Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Cuts To Child Care Subsidy Thwart More Job Seekers

Recommended Posts

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/business/economy/24childcare.html?ref=business

Able-bodied, outgoing and accustomed to working, Alexandria Wallace wants to earn a paycheck. But that requires someone to look after her 3-year-old daughter, and Ms. Wallace, a 22-year-old single mother, cannot afford child care.

Last month, she lost her job as a hair stylist after her improvised network of baby sitters frequently failed her, forcing her to miss shifts. She qualifies for a state-run subsidized child care program. But like many other states, Arizona has slashed that program over the last year, relegating Ms. Wallace’s daughter, Alaya, to a waiting list of nearly 11,000 eligible children.

Despite a substantial increase in federal support for subsidized child care, which has enabled some states to stave off cuts, others have trimmed support, and most have failed to keep pace with rising demand, according to poverty experts and federal officials.

That has left swelling numbers of low-income families struggling to reconcile the demands of work and parenting, just as they confront one of the toughest job markets in decades.

The cuts to subsidized child care challenge the central tenet of the welfare overhaul adopted in 1996, which imposed a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance. Under the change, low-income parents were forced to give up welfare checks and instead seek paychecks, while being promised support — not least, subsidized child care — that would enable them to work.

Now, in this moment of painful budget cuts, with Arizona and more than a dozen other states placing children eligible for subsidized child care on waiting lists, only two kinds of families are reliably securing aid: those under the supervision of child protective services — which looks after abuse and neglect cases — and those receiving cash assistance.

Ms. Wallace abhors the thought of going on cash assistance, a station she associates with lazy people who con the system. Yet this has become the only practical route toward child care.

So, on a recent afternoon, she waited in a crush of beleaguered people to submit the necessary paperwork. Her effort to avoid welfare through work has brought her to welfare’s door.

“It doesn’t make sense to me,” she says. “I fall back to — I can’t say ‘being a lowlife’ — but being like the typical person living off the government. That’s not what I’m trying to do. I’m trying to use this as a backbone, so I can develop my own backbone.”

As the American social safety net absorbs its greatest challenge since the Great Depression, state budget cuts are weakening crucial components. Subsidized child care — financed by federal and state governments — is a conspicuous example.

When President Clinton signed into law the changes he declared would “end welfare as we know it,” he vowed that those losing government checks would gain enough support to enable their transition to the workplace.

“We will protect the guarantees of health care, nutrition and child care, all of which are critical to helping families move from welfare to work,” Mr. Clinton pledged in a radio address that year.

Now, with the jobless rate hovering near double digits and 6.7 million people unemployed for six months or longer, some states are rolling back child care.

More at the link.

On the practical side why doesn't she cut hair from home or take the child with her on home visits? Not ideal but she might at least find some work.

Still at least the bankers got the help they needed in covering their billions in losses and that's all that matters. The poor should know their place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe she should have thought how she was going to support the two of them before getting pregnant by a father who wouldn't stick around.

As usual it's society that pay the costs of her irresponsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When President Clinton signed into law the changes he declared would "end welfare as we know it," he vowed that those losing government checks would gain enough support to enable their transition to the workplace.

Just another delusion resulting from not seeing the debt bubble for what it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/business/economy/24childcare.html?ref=business

More at the link.

On the practical side why doesn't she cut hair from home or take the child with her on home visits? Not ideal but she might at least find some work.

Still at least the bankers got the help they needed in covering their billions in losses and that's all that matters. The poor should know their place.

This is what you get when the State displaces family, friends and community. It forces traditional relationships apart to the point where many look to the Government for help first rather than the people around them.

I would guess that state subsidised childcare brought with it state regulated childcare.(as it did in the UK) If the subsidy is gone has any of the regulation? That would make childcare cheaper and make it easier for some out of work people to become child carers or perhaps a group of working parents take turns in looking after other children. 1 day a week sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe she should have thought how she was going to support the two of them before getting pregnant by a father who wouldn't stick around.

