"Universal day care" is class war against normal people

[Larniavc]

Novelist JD Vance makes a strong point against day care for normal people; it's simply class war. ‘Universal child care’ is a massive subsidy to the lifestyle preferences of the affluent over the preferences of the middle and working class” he opined.

Can it be that the secret to having affordable day care for struggling families is simply to not have it because it only benefits those who can a afford it? The millionaire venture capitalist gives single parents and households where both parents work to make ends meet sound advice that they need to be more 'normal' to avoid the trap of needing childcare.

J.D. Vance, author of “Hillbilly Elegy,” the book that poor-splained Appalachia to a certain segment of well-off society makes his point clearly and with a no nonsence manner including such advice as having grand parents look after the kids but are they an effective way of helping low income families of any generation afford day care for their kids?

Thoughts?

 

[dogs4thewin]

While I have no issue with day care centers it should be on the parents to ensure the children are cared for. In other words while yes there are actual day care centers as opposed to schools for very young children it is NOT the government's job to provide that. With very few exceptions ( rape) you voluntily did te act that led to the child and you knew were doing. If a child results then it is YOUR job to take care of him or her not the government's job to fund that choice.

 

[dogs4thewin]

For the record I have a silmilar though not exlect same view of public schools. In that while I have no problem with after school activities and certainly have no problem with the government providing public schools I also believe that the school's purpose is EDUCATION. It is not a babysitting service nor should the school be required to provide lunch.

The biggest example of this is not so much after school activities as it is days that school is for whatever reason ( particularly breaks) not being held on a weekday and parents complain well what will I do with my kid. Well mom dad that is not the school's job.

For example, a growing number of districts now are turning to longer day four day weeks to save money and retain employees; as well as offer a day to handle personal business. Parents complain well what do I do with my kid that extra weekday not the school(government's job to figure out. Now, some districts do offer activities for that extra day that parents are generally required to pay for.

 

[Paulos23]

For being for people having babies, he sure does not have policies that encourage them to have them.

 

[Desk trauma]

For the record I have a silmilar though not exlect same view of public schools. In that while I have no problem with after school activities and certainly have no problem with the government providing public schools I also believe that the school's purpose is EDUCATION. It is not a babysitting service nor should the school be required to provide lunch.

The biggest example of this is not so much after school activities as it is days that school is for whatever reason ( particularly breaks) not being held on a weekday and parents complain well what will I do with my kid. Well mom dad that is not the school's job.

For example, a growing number of districts now are turning to longer day four day weeks to save money and retain employees; as well as offer a day to handle personal business. Parents complain well what do I do with my kid that extra weekday not the school(government's job to figure out. Now, some districts do offer activities for that extra day that parents are generally required to pay for.

Yeah, can’t be helping people out now can we.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Novelist JD Vance makes a strong point against day care for normal people; it's simply class war. ‘Universal child care’ is a massive subsidy to the lifestyle preferences of the affluent over the preferences of the middle and working class” he opined.

Can it be that the secret to having affordable day care for struggling families is simply to not have it because it only benefits those who can a afford it? The millionaire venture capitalist gives single parents and households where both parents work to make ends meet sound advice that they need to be more 'normal' to avoid the trap of needing childcare.

J.D. Vance, author of “Hillbilly Elegy,” the book that poor-splained Appalachia to a certain segment of well-off society makes his point clearly and with a no nonsence manner including such advice as having grand parents look after the kids but are they an effective way of helping low income families of any generation afford day care for their kids?

Thoughts?

Helping to subsidize a few American citizens in poverty is one thing...

Universal everyone in America gets free childcare is just ridiculous. People can pay for the care and raising of their own children.

Why on earth would the government pay for people who can afford child care? It's a ridiculous assumption. I agree with Vance.

We can't be spending money we don't have.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Yeah, can’t be helping people out now can we.

The only people who chose to create that child (in most cases I understand rape is an issue) were the parents wwhen you make that choice whether the chiild isplanned or not you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences that is NOT the government's job to care for what you chose to create/take the risk of creating.

 

[Desk trauma]

For being for people having babies, he sure does not have policies that encourage them to have them.

Well when they go full decree 770 no need for encouragement…

 

[Larniavc]

While I have no issue with day care centers it should be on the parents to ensure the children are cared for. In other words while yesthere are actual day care centers as opposed to schools for very young children it is NOT the government's job to provide that. With very few exceptions ( rape) you voluntily did te act that led to the child abd you knew were doing. If a child results then it is YOUR job to take care of him or her not the government's job to fund that choice.

So only the rich can have kids in America? If you're too poor to have kids I guess that's just hard luck.

 

[Larniavc]

We can't be spending money we don't have.

America is the richest nation in the world. How come other poorer countries can afford it?

 

[zippy2006]

Can it be that the secret to having affordable day care for struggling families is simply to not have it because it only benefits those who can a afford it?

I have never heard of this topic before, but your strawman mischaracterization is still easy to spot. Vance is presumably saying that preferentially subsidizing households where two parents work and neglecting households where one parent provides child care is unjust. He's right, of course, and mischaracterizing his argument is an underhanded tactic.

The better option would be something like a government child subsidy, which could be allocated to daycare or simply added to the incomes of families which provide their own child care.

 

[dogs4thewin]

So only the rich can have kids in America? If you're too poor to have kids I guess that's just hard luck.

If you cannot afford to care for children then do not have them. Now it is DIFFERENT if you have a loss in income and become unable to care for your children through no fault of your own (that is why we have programs like SNAP(food stamps) and TANF ( cash welfare) but to have them when you know you cannot afford them nope. This is also why I support a one child rule if you are RECEIVING assistance at a given time. That is to say that if you are on ome type of assistance and have one child or at one pregnancy you may receive additional money for the increase in family size, but after one no more money for additional children.

