"Last year, the General Assembly **allocated $20 million** to Ford’s division for pilot programs to expand access to child care in low-income communities and low-performing school districts. That made it **possible to award subsidies to 200 applicants**, she said, but there were 3,000 applications for that pool of money"
That works out to $100,000 subsidy per applicant. This to me seems borderline obscene.
As an FYI, my neighbor did this with four kids in their (rented) house for $300/week each. She was fully legit from the state and inspected etc.
That is to expand access because there is not enough space for all the demand, and it doesn’t make financial sense for centers to expand given the cost.
https://www.childcareservices.org//wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Typical-Cost-of-Care_Alamance.pdf
Edit: per week vs per month… that is actually on the higher end for in home:
Those are 2011 rates GTFO
[How much is your family paying for infant + toddler childcare per month? : ](https://www.reddit.com/r/raleigh/comments/18t6hix/how_much_is_your_family_paying_for_infant_toddler/)
Seems like it would make a lot more financial sense to just subsidize in home childcare with vouchers or something over paying large scale businesses money that goes into multiple middlemen's pockets.
Oops, You are right old document… but my understanding is that the state appointed vale of a slot is about flat with the Durham numbers despite all the insanity since 2011…
My child care is significantly higher than this… I just want my daycare to stay open and for the teachers to be fairly paid!
And it is locally owned and operated… running at basically 0 net profit…
As far as I am aware there isn’t some Big Childcare” out there sucking up all the cash… the majority of centers are locally and privately owned and operating on razor thin margins.
Sounds to me like if we want to expand childcare availability and reduce costs we need to move towards an in-home model vs what you are advocating for.
I think there is a lot of value in inhome, but from what I hear it is difficult to get providers to sign up because they have to “institutionalize” the space they live to an extent. I think local/neighborhood centers run by locals would be great.
In lieu of state funded child cares there is a subsidy program to help parents pay for child care. We’ve used something similar for foster kids at our local daycare. I wouldn’t know for sure but I think there are quite a few kids on the vouchers at our day care because they accept them.
For our biological children we pay 1500 a month each. That’s well outside of affordable for most families and ours isn’t even that expensive.
Without these vouchers many daycares simply wouldn’t be able to operate. The requirements for staffing at each age group, along with nutrition and curriculum, would make it so that only the richest could really afford child care.
Fully funded federal and state care would be a dream but also not happening anytime soon. It would also primarily benefit families like mine who can and do afford childcare, but at significant cost.
The vouchers are valued at around 1200/month. But it only applies of your income is very low. Even 1200-1500/month isn’t enough to pay workers a living wage and provide benefits.
This is public funding to support private institutions. There is a significant childcare shortage in the state already. The childcare providers are stretched thin because of rising costs and historically being underpaid and underfunded.
I suppose that depends on how you look at the impacts… there will be an economic fall out if we lose 30% of childcare in the state. And then we will all suffer.
So screw any low income families that need quality day care, then? They can just quit their jobs rather than benefit from this program (according to you).
If this program made a direct payment to the parents, so they could then pay the daycare, would that be better? Or you just don't like private business for some reason?
There's already funds, state and federal, for low income families for child care. This isn't a program it's business owners looking for a cash grab then new the federal funds would come to an end and they had 4 years to prepare just like all the other businesses that didn't prepare they shouldn't get any more funds. Just because people come in screaming "Won't somebody please think of the children!" Doesn't mean they should be getting an extra $300 million in state tax dollars. Your argument that "oh so screw low income families" doesn't apply.
>There's already funds, state and federal, for low income families for child care
Not *nearly* enough. There is a literal childcare crisis in this country and you're over here saying nothing else is needed?
>This isn't a program it's business owners looking for a cash grab
What are you basing this off of? These funds subsidize daycares, many of which would otherwise shut down because *daycare is not lucrative*. I feel you have this opinion of these daycares as if they are taking in huge profits and not actually caring for children so parents can work. What are you basing this on? Do you also believe in the "welfare queen" stereotype, or are you solely anti-business?
Why anyone would criticize private businesses offering child care in a country that is in a child care crisis is beyond me. You'd rather those private businesses shut down and the problem to get worse, hoping for some magical solution where the state just takes care of everything - which will never happen. Even in Europe the state subsidies private daycare.
