"Universal day care" is class war against normal people

[Hammster]

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?

What did he actually say?

 

[dogs4thewin]

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

Does that change the fact we send BILLIONS to other countries?

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

It's really hard to read things like this and not think that the goal is to simply punish women and the low income working class. I know it sounds good when it all gets wrapped up in a pretty little ribbon called personal responsibility, but like think about it for more than five seconds and it is clearly dystopian.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

Would you support more social welfare programs if we redirected that foreign aid money to those domestic welfare resources?

Otherwise this is a disingenuous argument.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dogs4thewin]

Would you support more social welfare programs if we redirected that foreign aid money to those domestic welfare resources?

Otherwise this is a disingenuous argument.

-CryptoLutheran

It is true If I KNOW that I can not care for children ( for whatever reason) then do not have them and if you do ( as birth control is not 100% effective give them up for adoption.

 

[Hazelelponi]

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:
View attachment 354253



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.




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.




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



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


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?

Hi... Back in my day, which still exists, it's the mother's and grandmother's who provides the childcare for working parents.

Designer child care is for the wealthy. Families take care of their own.

The government is not your family. It is not some all benevolent god.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Hi... Back in my day, which still exists, it's the mother's and grandmother's who provides the childcare for working parents.

Designer child care is for the wealthy. Families take care of their own.

That's nice. That's actually a pretty elitist position you're taking by assuming that everybody has the ability to work where their parents live and/or that everybody's parents have the ability to stop working and take care of grandbabies.

My in-laws live 2.5 hours away and my parents live about 7 hours away. Commuting obviously isn't an option, so somebody would have to move.

We moved to Baltimore for my job, because, in my rather niche field, there were virtually zero jobs for me anywhere north of Baltimore. There was an industry in Boston, where we were, but that imploded. Otherwise, there were a couple jobs in NYC (not openings; just jobs), some in Florida, more in Texas, and a bunch on the west coast. Baltimore was as close as I could be to either family. My wife's job has more options near her parents, but few-to-none near mine.

For our parents moving, my dad only retired last year and my mom still hasn't completely retired, because they can't quite afford to yet, and even if they wanted to, the real estate market in their area is so cold, that they have nobody to buy their farm. So what you propose is that they just abandon their home.

Our house isn't big enough to accommodate another pair of adults, so my parents would have to get a new house near us, which they can't afford.

On the flip side, my MIL is retired, but my FIL still works full-time and likely will for another couple years. So, he'd have to give up his career and they'd have to sell their house that serves as the giant familiar gathering place in the summer.

The help that our family could provide is money - and my in-laws could certainly afford to, but not everybody is so fortunate.

Can you imagine your reaction if, in response to one of your myriad complaints about grocery prices, I just told you to grow a garden or get help from your family?

This isn't "designer child care." It's getting by.

 

[Desk trauma]

Does that change the fact we send BILLIONS to other countries?

It shows that it’s not a large enough portion of the budget to preclude other spending.

 

[comana]

It is true If I KNOW that I can not care for children ( for whatever reason) then do not have them and if you do ( as birth control is not 100% effective give them up for adoption.

Do you think new or prospective parent have any clue as to what a child costs? Or what circumstances they may find themselves in during the 18 years they are financially responsible for the child?

 

[RoBo1988]

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.

This would never fly in Washington DC because:

1. It makes sense
2. Bureaucrats love bigger bureau's; They want a "Department of Childcare" with a director making 7 figures, and a staff of underlings making 6 figures each

 

[Richard T]

Head Start is for poor children I think. Here are tax credits for child care directly for the poor.




The child and dependent care credit12345:

• Helps pay for the care of eligible children and other dependents.
• Calculated based on your income and a percentage of expenses incurred for care.
• Generally worth 20% to 35% of up to $3,000 (for one qualifying dependent) or $6,000 (for two or more qualifying dependents).
• Maximum credit is $1,050 for one dependent or $2,100 for two or more dependents.