 

[Desk trauma]

If you cannot afford to care for children then do not have them. Now it is DIFFERENT if you have a loss in income and become uable to care for your children through no fault of your own (that is why we have programs like SNAP(food stamps) and TANF ( cash welfare) but to have them when you know you cannot afford them nope. This is also why I support a one child rule if you are RECEIVING assistance at a given time. That is to say that if you are on ome type of assistance and have one child or at one pregnancy you may receive additional money for the increase in family size, but after one no more money for additional children.

I’m sure more hunger and destitution will benefit society greatly.

 

[Larniavc]

Vance is presumably saying that preferentially subsidizing households where two parents work and neglecting households where one parent provides child care is unjust.

He's not though. He opines the following: "One of the ways that you might be able to relieve a little bit of pressure on people who are paying so much for daycare is, maybe grandma or grandpa wants to help out a little bit more, or maybe there's an aunt or uncle that wants to help out a little bit more."

It's not about targetting resources it's about withdrawing resources.

 

[Hazelelponi]

America is the richest nation in the world. How come other poorer countries can afford it?

They don't have as many people, they don't have the size of government we have even without these huge socialist projects...

We have over 350 million people and are facing economic collapse without some sound changes as it is...

We can't afford more multi trillion dollar socialist experiments. We are a capitalist society. Anyone who wants full on socialism or communism has plenty of choices elsewhere.

In America the government isn't anyone's daddy.

 

[Larniavc]

They don't have as many people, they don't have the size of government we have without these huge socialist projects...

Per capita America is the 6th richest nation in the world. So the size argument is moot. Compared to other western democracies America has a far smaller number of institutions under government control so your size of government argument is also moot.

So; why can't America look after it's own?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Per capita America is the 6th richest nation in the world. So the size argument is moot. Compared to other western democracies America has a far smaller number of institutions under government control so your size of government argument is also moot.

So; why can't America look after it's own?

Maybe in part because we give millions or even billions of dollars for OTHER countries.

 

[Desk trauma]

Maybe in part because we give millions or even billions of dollars for OTHER countries.

Foreign aid is less than 1% of the federal budget.

 

[iluvatar5150]

For those who are interested, an article covering his comments:

Opinion | The hypocrisy of J.D. Vance's hating on universal child care

The "Hillbilly Elegy" author dunks on free child care for working parents but doesn't support the American Families Plan.

www.msnbc.com

The tweet at the center of it:

x.com

x.com

And his chart:

Helping to subsidize a few American citizens in poverty is one thing...

Universal everyone in America gets free childcare is just ridiculous. People can pay for the care and raising of their own children.

Do you have any idea how expensive full-time child care is? Most daycare centers around here have waitlists around 1-2 years, which means that if you don't apply well before you get pregnant, you're likely not getting something for your infant. The market for nannies around here is a lot more flexible than it is for institutional daycare, so that's the direction most people go, including us. But most decent nannies treat this like an actual job and expect to be paid as such. The last year we had a nanny (ended a year ago), our out of pocket was around $32k/yr, for one kid. (if you do it legally, you have to pay at least minimum wage, which was around $13.50/hr at the time IIRC). And that was half the total cost, because we split it with the next door neighbor. Now that she's at a school-based daycare, the cost is somewhere in the low $20k's. If you had to pay for a nanny for two kids, your out of pocket would easily be north of $50k/yr.

I have plenty of friends and neighbors who live on one income, with the other parent staying home. None of them do so with that one income being below $100k.

Why on earth would the government pay for people who can afford child care? It's a ridiculous assumption. I agree with Vance.

Because most people can't afford it.

Vance's claim doesn't even jive with his chart. The chart describes what their preferences are, not what their financial realities are. His statement assumes that everybody can afford to do what they want to do. It doesn't matter if you'd prefer to stay home with your kid if one income wouldn't cover all the rest of your expenses.

I have never heard of this topic before, but your strawman mischaracterization is still easy to spot. Vance is presumably saying that preferentially subsidizing households where two parents work and neglecting households where one parent provides child care is unjust. He's right, of course, and mischaracterizing his argument is an underhanded tactic.

He's not right. He's confusing the issues in his stats.

They don't have as many people, they don't have the size of government we have even without these huge socialist projects...

European countries don't have the size of government we do? Really?

We have over 350 million people and are facing economic collapse without some sound changes as it is...

We can't afford more multi trillion dollar socialist experiments. We are a capitalist society. Anyone who wants full on socialism or communism has plenty of choices elsewhere.

In America the government isn't anyone's daddy.

lol k. You live in a poor, rural, wealthy-subsidized county. The government is literally "your daddy". You and your neighbors can feel free to start kicking back your share of taxes to the government any time you want. You don't think your taxes cover what's needed to provide all of these services to you, do you?

 

[zippy2006]

It's not about targetting resources it's about withdrawing resources.

Two things can be true. Vance can say that universal childcare represents class partiality and that it is also a poor budgeting decision.

He's not though.

According to what evidence? This all apparently stems from a simple Tweet from three years ago, '"Universal day care" is class war against normal people.'

Here is my interpretation: Normal people = people who care for their own children and do not have recourse to daycare.

What is your interpretation of the Tweet? That people who have recourse to daycare are poor, normal people are rich, and Vance is warning about a class war from the poor towards the rich? Sounds like MSNBC nonsense to me, which is presumably where you got it.