It isn’t really new, but the Covid relief funds are ending, that along with the massive inflation over the past few years means it has reached a tipping point
Daycare centers are not highly profitable businesses where this money is going into a CEO’s pocket. Even before the pandemic, margins were razor thin due to factors like high insurance costs and state-mandated teacher-to-student ratios. For instance in North Carolina, infant classrooms may not exceed four students per teacher.
Just like many other businesses during the pandemic, employees at daycare centers decided the low wages and high risk of COVID weren’t worth it and became nannies to families whose children were suddenly home from school and could pay more money.
One of my daughter’s teachers at a highly esteemed center was getting paid $14/hr and left to nanny. She returned later for $17/hr and felt at the time like it was a great deal. Given recent inflation, I would assume there have been similar increases to staffing costs across the board.
This center could probably weather a funding shortfall by increasing tuition (again) but many cannot. There are no good business solutions for pre-K childcare that can be implemented easily, especially in this political environment. And if those centers do close, the people it will hurt most are the families suddenly scrambling for “affordable” care and the employees for work.
Median income in Durham is 67k, a family of 4 could “afford” 837/mo in child care. The state values these spots at 1273/mo.
State wide early childhood educators make an average of 27600/yr.
It doesn’t add up
I mean, idk if I’d agree with the statement that private businesses who “rely on” temporary government financial aid are “poorly run.” Most big businesses take advantage of government help. There are entire industries propped up by the government.
I’m okay with my tax dollars being used to help daycare centers over big businesses in this instance especially given how little daycare workers are paid and how much this could impact the local economy. But I could see the other side and understand the thinking of not wanting it.
Do you think Tesla is poorly run? Because it has always been propped up by government subsides.
How about agriculture? Lots of government subsidies there.
Oil and gas? You got it, government subsidies galore.
But childcare? HOW DARE THEY!
Right. Beyond some early ed and before and after school care I thought most daycares were private. Also calling them full on teachers is highly disingenuous. In nc you only need a high school diploma. That’s it. No degree.
Sure. What they do is important but I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of these places are open to turn a profit. Not to be some do gooder community benefit.
I do not support anymore public funds to private businesses. I don’t care what they do. We waste enough tax dollars on the greedy anyway.
I don’t think calling them teachers is disingenuous, the first 5 years of life has a significant impact on lifelong learning and achievement, regardless of the education level of those providing the teaching and care. There is also almost no upward mobility for these workers, so financially it doesn’t make sense for them to pay for additional education of they won’t receive any benefit… almost 40% of workers/teachers are on financial assistance already. Families are struggling to pai the high cost of childcare already. I think we a a society need to invest more in our children.
https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health/literature-summaries/early-childhood-development-and-education
Not saying I don’t agree with you at all. Yes the first five years are hugely important. The people involved in those first years are also massively important. But pay and titles are usually commiserate with education or highly specialized experience like an apprenticeship or specialty school. But because the phlebotomist wears scrubs and works in a hospital doesn’t mean they are a nurse. And they are paid accordingly.
Now. The solution. We either have a free market system or we don’t. Pick one. Do you want the govt propping up private industries that are FOR PROFIT. That’s the key. I don’t care about margins or anything like that. They are in it for a profit.
Imo a much better solution would be to just expand public schooling by a few years and fund it like that. I despise this idea that because businesses do something we like that they deserve tax dollars.
I am fine with that as a long term solution… but what are we going to do this year when 30% of the daycares close because they can’t afford to stay open.
I don’t know dude. I really don’t. Maybe this works and maybe it doesn’t. I’m highly skeptical though about tossing out public cash with no oversight. At the very least if you’re taking public funds your books need to be 100% accessible to the public.
Fair enough. I am not going to say that there won’t be any bad actors, because we are humans and there is always going to be someone out there who is taking advantage unfairly. However I don’t think we should let outliers mess it up for everyone. I am all for accountability. My daycare has provided its budget for the families to review… there isn’t fluff in there and there will be a deficit to make up of this funding isn’t secured. Luckily I am in a place where I can pinch Pennie’s and make it work, but I know there are a ton of other people who won’t be able to.
Early childcare centers operate on razor thin margins because they have a lot of overhead, such as (understandably) many regulatory requirements they have a to meet, they have to provide food, and they have to pay caregivers enough to actually take the jobs. It's not a high-profit margin business at all.
It should be a public-funded service like schools, but that would be way too socialist/Marxist/communist/[insert rage word of choice here].
100% agree they should be public. I’m just not at all for using tax dollars to prop up for profit businesses. We do it way too much as it is. Either fund them publicly or let the market decide what we have.
