I visited the campaign web site for Joe Kennedy and found this:
I don’t mean to single out Joe with this, as this seems to be the message from most Democrats running for office.
Can anyone tell me how we get to “high quality affordable child care”? Specifically, how much do we pay those employed in child care? Where does this money come from? If a two parent family wants both parents to have high paying quality jobs and in order to do so, must pay someone else a high wage to attend to the quality job of taking care of their child, what mathematical formula works?
Can anyone tell me how we can jump to the assumption that everyone wants to structure their career? I’ll be upfront with you all I’m 65 years old and will be retiring in couple months. I started working when I was 15. In those 50 years, I’ve worked at a dairy farm, apple orchard, pet shop, gas station, tennis club, department store, furniture warehouse, men’s clothing store, restaurant, car dealership, advertising agency, boat dealership, forklift dealership, food delivery truck, and grocery store. Somehow I’ve managed to earn a living, support myself and my family, and provide for my retirement, all without the hint of a “career”. Many of the jobs I took were chosen because they did not conflict with what was most important in my life: being a good parent. Screw the career, my family comes first.
Why must I, and those like me, have to pay into a system to support those who would rather put their careers first and outsource the care of their children? What’s in this “massive federal investment” for people like me?
W already have high quality child care in the USA. We call it “parenting”. May I suggest that along with this massive federal investment for child care, we have a massive federal tax credit for those of us who would prefer to be a parent, are not focused on our careers, and want to have the freedom to structure our lives as we see fit?
Add that to the equation and maybe the alchemy will work. (and yes, ultimately we will have to tax the rich to pay for it all…..I’m okay with that)
Surely a starting point for “how much do we pay those employed in child care” is whatever “living wage” we advocate for across the board. I assume you agree that a child care provider should earn at least as much as a cashier at Dunkins (or whatever it calls itself today).
We already know the answer to your excellent question about “what mathematical formula works” — look at the new revenue gained from steeply increased tax rates on:
While I don’t oppose dramatic increases in the highest income brackets, those are the easiest to avoid through straightforward wealth and portfolio management for most high-income earners.
From a macro-economic viewpoint, your question translates to something along the lines of “how much of the new wealth generated each year must be captured and distributed to child care workers” and “how do we accomplish that capture”. Both questions have a relatively rich variety of straightforward answers if our government is willing to ask the question and actually listen to the answers.
The key point here is that increased compensation for child care workers need not come from increased taxes on the parents of the children being cared for. That assumed zero-sum game is the lie that the very wealthy tell the rest of us. There is, in fact, far more than enough wealth generated in the US economy every year to accomplish this (along with a relatively long list of other things).
The issue remains, as it has since the Reagan era, how to ensure that more of the wealth generated each year goes to the 99% of Americans who collectively create it.
I enthusiastically agree with you that having at least one loving parent with their children during the day is better than the best professional child care — most importantly during the pre-school years before kindergarden.
The most important factor in allowing that is compensation equality for women. So long as our culture maintains the 30% gap (give or take) between men and women, then the pressure for women to stay home and men to stay at work will continue. Our boys and girls will continue to be indoctrinated in sexist stereotypes. Our probate courts will continue their extreme bias in support awards and custody arrangements in divorce and separation agreements.
In the absence of real and immediate economic equality for women, child care — whether in a home or a professional setting — will continue to be treated as a “women’s issue”. The relentless grinding down of the women of our culture will continue unabated.
I suggest that one of the most important benefits of a post-industrial age will be the demolishing of the toxic premise that “work” is something separate and distinct from “home”. In my view, THAT is the underlying evil of the industrial-age economic paradigm.
I think that in a healthy culture, parents do whatever they do for work within walking distance of their home. Children routinely see, hear, and experience their parents at work and vice-versa. I suggest that many of our most horrific culture practices emerge because most adults work in settings where their partners and children have no idea of what they do during the day.
The extreme separation between “work” and “home” is, I suggest one of the most destructive consequences of the industrial age. As we demolish that extreme separation, I think that “child care” will naturally evolve into something healthier for all participants.
I think a child care provider, and an elder care provider, should make at least $65K a year in Massachusetts.
That sounds about right to me.
Your how we pay for it questions need to be answered, but your social commentary is a bit too old school for my tastes.
I wonder if you might elaborate on what you mean by “old school”. I ask because too many people assume that “one parent choosing parenting over a career” means “mom stays home to raise the kids”. That’s old school, and I hope John doesn’t mean that.