There are other child a dependent care credits. It is complicated, I doubt Vance knows all the multiple programs and benefits. I know that I do not but I know there are multiple layers.

For this particular credit spelled out here. Topic no. 602, Child and Dependent Care Credit | Internal Revenue Service Grandparents are exempt from being a provider of child care for government pay. In Florida they let relatives care for the elderly and receive money. We should encourage this with children and pay a small amount for grandparents to help with children. I do not think spouses should get paid. The best solution though would be to allow the easy import of child care workers. Guest workers to the Middle East get about 600 a month plus room and board.

 

[iluvatar5150]

This would never fly in Washington DC because:

1. It makes sense
2. Bureaucrats love bigger bureau's; They want a "Department of Childcare" with a director making 7 figures, and a staff of underlings making 6 figures each

Those sorts of subsidies already exist.

 

[zippy2006]

Those sorts of subsidies already exist.

I do not think there are any universal subsidies for children in the U.S. commensurate with child care expenses. The closest thing that I can think of would be tax exemptions or credits for dependents, which would be a tiny fraction of the amount represented by child care.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I do not think there are any universal subsidies for children in the U.S. commensurate with child care expenses. The closest thing that I can think of would be tax exemptions or credits for dependents, which would be a tiny fraction of the amount represented by child care.

To clarify - subsidies of that sort (i.e. for having children) exist. Subsidies of sufficient magnitude to cover child care do not.

 

[zippy2006]

To clarify - subsidies of that sort (i.e. for having children) exist. Subsidies of sufficient magnitude to cover child care do not.

But what is the argument here supposed to be in the context of this thread? "There are subsidies for children, but no free child care"? Vance's point then looms larger than ever, for what is being sought is a discriminatory form of subsidy.

 

[iluvatar5150]

But what is the argument here supposed to be in the context of this thread? "There are subsidies for children, but no free child care"? Vance's point then looms larger than ever, for what is being sought is a discriminatory form of subsidy.

I was responding to @RoBo1988's comment about DC not going for it because it makes too much sense. My point was that they've already gone for it at a smaller scale.

 

[zippy2006]

I was responding to @RoBo1988's comment about DC not going for it because it makes too much sense.

And his comment was a response to my post, which was an outgrowth of Vance's argument, so you're out of luck.

What you've done is committed a logical equivocation between the-subsidy-to-replace-universal-child-care and any-old-subsidy.

• OP: Vance opposes universal child care
• Zippy: He is right to, and a better option is a universal subsidy
• RoBo: That is a good idea
• il5150: We already have universal subsidies
• Zippy: What kind of argument is that? See #35

 

[iluvatar5150]

And his comment was a response to my post, which was an outgrowth of Vance's argument, so you're out of luck.

What you've done is committed a logical equivocation between the-subsidy-to-replace-universal-child-care and any-old-subsidy.

• OP: Vance opposes universal child care
• Zippy: He is right to, and a better option is a universal subsidy
• RoBo: That is a good idea
• il5150: We already have universal subsidies
• Zippy: What kind of argument is that? See #35

Lol, I’m “out of luck”? The only thing I was commenting on was his characterization of DC.

If I’d wanted to respond to your point, I’d have said that you may very well be right about a subsidy being better, but Vance is still wrong because of the reasons I pointed out earlier regarding him misunderstanding the graphic and conflating desires with financial realities.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Do you think new or prospective parent have any clue as to what a child costs? Or what circumstances they may find themselves in during the 18 years they are financially responsible for the child?

That is why I said if you know you cannot afford children do not have them. If you fall on hard times there ARE programs for that, but it is still not the government's job to provide free care for your children.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Would you support more social welfare programs if we redirected that foreign aid money to those domestic welfare resources?

Otherwise this is a disingenuous argument.

-CryptoLutheran

I do believe that we need to do something to address the welfare cliff but that is a different topic for a different thread.