this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
1976 points (99.5% liked)

Political Memes

5485 readers
4733 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I do volunteer office work for a non-profit childcare center, and have looked at their budget and their books. It's basically impossible to efficiently do at the scale of a single center in a high cost of living city.

If you're paying teachers an average of $30/hour and maintaining a ratio of 4 kids to 1 teacher at all times, and covering 50 hours per week of operational time (for example, operational hours between 8am and 6pm 5 days per week), and you actually have enough staff to not pay overtime, that's $1500/week in wages per teacher, or $375/week per student. Throw in taxes, healthcare, paid vacation, and staffing in redundancy so that you can handle illness and the unexpected, and each kid might be at $400-450/week in labor costs of the direct work of watching and teaching the kids.

But in reality, childcare is in crisis now because a qualified worker could probably get a higher paying nanny job for 1 or 2 kids at a time, so there's a severe shortage of workers even at that $30/hour average wage. And so there needs to be overtime, and that creeps up to $450-500/week for workers.

And then you have the ongoing overhead: rent, utilities, furniture/equipment, toys, books, other supplies, etc. Most centers provide food, and have to contract out for that, too.

And then there's the cost of management. Someone needs to run the place, there might need to be something like a receptionist, and these centers often have to contract out their bookkeeping, electronic records, or even basics like running a website. Most have extra features like electronic reports and maybe even pictures/video for parents, and that costs money, too.

So even on the non-profit side, without a profit motive or distributions to shareholders, the industry as a whole has a mismatch between the prices parents are able to pay versus the bare minimum acceptable cost of providing that service. (In fact, the nonprofit I'm thinking of has donations coming in to cover things like tuition assistance for parents who need it, or a lot of the supplies, and volunteers like me who can provide specialized labor for no cost to the center.)

Childcare should be subsidized by the government, and there's basically no way this industry can continue to exist based purely on revenues from parents alone. Otherwise the industry will enter a death spiral and the number of people simply unable to afford kids will grow out of control.

[–] TexasDrunk 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Or, hear me out here, fix the economy so that people don't need between 2 and 3 incomes per household to survive.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

On the childcare side of things just increasing wages would end up increasing wealth inequity if childcare isn't heavily subsidized. The fact is, for a safe adult:child ratio in a daycare each child has to pay for about 1/4 of a teacher

[–] TexasDrunk 1 points 1 month ago

You're not wrong, and I'm not against massively subsidizing it. In fact I think we should do both. My point is that childcare places wouldn't be so overwhelmed if we could have a stay at home parent.

[–] acchariya 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

MBA consultant:

Increase the ratio to 35 kids per teacher, add in a minimum wage helper to assist, and have an intern work reception while building the website. Extra services are subscription add ons.

Boom

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

You would need to change federal law to do that. In other words: that would literally take an act of congress.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

How could we possibly subsidize child care? We've got genocides to fund, and that's WAYYYY more important /s

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Childcare should be subsidized by the government

It is. Ever heard of TANF and other CCW programs?

[–] Vorticity 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Those programs are income limited and don't really provide much support compared to the cost of child care.

Cost of child care

I my state, child care runs between $1,500 and $2,200 per month ($18,000 to $26,400 per year) per child (I pay about $1,800 per month).

TANF benefits

TANF benefits are income based. They decrease as income increases and end at $75,000 household income.

  • The maximum possible benefit of $592 per month ($7,104 per year) is provided for a family with one parent and two children with zero income.

  • If that single parent earns $1,000 per month ($12,000 per year) their benefit drops to $330 per month ($3,960 per year).

Availability of care

To top that off, child care facilities are not required to accept TANF because it places limits on how much they can charge. Most place limits on the number of TANF recipients they will enroll and some simply don't accept TANF.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You mean the programs that Republicans defund every chance they get, and are constantly trying to eliminate? Those programs?

If only ~30% of the population was able to learn something (or oftentimes simply admit they're wrong) and stop voting against their interests, we wouldn't have to be constantly worrying that these programs are going to go away and/or get starved.

People literally voting in the people who will (and have in the past) taken food directly from their own childrens' mouths. It's infuriating to see. Then when it happens, they'll find a way to blame "liberals."

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Yet they remain...