The only other “old school” criticism I can think of is perhaps more valid — it can be argued that this is effectively a subsidy for making babies. At a time when overpopulation is a critical issue, we should not be encouraging couples to have children.
Some of my younger colleagues complain of economic policy that rewards what they call “breeders” and penalizes those who choose to not have children.
I actually think that the thread starter might be improved editing the final paragraph to read something like the following:
A UBI like this separates the question of high-quality child care from income — any American could pursue training and certification as a child-care provider without regard to compensation. It similarly allows every parent of either gender to more freely choose to spend their lives with their family rather than pursuing a career.
I’m all for mom or dad staying home to raise the family and not elect to be a cog in the machine. I don’t see that as “old school”. I see that as true freedom.
While I appreciate those whose passions lie in careers, my passion was to be a parent. I never really cared what sort of job I had to do to financially support that passion.
I hear you. I made very similar decisions.
I was working from home and setting my own schedule when my oldest son was getting ready for kindergarten. I attended the orientation where “parents” were invited so that they could “get to know” the teacher and school.
The meeting was at 11:00A in the morning, at the school. I was the only father present in a room of 15-20 mothers. Someone from the school, I don’t remember who, made a point of congratulating me because she said something to the effect of “I’m so happy to see fathers involved in their children’s schooling”.
I graciously thanked her, and said — as gently as I could, with a smile on my face — “More fathers might attend if this orientation was at 7:00p instead of 11:00a”. She agreed and walked away.
I have spent my life fighting against the false dichotomy between career and family — with only limited success. I like to believe that every person can be passionate about whatever their vocation is and also passionate about their partner and children.
My five children are grown now. The little boy who started kindergarten so many years ago is about to turn 30. Some aspects of today’s society are lightyears ahead of where we were when I was coming of age and making those huge decisions about priorities and life. In others, I fear we have backtracked.
My biggest anxiety at the moment is whether or not my children will be able to enjoy the freedom and liberty a year or two from now that we’ve all taken for granted for so long. On the other hand, there’s very little I can do to change that. So I write code and bake bread.
Who took care of the kids while you were at work?
Why is this hard to understand?
I’m pretty sure that John has said before that his wife took care of their children while he worked.
I was in fact concerned that your first paragraph is what was meant. At very least I detected the typical conservative you-have-kids-that’s-on-you attitude.
I spent at least half the time of my career working away from my family because it was the only way we could make ends meet.
My first wife was a licensed Occupational Therapist. She had a Masters degree, had to do both internships and a residency, and had to continually take in-service training to maintain her certification. At that time (late 1976-1990), her field was dominated by women. At best she earned about half of my compensation (I have a BSEE). We had two children and very much wanted one of us to be home with them. We could not afford to give up my income, so she took a hiatus from her career until our children were in grade school. When we divorced, the probate court found that since I was the “principal breadwinner”, I was “less involved” with the children’s upbringing. My first wife moved with our two children to be closer to her family — to Washington state. My child support obligation was half of my take home income, and I was allowed to see my children for half of the major holidays and a few weeks during the summer.
My second wife was a graphics designer specializing in user interface design. While she earned more than my first wife, I had to continue working in order to meet my child support obligation to my children from my first marriage. When we had our three children together, we decided that she would stay home with them because we could not give up my income. I was therefore forced to ramp up my income to cover the expenses of my second family and my support obligations for my first family.
When my second wife and I divorced, the probate court made the same argument. My support arrangement for my children from my second marriage was half of what was left over from my support obligation for my children from my first marriage. The net result was that about 75% of my net income went to my support obligation to my children.
I love my work. I have been happily married to my third wife (without children of our own) for nearly twenty years. For many of those years, we lived on her income because of my support obligations. She is a PhD human geneticist. She has never earned more than about 70% of her male colleagues with same credentials in the same field. She has never had children of her own.
I have spent my life yoked to the harness of tough jobs that I didn’t want because of pervasive sexism that keeps both men and women trapped in roles that they despise. I love my children and have never regretted the sacrifices I’ve made for them.
At the same time, I am acutely sensitive to pervasive and systemic sexism and racism because it has caused so much pain and suffering to everyone I know and love including myself.
In an economy that generates the staggering amount of wealth that America generates today, it is unconscionable that nearly every American is enslaved by gender and racial stereotypes that remain fundamentally unchanged in at least two hundred years.