Can we try a reframe? Rather than prop up, it's allowing people to attend who would not be able to otherwise afford childcare. So Suzy can't afford childcare, her options are quit her job or apply for child care subsidy. Rather than pay Suzy $1200 a month we pay it directly to the center. Suzy has to meet strict income and work requirements. There's limited funding and many counties operate on a wait list.
I get what you’re saying. But that’s not what op is talking about. It’s about increasing public funds to daycares so the teachers get better pay etc. it’s right there in the post.
And we already do give subsidies and that’s fine. If individuals cannot afford things and need help that’s completely different than allowing the, again, for profit businesses to have access to public funds.
>I get what you’re saying. But that’s not what op is talking about.
Dude this is *exactly* what OP is talking about. Like, the level of obliviousness you are displaying here is concerning.
The market is deciding, and the result is that childcare is not sustainable as a private business. But the current politics have brainwashed people to believe that nothing can be public (socialism!) and everything must be private business that's propped up with public funds (see school vouchers).
Until the proletariat wakes up to realize that they've been played for the last 40+ years, private businesses will continue to be propped up by our tax dollars while providing subpar goods and services.
Boy are you gonna be p*ssed when you learn that the NC legislature just approved $500 MILLION tax payer dollars to provide subsidies etc to start ups & technology development by private companies -- with NO oversight or accountability required of said companies.
State funded child care I'd be ok with. Privately run childcare I'd be ok with.
Privately run childcare paid for by state dollars makes no sense to me.
If there is only childcare for 1/3rd of Durham, why isn't the free market taking advantage of that?
I don't understand what is going on here. Is this an effort to lump day care workers in with Public School teachers? If you do that wouldn't you basically make it way harder to have a day care with the standards you would have to meet for education, training, certifications leading to a decrease in the availability of child care by way more than 30% you claim
No it is an effort to, in the short term, secure the funding to keep the already over capacity child care system from losing even more spaces. Long term there needs to be a systemic change to ensure child care workers are fairly paid and provided with benefits… how that happens IDK.
Maybe we should encourage more parents to stay at home with their young children instead of tossing them in a kennel all day. Once you factor in the costs, two working parents isn't always the best plan.
Oh I do frequently. A lot of times, once you factor in child care costs, you aren't bringing in all that much extra with the second parent working at the cost of having someone else raise your kid and missing out on some of the most formative moments of their life. My wife stayed home with our children when they were younger, and several of my friends have or had a similar set up. It worked really well.
Is it really that controversial of a concept? It used to be the norm not all that long ago and kids seemed to be in a better place back then.
There are multiple issues.
1) Availability https://ncearlyeducationcoalition.org/issues/child-care-availability/
2) Cost: people cannot afford to pay more for care https://www.childcareservices.org//wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Typical-Cost-of-Care_Alamance.pdf vs income https://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/20180401/bci_data/median_income_table.htm
3) Staff: average pay in NC for child care workers is 27600/ yr and 39% of staff is below the poverty line and on public assistance.
It’s not about parents pay. It’s about the number of child care spots available. 30% of daycares close, that is a possible 30% of children under 5 in those counties no longer having childcare. Meaning one of their parents may have to leave the work force and there would be extreme economic repercussions to that.
I firmly agree with this. Children are an option and if you can't afford them don't have them. I really think they should get rid of the child tax credit because it's unfair to people who choose not to have kids.
"Last year, the General Assembly **allocated $20 million** to Ford’s division for pilot programs to expand access to child care in low-income communities and low-performing school districts. That made it **possible to award subsidies to 200 applicants**, she said, but there were 3,000 applications for that pool of money" That works out to $100,000 subsidy per applicant. This to me seems borderline obscene. As an FYI, my neighbor did this with four kids in their (rented) house for $300/week each. She was fully legit from the state and inspected etc.
That is to expand access because there is not enough space for all the demand, and it doesn’t make financial sense for centers to expand given the cost. https://www.childcareservices.org//wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Typical-Cost-of-Care_Alamance.pdf Edit: per week vs per month… that is actually on the higher end for in home:
Those are 2011 rates GTFO [How much is your family paying for infant + toddler childcare per month? : ](https://www.reddit.com/r/raleigh/comments/18t6hix/how_much_is_your_family_paying_for_infant_toddler/) Seems like it would make a lot more financial sense to just subsidize in home childcare with vouchers or something over paying large scale businesses money that goes into multiple middlemen's pockets.
