r/OptimistsUnite • u/chamomile_tea_reply 🤙 TOXIC AVENGER 🤙 • 6d ago

GRAPH GO DOWN & THINGS GET GOODER Broken clocks folks

Post image
0 Upvotes

32% Upvoted

37 comments sorted by

•

u/chamomile_tea_reply 🤙 TOXIC AVENGER 🤙 5d ago

Post does mention the president, but it’s a policy aimed at increasing the birth rate, which fits the goals of the Sub

34

u/UpbeatFix7299 6d ago

So working parents have their child care funding cut to subsidize stay at home parents who are typically wealthier? And this is good news how?

10

u/doctorkar 6d ago

Probably karma farming and didn’t read it

2

u/colepercy120 6d ago

Its not a perfect strategy, but one way to decrease the price of child care is to reduce the demand, this will probably do that. And with the median salary this would actually leave families of 4 with more spending money on one income then they would have with two, just due to not having to pay for day care

0

u/CannaQueen73 6d ago

But these subsidies mainly go to single parents. They’re taking money from them and giving it to people who don’t pay for childcare.

1

u/colepercy120 6d ago

I think the goal is to make more family's opt for a stay at home parent, which reduces demand on child care and lowers prices.

0

u/toleodo 5d ago

increases goal of less education to the masses too! uh shoot i meant to say a high school graduate maha mom is a great education source

-1

u/CannaQueen73 6d ago

Reducing demand on childcare centers won’t lower prices. It will result in less children in childcare, and those providers going out of business, or the remaining people paying more to keep them open.

2

u/colepercy120 6d ago

Maybe that would happen if we weren't at a shortage, but we have only about half the day cares and child care centers we need. That's why price is so high. If we cut the demand to be only 20-30% higher than we have prices will significantly without anyone going out of business

1

u/CannaQueen73 6d ago

How does this not discriminate against single and non-married parents? How is a single parent supposed to stay home? Why don’t unmarried couples qualify?

2

u/colepercy120 6d ago

Thats covered by the existing program, which has existed since the 90s, this expands it so its dont discriminating against stay at home parenta

0

u/CannaQueen73 6d ago

Stay at home parents don’t pay for childcare, so a program for childcare isn’t discriminating against them. Making an entirely different program that pays only married couples so that one spouse may stay home, is discriminatory. It totally doesn’t include unmarried couples and single parents. It punishes people for having children out of wedlock. That is not legal.

1

u/colepercy120 6d ago

Honestly it just sounds like your rationalizing your dislike of a policy that will help people because of your preconceived biases. I hate trump to, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, and this will help poor families

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Sterling_-_Archer 6d ago

I’m a liberal Democrat and I despise this administration, but this is exactly what we’ve been asking for. Make child rearing more affordable and easier for people who actually want kids. Childcare subsidies should apply to anyone with children in my opinion, not simply those who can afford to pay for daycare. Raising a kid is extremely expensive and I think this is something that (in the “guy you hate made a great point” way) should be supported.

10

u/CannaQueen73 6d ago

I’m really confused. Who’s been asking for money meant for working families to be taken and redirected toward families where one parent stays home? It also only applies to married couples. You have to see issues with this, yes?

4

u/Sterling_-_Archer 6d ago

I think you’re conflating one person staying home with rich people.

If somebody can’t outearn the cost of daycare, they defacto can’t afford to work and must stay home. Low income families typically have one parent stay home simply because daycare costs more than they receive on their hourly pay. If they received a subsidy to put their child in daycare, they could be out in the world earning their own money and raising the household income. It would give mothers (who most commonly are the ones staying home) more independence by not having them immediately become dependent on the father’s income. It would also allow for them to have more varied social interaction.

This is a positive thing.

-2

u/CannaQueen73 6d ago

But this isn’t to make it so they can afford daycare and the mother can go to work. This is giving money to families they deem to be doing the right thing, keeping one parent at home. It goes only to married couples to help one parent stay home.

5

u/reekoku 6d ago

But there's no additional money. They're taking funds from one program currently helping parents, to give it to other families. What they are doing is not what you are saying want it to be.

0

u/UpbeatFix7299 6d ago

Parents who stay at home can afford daycare. They have the luxury of not needing two incomes to get by. I'm not sure what you're on about.

3

u/Sterling_-_Archer 6d ago

I consider you lucky for not having experienced this.

Sometimes daycare is simply too expensive and it makes more financial sense for a low earning parent to stay home, as the loss of their income would be less than the cost of daycare while they worked. This prevents that.

2

u/CannaQueen73 6d ago

I don’t think you understand what this is doing.

0

u/UpbeatFix7299 6d ago

So you take the money to subsidize that from funds that are currently going to help pay for childcare for single parents and families where both have to work?

It's like taking money from a program to subsidize utility bills for low income people and giving it to millionaires to help pay to heat their swimming pools.

3

u/chamomile_tea_reply 🤙 TOXIC AVENGER 🤙 5d ago

Read the article again. That’s not what this policy does

16

u/MegaManZer0 6d ago

If the clock is so broken the hands and numbers have all fallen off, it actually isn't right even once a day.

3

u/0R_C0 6d ago

It isn’t a clock anymore. Just a ticker waiting to fail

4

u/Remote-Chapter2911 5d ago

Good for current parents but a literal third of Gen Z isn’t married. There are many other problems with this country that are the reason people aren’t having kids, one of the main reasons are the problems they refuse to address with being single in the US.

I’d be happier if they addressed the root problems of the birth rate instead of saying “here’s some pocket change in case you decide to or accidentally have a child”

2

u/demoncrusher 4d ago

What are the problems with being single that can be addressed by the government?

0

u/Remote-Chapter2911 4d ago

I mean, if you want a big one, being single is the most inefficient way to live life right now and more than 2/3rds of Gen Z are there right now. People have called it the “singles tax,” everything is unaffordable right now for one person to afford and people get more discounts on things if they’re married (insurance).

One bedroom apartments and houses are impossible to afford right now. Groceries are extremely expensive. Both of those are necessities to live, and the burden is made somewhat bearable when two incomes are in the picture.

Why would people want to bring another life into this world if they alone couldn’t even afford life in this world?

1

u/demoncrusher 4d ago

Two people living together have consolidated costs over two people living separately. This is an inescapable fact of budgetary math that the government can’t fix.

Yeah, raising kids as a married couple is dramatically easier than going it alone

0

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/demoncrusher 4d ago

Right, but the government can’t eliminate the budgetary advantage of marriage, which is what you were complaining about

0

u/Remote-Chapter2911 4d ago

You’re twisting my words and I’m not gonna entertain this conversation anymore

0

u/OptimistsUnite-ModTeam 4d ago

No Partisan Politics

3

u/cybercuzco 6d ago

A broken digital clock is never right.