have to care for grandchildren in their later years, but thats JMO.

What can/should be done to assist parents in obtaining quality childcare?

I guess I have already put in my two cents about this.

I dunno if this will be considered off topic but..by making child care more affordable..and accessible don't we do ourselves harm?
In Switzerland child care was very very rare..but children did begin school at age 4. Still even tho. the cost of living is very high there..wages are still in relation higher than they are here. A family can afford to live on one income..yet where I currently live..that is not often the case. A single income does not usually cover all the costs of living in many cities in America. The amount of women working full time in the US is without question MUCH higher than it is in CH and other European nations..but how many women are there because they have to be? I know this subject excludes the plight of the single working parent..but in all fairness I feel the ease in which we have provided women access to the workforce has in a backwards way harmed us. That is why I do feel this topic needs to be addressed by private companies...they benefit most by helping make it easier for more women single or married to enter the workforce as they then are given a lower demand for wage increases. Just send mama to work!

of course I do support programs that offer care and schooling to young children if they are in fact living in a single working home and struggling..let's face it one income is bad enough..but daycare on top of it..ugh.

We have a day care now, and our entire basement is dedicated to this- we only accept full time day care children, our hours are 630-6pm, and 2 dollars a minute when they are late. The charge is 750 a month per kid. We do not accept day care assistance children, they are too much of a hassle. So we pretty much raise yuppie parents kids. I said "raise"- those parents are so busy getting thier "bling bling" and "living large" - we raise thier children.

We don't accept day care assistance children for the same reason Drs don't accept medicaid anymore- the goverment wants us to charge less than our rate in order to take them, or make the parent pay the difference- so, this poor mother (poor in the sense of no money) still has to come up with the (usually) 200 bucks per kid difference- and they usually can't pay. So they end up owing us money. So, instead of the hassle, we just refuse all day care assistance children. We have plenty of customers without the hassle.

Regulation is pretty bad. I had to make the "egress window" myself- but that is okay, I wouldn't be able to sell the house without it anyway. Even though we only have day care in the basement, they inspect the entire home, all your private areas, and make demands, very very intrusive.

We won't accept more than 4 kids (not our own) in order to keep our "exempt" status and not have to be more regulated. If they change this, we will close the day care. During the last round of regulation coming before the various law making bodies (and remember, I live in an EXTREMELY conservative states with strictly republican membership, veto proof majorities, republicans in every office, this is not something that "liberals" do ) over 50 day care facilites closed down, and 100 more are threateing to close thier doors if the newest rounds of regulation suggestions take place.

How expensive you think it will get after this?

Top this with most of the daycares starting to refuse day care assistance as well- except for the "centers" that have 25 kids or more! 2 of those said they will close thier doors if the regulations go into effect.

Is the cost of quality child care in America unreasonable?
Yes, way too unreasonable, not every parent is making money on high oil like Bush.
What can/should be done to assist parents in obtaining quality childcare?
The American government should cut frivolous programs such as the Mars Project to focus on more important, on demand things, such as American children not dying because their parents do not have loads of money.

I heard an interview on the Radio today while driving, so I will apologies in advance if not everything I write comes out as presented in the interview, but I was astounded by the content, and this seemed an appropriate place to post this.

The Woman interviewed wrote a book, I think titled "The two income trap". Two points that I think were pertinent to the "squeeze" that has been spoken about in this thread, were:

The cost of housing (using inflation dollars) has gone up 70 times faster the the average income earners salary when our parents were of Child Bearing years. You might think it is because the average American lives in a much larger home, but the Author stated, that, in their time our parents average home had 5.8 rooms, today the average home has 6.1 rooms.

The second thing that astounded me was, a child today is more likely to have survived his parents bankruptcy then his parents divorce.

With that in mind, how could a single parent afford such luxury as "good day care" for their child?

The problem of affordable housing would be reduced or eliminated by collecting land value appreciation in the form of taxes, and using these taxes to reduce and/or eliminate taxes on wages, employment, production & investment. This is because:

Owners of valuable land would have to either put the land into (higher) production by improving the land (bigger and better buildings versus dilapidated buildings and parking lots), which would mean more places to work, and more housing units, which would decrease the cost of housing in urban & suburban areas, where most of the jobs are.

Development of urban areas will decrease sprawl pressure on suburban and rural areas. Relatively dense populations will decrease the proportion of our GDP spent on moving goods from one place to another, and increase the proportion spent on other things. Likewise, the dependence on energy in general, and increasingly scarce oil will be reduced.