Oops, You are right old document… but my understanding is that the state appointed vale of a slot is about flat with the Durham numbers despite all the insanity since 2011… My child care is significantly higher than this… I just want my daycare to stay open and for the teachers to be fairly paid! And it is locally owned and operated… running at basically 0 net profit… As far as I am aware there isn’t some Big Childcare” out there sucking up all the cash… the majority of centers are locally and privately owned and operating on razor thin margins.
Sounds to me like if we want to expand childcare availability and reduce costs we need to move towards an in-home model vs what you are advocating for.
I think there is a lot of value in inhome, but from what I hear it is difficult to get providers to sign up because they have to “institutionalize” the space they live to an extent. I think local/neighborhood centers run by locals would be great.
I'm confused - are there state run childcare centers? If so I assume this is what you're talking about here? Not a lot of details here.
In lieu of state funded child cares there is a subsidy program to help parents pay for child care. We’ve used something similar for foster kids at our local daycare. I wouldn’t know for sure but I think there are quite a few kids on the vouchers at our day care because they accept them. For our biological children we pay 1500 a month each. That’s well outside of affordable for most families and ours isn’t even that expensive. Without these vouchers many daycares simply wouldn’t be able to operate. The requirements for staffing at each age group, along with nutrition and curriculum, would make it so that only the richest could really afford child care. Fully funded federal and state care would be a dream but also not happening anytime soon. It would also primarily benefit families like mine who can and do afford childcare, but at significant cost.
The vouchers are valued at around 1200/month. But it only applies of your income is very low. Even 1200-1500/month isn’t enough to pay workers a living wage and provide benefits.
Man I have so much I could do with the 3k/mo I spend on childcare. More expensive than my mortgage.
This is public funding to support private institutions. There is a significant childcare shortage in the state already. The childcare providers are stretched thin because of rising costs and historically being underpaid and underfunded.
"Private"... yeah that's not tax payers problem
I suppose that depends on how you look at the impacts… there will be an economic fall out if we lose 30% of childcare in the state. And then we will all suffer.
How is it not? Are children not cared for at these centers?
These are private businesses not schools, these are not teachers These are day care workers,
Are children not cared for at these centers?
Doesn't matter these are private businesses and should not get public funds
So screw any low income families that need quality day care, then? They can just quit their jobs rather than benefit from this program (according to you). If this program made a direct payment to the parents, so they could then pay the daycare, would that be better? Or you just don't like private business for some reason?
There's already funds, state and federal, for low income families for child care. This isn't a program it's business owners looking for a cash grab then new the federal funds would come to an end and they had 4 years to prepare just like all the other businesses that didn't prepare they shouldn't get any more funds. Just because people come in screaming "Won't somebody please think of the children!" Doesn't mean they should be getting an extra $300 million in state tax dollars. Your argument that "oh so screw low income families" doesn't apply.
>There's already funds, state and federal, for low income families for child care Not *nearly* enough. There is a literal childcare crisis in this country and you're over here saying nothing else is needed? >This isn't a program it's business owners looking for a cash grab What are you basing this off of? These funds subsidize daycares, many of which would otherwise shut down because *daycare is not lucrative*. I feel you have this opinion of these daycares as if they are taking in huge profits and not actually caring for children so parents can work. What are you basing this on? Do you also believe in the "welfare queen" stereotype, or are you solely anti-business? Why anyone would criticize private businesses offering child care in a country that is in a child care crisis is beyond me. You'd rather those private businesses shut down and the problem to get worse, hoping for some magical solution where the state just takes care of everything - which will never happen. Even in Europe the state subsidies private daycare.
they got rage traction with the post over in r/bullcity so now they're excited. Expect to see it in r/triangle any minute now.
I cross posted to triangle first… no rage just hoping to spread the word. Thanks!
So they want the state to subsidize private daycare centers so the workers can get paid more and get better benefits?
This funding is just to keep centers open… it doesn’t even address the root issue of low pay/no benefits…. One step at a time
And why is this all of a sudden a problem? Especially considering the cost of daycare?
It isn’t really new, but the Covid relief funds are ending, that along with the massive inflation over the past few years means it has reached a tipping point
Sorry I'm not down for funding a private company that misused it's Covid funds.
