Home | About | Donate

Sanders is Right. The Childcare System in the US is a Disaster


#1

Sanders is Right. The Childcare System in the US is a Disaster

One presidential hopeful's assessment is that the child care system in the U.S. is disastrous. And based on the findings of a new survey, many working parents in the U.S. have reason to agree.


#2

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#3

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#4

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#5

......the US is a Disaster........????????


#6

Most people in PNG aren't paid anything.


#7

Sanders is right on this as he is on many related issues, the childcare 'system" in america is a disaster, a pathetic charade, as are the eldercare "system", the healthcare "system" generally, run by the insurance "industry", the environmental protection "system" - the list of failed/corrupt "systems" and "regulatory" agencies that are disasters is long.

In contrast, the system of corporate empowerment and greed is very healthy, maintained and enlarged by congressional collusion/corruption, passing legislation to further dominance, and increase profitsm by and for the 1% and corporate pirates. Building the system of greed and ignoring their indifference to the 99% is very healthy. We are seeing this corruption clearly with the "omnibus" (read: filled with corrupt segments) spending bill and all the special interest "riders" the RepubliCon/Dem Congress whores for greed will soon pass to keep the criminal mechanisms going. These professional lobbyists, euphemistically called "Congress-Members" or "elected representatives", work for the corporate/uber-wealthy and pathological social extremists, NOT America or "democracy", or a sustainable healthy future for all!

The difference between systems that actually work for the people rather than a small minority of profiteers and the utterly corrupt is that those who make the decisions are making those decisions based on profits, not if they work or how, if they are sustainable or polluting or use people as slaves to the "systems" - this "system" has been sanctified by SCOTUS and their decision on "Citizens United" (absolute BS title) equating money with "free-speach" - very like corporate written and pushed "free-trade" deal scams - all of these "systems" maintain vulture capitalism and greed over the Common Good and a sustainable egalitarian future.


#8

I actually don't agree with this. Paid maternity --and paternity--leave, yes. But I think childcare by relatives is better than childcare by paid caregivers--children under two should be cared for by those who love them, not by people for whom they are a job. I approve more of my niece, a stay-at-home mom often engaged in the Mommy Wars with her husband's female colleagues and friends, than my own daughter-in-law ready to give over her two-month-old to daycare soon. BUT--I want to point out that there are more than two options! When there are two parents of preschool kids, one option is to have the mom stay home, care for the kid and do the housework while dad works full time. Nothing wrong with that if it's what everyone wants. Or, Mom can go back to full-time work almost immediately and they can pay someone to care for the kid, and complain about the expense because caregivers presumably should earn much less than the mom. But there are LOTS of other possible arrangements. DAD could stay home while Mom works full time--I've known some such, and again nothing wrong with it as long as everyone's happy. Or each could work part-time, if they have enough control at work to make such arrangements. Or one--maybe mom if she's breastfeeding--stays home the first year, then she goes back to work and Dad stays home. Or one or both could work from home, which in some cases allows for some childcare. Sometimes there is a relative eager to be with the kid some of the time. Once the kid is about three, it's good for them to spend a limited amount of time in circumstances where there are lots of kids and they're no more special than any of the others, so they can begin learning that long hard lesson, that they are only the center of their own universe. But my favorite choice is one best undertaken before the child is born, wherein the parents reject the nuclear family altogether and arrange to be part of a molecular family, choosing good friends who also have a child or soon will. They may share a house, or just live very close, and they share childcare from the beginning so the kids have some of the advantages of siblings, as well as alternate parents, while the adults have more child-free time while knowing their kids are in the care of people they totally trust, and don't have to pay. They can share other things as well, like a lawnmower or truck--and if there is a crisis like divorce or the death of a parent, the child has someone to stay with who is already more or less a parent but not temporarily insane like many people are when going through divorce.


#9

14 years ago , a close friend in Washington state , a single mom on WIC ,was given just $3 a day from the state towards daycare for her 4-mos.-old ! She had a job with good health coverage she literally couldn't afford to lose , and no family to rely on , so was forced to tap out friends and colleagues and their families . Ultimately , it worked for her and her baby , but every week was a cliffhanger . Even then , the lack of support and resources available was appalling . It is far worse now .


#10

I find Richard Wilkinson's arguments about the impact of income disparity in these matters to be quite convincing: https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson?language=en#


#11

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#12

You seem to assume that only professionals can teach children socializing. Nonsense! What sociopaths miss out on is parental love (or, I suspect, sometimes the problem may come from a seemingly opposite problem where the child is protected against consequences, told he's always right and should have whatever he wants. In either case, genes are half the picture). As for that stuff about how a woman (and who says the stay-at-home parent is necessarily a woman?) loses out if she ever takes significant time off of her career. This is the same mentality that now has workers expected to carry cellphones on vacation in case their employers want something, that often expects them to work 60 hours a week. And this mentality is the same as the one that sees no reason for the state to support parenthood with childcare subsidies, or laws protecting the parents' right to their job after m/paternal leave. We need to reject this mentality, refuse to accept the notion that our careers (and our employers) should be elevated to the top place in our lives. Much expanded leave rights, paid or not, would certainly be a good idea. But so are private solutions like molecular families, extended family arrangements, and not least, an embrace of voluntary poverty that makes these choices work out more easily. Yes, the 1% are ripping us off pretty hard these days--but most Americans still spend more and have more than they need, than their grandparents had, than about 90% of the world has. More income is not the primary thing we're missing.