Employers and potential employers would not be hindered by corporate and payroll taxes, creating more jobs, reducing unemployment, and increasing wages.

Employees would not see 15.7 to 50+% of their wages held for taxation, giving them more money to spend.

Consumer prices would drop 15-25% as producer's taxes and compliance costs are removed from the proce of goods & services.

Land values would only reflect their value as a desirable location to live, work, or do business, rather than having a large speculative value...future appreciation will be almost completely taxed, so there is no expected return on investment for unimproved land. Therefore, the sale price of land will either cease to appreciate or approach zero, depending on the amount of taxes collected.

Potential homeowners will find it easer to save for a downpayment due to the lack of income taxes, and they will find it easier to finance their home, as they will generally only be financing the cost of the building itself. They will pay for the land in annual taxes to the government.

Increasing employment, and the concomitant increase in wages and purchasing power would reduce the need for both parents to work outside the home.

I have no kids; I don't plan on having any, so please don't eviscerate me for asking a serious question that is not meant offensively.

What I'm wondering is: in those cases where Mom of a mind to go back to work soon after a baby is born, is it common for couples to check out resources (and get prices) for early child care before she gets pregnant, or at least soon after becoming pregnant? I would think that would at least let you know where you stand, at least in those circumstances where a couple is trying like mad to make a baby.

I respectfully submit that to do otherwise would be fraught with avoidable peril... ya know... kind of like invading a turbulent Middle Eastern country without an exit strategy.

Cheers.

It is a serious question. You gotta wonder about some folks who seem to think that everything will just work out fine... if only they had a baby. Yikes!

My wife and I are planning to start our family next year and we're already planning our budget for it, just so that we can keep from going under if something bad happens. We've got her mom lined up for some day care and my wife will shift to a 4-day work week with one day working from home (I also work from home, so I wonder if I'll get any work done that day ). But we need her health benefits, so having her stop working isn't the best of all options, but it may still come to that after a while.

I would say that responsible people make responsible decisions in their everyday life and the baby-making decision is just another of those decisions.

And then you have the people who couldn't make a responsible decision if their lives depended on it.

Is the cost of quality child care in America unreasonable?

Yes, and no. Yes, because it is very difficult to afford. No, because you get what you pay for--is child care really the item you want to scrimp on?

What can/should be done to assist parents in obtaining quality childcare?


More businesses/communities should initiate child care programs. Many businesses have found that setting aside a room for child-care--staffed on a rotating basis by the parents--costs very little, reduces time spent away from work, and increases productivity and worker retention. I imagine one of the main issues preventing this from being more widespread is liability concerns--our wonderfully litigious society in action.



First, what's affordable housing have to do with day care costs? Second--if you tax increase in valuation of land, why on earth would you assume that this will make people want to put any improvements on their land, thereby drastically increasing their taxes? Rather, this would tend to lower land valuation, since fewer people would want to invest in it, and therefore reduce such improvements, only making the matter worse. <also, curious what the other option was...either this or ????>





Aaaackkkk!!! RHETORIC ALERT!!! RHETORIC ALERT!!! Danger, Will Robbins, Danger!!!!

hobbes: most property taxes now assessed equally on land and improvements, which is an incentive to let a building go to pot (reducing taxes paid) and a disincentive for development (increasing taxes paid). While developing a piece of land may have a tiny improvement on the value of the land itself, the vast majority of the land's value is due to factors external to the land itself (except agriculture), particularly: proximity to markets, population, transportation, recreation, education, and employment.

Taxing the land value only (not the buildings) tends to make it very expensive to hold VALUABLE land out of production with a parking lot, run-down building, or other 'taxpayer'. The value (and therefore tax) is not arbitrarily set by the government, it is set by the market. It is, by definition, what the market is willing to pay for occupying that particular piece of land. If it's a great location, it will have a high tax. If it's a poor location, it will have low tax. This tax does not increase the cost of developing a piece of land, it just changes who gets paid for a portion of it.

"...a single mom who has two young children..."

There is your answer to this question: Is the cost of quality child care in America unreasonable? Of course quality child care is unreasonable to a single mother. Single mothers don't have extra money just floating around to spend on anything, so if child care goes up, they have nothing to counter balance it.

And to your second question: What can/should be done to assist parents in obtaining quality childcare? Don't get divorce, or not married, or make babies when you are not married, or think you can handle parenthood on your own. And to other who are married, BUDGET. If you forget sertain expense and spend your time budgeting, you can live on one income.

Joshua