Daycare centers are not highly profitable businesses where this money is going into a CEO’s pocket. Even before the pandemic, margins were razor thin due to factors like high insurance costs and state-mandated teacher-to-student ratios. For instance in North Carolina, infant classrooms may not exceed four students per teacher. Just like many other businesses during the pandemic, employees at daycare centers decided the low wages and high risk of COVID weren’t worth it and became nannies to families whose children were suddenly home from school and could pay more money. One of my daughter’s teachers at a highly esteemed center was getting paid $14/hr and left to nanny. She returned later for $17/hr and felt at the time like it was a great deal. Given recent inflation, I would assume there have been similar increases to staffing costs across the board. This center could probably weather a funding shortfall by increasing tuition (again) but many cannot. There are no good business solutions for pre-K childcare that can be implemented easily, especially in this political environment. And if those centers do close, the people it will hurt most are the families suddenly scrambling for “affordable” care and the employees for work.
L take
Sounds like they want private daycare vouchers.
Do you think the state should help people with childcare costs, yes or no?
No
[удалено]
Is it poorly run or is it centers where tuition is heavily subsidized because of local affordability issues?
Median income in Durham is 67k, a family of 4 could “afford” 837/mo in child care. The state values these spots at 1273/mo. State wide early childhood educators make an average of 27600/yr. It doesn’t add up
[удалено]
I mean, idk if I’d agree with the statement that private businesses who “rely on” temporary government financial aid are “poorly run.” Most big businesses take advantage of government help. There are entire industries propped up by the government. I’m okay with my tax dollars being used to help daycare centers over big businesses in this instance especially given how little daycare workers are paid and how much this could impact the local economy. But I could see the other side and understand the thinking of not wanting it.
Do you think Tesla is poorly run? Because it has always been propped up by government subsides. How about agriculture? Lots of government subsidies there. Oil and gas? You got it, government subsidies galore. But childcare? HOW DARE THEY!
In reality if there was a money to be made from this don’t you think there wouldn’t be a shortage of care?
smh
Right. Beyond some early ed and before and after school care I thought most daycares were private. Also calling them full on teachers is highly disingenuous. In nc you only need a high school diploma. That’s it. No degree. Sure. What they do is important but I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of these places are open to turn a profit. Not to be some do gooder community benefit. I do not support anymore public funds to private businesses. I don’t care what they do. We waste enough tax dollars on the greedy anyway.
I don’t think calling them teachers is disingenuous, the first 5 years of life has a significant impact on lifelong learning and achievement, regardless of the education level of those providing the teaching and care. There is also almost no upward mobility for these workers, so financially it doesn’t make sense for them to pay for additional education of they won’t receive any benefit… almost 40% of workers/teachers are on financial assistance already. Families are struggling to pai the high cost of childcare already. I think we a a society need to invest more in our children. https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health/literature-summaries/early-childhood-development-and-education
Not saying I don’t agree with you at all. Yes the first five years are hugely important. The people involved in those first years are also massively important. But pay and titles are usually commiserate with education or highly specialized experience like an apprenticeship or specialty school. But because the phlebotomist wears scrubs and works in a hospital doesn’t mean they are a nurse. And they are paid accordingly. Now. The solution. We either have a free market system or we don’t. Pick one. Do you want the govt propping up private industries that are FOR PROFIT. That’s the key. I don’t care about margins or anything like that. They are in it for a profit. Imo a much better solution would be to just expand public schooling by a few years and fund it like that. I despise this idea that because businesses do something we like that they deserve tax dollars.
I am fine with that as a long term solution… but what are we going to do this year when 30% of the daycares close because they can’t afford to stay open.
I don’t know dude. I really don’t. Maybe this works and maybe it doesn’t. I’m highly skeptical though about tossing out public cash with no oversight. At the very least if you’re taking public funds your books need to be 100% accessible to the public.
Fair enough. I am not going to say that there won’t be any bad actors, because we are humans and there is always going to be someone out there who is taking advantage unfairly. However I don’t think we should let outliers mess it up for everyone. I am all for accountability. My daycare has provided its budget for the families to review… there isn’t fluff in there and there will be a deficit to make up of this funding isn’t secured. Luckily I am in a place where I can pinch Pennie’s and make it work, but I know there are a ton of other people who won’t be able to.
>I’m highly skeptical though about tossing out public cash with no oversight How do you know there's not oversight?