As usual it's society that pay the costs of her irresponsibility.

Now, I'm the first to derise the feckless, but not every woman/girl knows if her fella's going to do a disappearing act later on down the line. dry.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what you get when the State displaces family, friends and community. It forces traditional relationships apart to the point where many look to the Government for help first rather than the people around them.

I would guess that state subsidised childcare brought with it state regulated childcare.(as it did in the UK) If the subsidy is gone has any of the regulation? That would make childcare cheaper and make it easier for some out of work people to become child carers or perhaps a group of working parents take turns in looking after other children. 1 day a week sort of thing.

Last month, she lost her job as a hair stylist after her improvised network of baby sitters frequently failed her

She was already relying on the support of family, friends and community, and they failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I'm the first to derise the feckless, but not every woman/girl knows if her fella's going to do a disappearing act later on down the line. dry.gif

Then maybe they should insist on protection. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this is right and before her child starts school it just doesn't make financial sense to work.

Our local surestart nursery charges £44 a day for under 3s - thats £11,440 per year. Its the cheapest nursery aroound (north London).

It doesn't take a genius to work out that it might not be worth someone working for minimum wage if they had a child under school age that required care that cost this much.

Doesn't matter who pays for the childcare.... if the state pays its probably a waste of money. Slightly different once the child is of school age and the amount of extra care is less.

She should have thought about that before she got pregnant - or ideally find another woman in the same situation as her and then share the childcare and work part-time. Or cut hair at people's houses and take her child with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this is right and before her child starts school it just doesn't make financial sense to work.

Our local surestart nursery charges £44 a day for under 3s - thats £11,440 per year. Its the cheapest nursery aroound (north London).

It doesn't take a genius to work out that it might not be worth someone working for minimum wage if they had a child under school age that required care that cost this much.

Doesn't matter who pays for the childcare.... if the state pays its probably a waste of money. Slightly different once the child is of school age and the amount of extra care is less.

She should have thought about that before she got pregnant - or ideally find another woman in the same situation as her and then share the childcare and work part-time. Or cut hair at people's houses and take her child with.

Why try to deduce a sensible alternative when the taxpayer can take the strain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is obvious. It does not take one woman sitting at home all day to take care of one child. Pool the children into crèches and have one of the single mums watch over them. The others go out to work and pay the one that does the childcare. Just takes organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is obvious. It does not take one woman sitting at home all day to take care of one child. Pool the children into crèches and have one of the single mums watch over them. The others go out to work and pay the one that does the childcare. Just takes organization.

And government licences. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then maybe they should insist on protection. :huh:

Maybe those cheap Chinese condoms weren't such a good idea...

'US agency switches to Chinese-made condoms for international programmes':

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/us-china-economy-condoms

Bill Howe, president of PolyTech Synergies in Ohio, a consultant to the condom industry, said China is "learning" to produce better condoms, but their products are still "notoriously suspect".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this is right and before her child starts school it just doesn't make financial sense to work.

Our local surestart nursery charges £44 a day for under 3s - thats £11,440 per year. Its the cheapest nursery aroound (north London).

It doesn't take a genius to work out that it might not be worth someone working for minimum wage if they had a child under school age that required care that cost this much.

Doesn't matter who pays for the childcare.... if the state pays its probably a waste of money. Slightly different once the child is of school age and the amount of extra care is less.

She should have thought about that before she got pregnant - or ideally find another woman in the same situation as her and then share the childcare and work part-time. Or cut hair at people's houses and take her child with.

under 3s shouldnt be in a nursery.

IMHO under 5s is pushing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said.

+1 slap to the OP for being an annoying knut.

+1

250px-Knut_IMG_8095.jpg

But a cute knut.

Maybe those cheap Chinese condoms weren't such a good idea...

'US agency switches to Chinese-made condoms for international programmes':

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/us-china-economy-condoms

Just what you need to hear about contraceptives, they are still learning to produce them....

It's like Russian roulette which could end in a slow death or a baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 153 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.