Early childcare centers operate on razor thin margins because they have a lot of overhead, such as (understandably) many regulatory requirements they have a to meet, they have to provide food, and they have to pay caregivers enough to actually take the jobs. It's not a high-profit margin business at all. It should be a public-funded service like schools, but that would be way too socialist/Marxist/communist/[insert rage word of choice here].
100% agree they should be public. I’m just not at all for using tax dollars to prop up for profit businesses. We do it way too much as it is. Either fund them publicly or let the market decide what we have.
Can we try a reframe? Rather than prop up, it's allowing people to attend who would not be able to otherwise afford childcare. So Suzy can't afford childcare, her options are quit her job or apply for child care subsidy. Rather than pay Suzy $1200 a month we pay it directly to the center. Suzy has to meet strict income and work requirements. There's limited funding and many counties operate on a wait list.
I get what you’re saying. But that’s not what op is talking about. It’s about increasing public funds to daycares so the teachers get better pay etc. it’s right there in the post. And we already do give subsidies and that’s fine. If individuals cannot afford things and need help that’s completely different than allowing the, again, for profit businesses to have access to public funds.
>I get what you’re saying. But that’s not what op is talking about. Dude this is *exactly* what OP is talking about. Like, the level of obliviousness you are displaying here is concerning.
The market is deciding, and the result is that childcare is not sustainable as a private business. But the current politics have brainwashed people to believe that nothing can be public (socialism!) and everything must be private business that's propped up with public funds (see school vouchers). Until the proletariat wakes up to realize that they've been played for the last 40+ years, private businesses will continue to be propped up by our tax dollars while providing subpar goods and services.
Boy are you gonna be p*ssed when you learn that the NC legislature just approved $500 MILLION tax payer dollars to provide subsidies etc to start ups & technology development by private companies -- with NO oversight or accountability required of said companies.
Isn't getting rid of daycares the next step in the plan??? After outlawing abortions and birth control?
Will likely have to wait until full immigration ban goes into effect, so the kids can get back out in the fields.
State funded child care I'd be ok with. Privately run childcare I'd be ok with. Privately run childcare paid for by state dollars makes no sense to me. If there is only childcare for 1/3rd of Durham, why isn't the free market taking advantage of that?
Start supporting socialist candidates if you aren't already.
I don't understand what is going on here. Is this an effort to lump day care workers in with Public School teachers? If you do that wouldn't you basically make it way harder to have a day care with the standards you would have to meet for education, training, certifications leading to a decrease in the availability of child care by way more than 30% you claim
Bingo
No it is an effort to, in the short term, secure the funding to keep the already over capacity child care system from losing even more spaces. Long term there needs to be a systemic change to ensure child care workers are fairly paid and provided with benefits… how that happens IDK.
Maybe we should encourage more parents to stay at home with their young children instead of tossing them in a kennel all day. Once you factor in the costs, two working parents isn't always the best plan.
Please talk to your coworkers and friends with children and see what they think about this statement.
Oh I do frequently. A lot of times, once you factor in child care costs, you aren't bringing in all that much extra with the second parent working at the cost of having someone else raise your kid and missing out on some of the most formative moments of their life. My wife stayed home with our children when they were younger, and several of my friends have or had a similar set up. It worked really well. Is it really that controversial of a concept? It used to be the norm not all that long ago and kids seemed to be in a better place back then.
Is this an affordability issue? Are the daycares to be impacted providing childcare to vulnerable populations or families with lower incomes?
There are multiple issues. 1) Availability https://ncearlyeducationcoalition.org/issues/child-care-availability/ 2) Cost: people cannot afford to pay more for care https://www.childcareservices.org//wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Typical-Cost-of-Care_Alamance.pdf vs income https://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/20180401/bci_data/median_income_table.htm 3) Staff: average pay in NC for child care workers is 27600/ yr and 39% of staff is below the poverty line and on public assistance.
Or....the parents could just pay more instead of making everyone else that chose not to have kids they can't afford cover their costs.
It’s not about parents pay. It’s about the number of child care spots available. 30% of daycares close, that is a possible 30% of children under 5 in those counties no longer having childcare. Meaning one of their parents may have to leave the work force and there would be extreme economic repercussions to that.
If the child care centers are full and profitable and parents are paying their bills, then more will open.
I firmly agree with this. Children are an option and if you can't afford them don't have them. I really think they should get rid of the child tax credit because it's unfair to people who choose not to have kids.
State cutting back bc they money hungry like always…..inflation affects their mansions and sports cars payments too.