"Day Without A Woman" - General Strike - March 8, 2017

167891012»

Comments

  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,186
    Never said it couldn't work, I just don't see it as the responsibility of the government to find a way to take care of my kids.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,543
    edited March 13
    mace1229 said:

    Never said it couldn't work, I just don't see it as the responsibility of the government to find a way to take care of my kids.

    When the cost of living doesn't match properly with wages, it is. It is no longer generally realistic for one parent to stay home and care for children because of the economy. That makes child care the responsibility of the government one way or another, unless the government's position is that everyone should stop breeding. Hey, maybe the government should start enforcing vasectomies and tubal ligations. Then child care wouldn't be such an issue.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,186
    edited March 13
    PJ_Soul said:

    mace1229 said:

    Never said it couldn't work, I just don't see it as the responsibility of the government to find a way to take care of my kids.

    When the cost of living doesn't match properly with wages, it is. It is no longer generally realistic for one parent to stay home and care for children because of the economy. That makes child care the responsibility of the government one way or another, unless the government's position is that everyone should stop breeding. Hey, maybe the government should start enforcing vasectomies and tubal ligations. Then child care wouldn't be such an issue.
    I agree with that. I just don't agree with universal childcare for everyone. My previous comment was requirements designed to support single moms. Single mom wouldn't be the requirement, but in most cases 2 working parents wouldn't qualify.
    In an ideal world the father would be covering half the cost, including childcare. If the mom sacrificed her career for the kids or marriage she'd entitled to alimony as well. But I realize that doesn't always happen, and it seems like it is too easy for deadbeat dads to fall behind. I think it should be tougher for those dads to fall behind and hold them accountable too.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,543
    edited March 13
    mace1229 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mace1229 said:

    Never said it couldn't work, I just don't see it as the responsibility of the government to find a way to take care of my kids.

    When the cost of living doesn't match properly with wages, it is. It is no longer generally realistic for one parent to stay home and care for children because of the economy. That makes child care the responsibility of the government one way or another, unless the government's position is that everyone should stop breeding. Hey, maybe the government should start enforcing vasectomies and tubal ligations. Then child care wouldn't be such an issue.
    I agree with that. I just don't agree with universal childcare for everyone. My previous comment was requirements designed to support single moms. Single mom wouldn't be the requirement, but in most cases 2 working parents wouldn't qualify.
    In an ideal world the father would be covering half the cost, including childcare. If the mom sacrificed her career for the kids or marriage she'd entitled to alimony as well. But I realize that doesn't always happen, and it seems like it is too easy for deadbeat dads to fall behind. I think it should be tougher for those dads to fall behind and hold them accountable too.
    But single moms are far from the only ones struggling. Families where both parents are around often can't afford child care either, even when both parents are working. You say that in most cases 2 working parents wouldn't qualify. That is a problem unless you are cool with 2 working parents and their kids living on the poverty line. It is very often the case that 2 working parents together can't earn enough to both pay for child care and to maintain a household. It is often the case that pretty much 100% of one parent's wages would go to child care alone, which makes it completely worthless that they work at all. The reason both parents have to work is because 1 income doesn't even maintain a reasonable quality of life for a family BEFORE child care bills, let alone after. This is the whole problem, and yes, it is just that much worse for single parents.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,186
    PJ_Soul said:

    mace1229 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mace1229 said:

    Never said it couldn't work, I just don't see it as the responsibility of the government to find a way to take care of my kids.

    When the cost of living doesn't match properly with wages, it is. It is no longer generally realistic for one parent to stay home and care for children because of the economy. That makes child care the responsibility of the government one way or another, unless the government's position is that everyone should stop breeding. Hey, maybe the government should start enforcing vasectomies and tubal ligations. Then child care wouldn't be such an issue.
    I agree with that. I just don't agree with universal childcare for everyone. My previous comment was requirements designed to support single moms. Single mom wouldn't be the requirement, but in most cases 2 working parents wouldn't qualify.
    In an ideal world the father would be covering half the cost, including childcare. If the mom sacrificed her career for the kids or marriage she'd entitled to alimony as well. But I realize that doesn't always happen, and it seems like it is too easy for deadbeat dads to fall behind. I think it should be tougher for those dads to fall behind and hold them accountable too.
    But single moms are far from the only ones struggling. Families where both parents are around often can't afford child care either, even when both parents are working. You say that in most cases 2 working parents wouldn't qualify. That is a problem unless you are cool with 2 working parents and their kids living on the poverty line. It is very often the case that 2 working parents together can't earn enough to both pay for child care and to maintain a household. It is often the case that pretty much 100% of one parent's wages would go to child care alone, which makes it completely worthless that they work at all. The reason both parents have to work is because 1 income doesn't even maintain a reasonable quality of life for a family BEFORE child care bills, let alone after. This is the whole problem, and yes, it is just that much worse for single parents.
    Working full time at minimum wage would make about $1300 a month. Assuming both parents have a working schedule where they need full time childcare, it usually runs $500/month or less. So there shouldn't be a situation where the whole paycheck goes to childcare.
    Even if both parents, working fulltime at minimum wage they would be taking in over $2600/month. At that rate, they would pay almost no taxes (if any) and qualify for other assistance to help buy food and pay other bills. I'm not saying they'd have a lot of luxuries, but you could survive on that, especially with the government assistance that is out there for families in that situation.
    But if you disagree, then I would prefer to help improve their situation. I would rather see programs that offer trade schools, and childcare while enrolled into the trade school and for 3 months following the completion of the program. That way mom (or dad) has the opportunity to gain skills necessary to improve his job, and a lifetime of childcare wont be necessary.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,545
    PJ_Soul said:

    mace1229 said:

    Never said it couldn't work, I just don't see it as the responsibility of the government to find a way to take care of my kids.

    When the cost of living doesn't match properly with wages, it is. It is no longer generally realistic for one parent to stay home and care for children because of the economy. That makes child care the responsibility of the government one way or another, unless the government's position is that everyone should stop breeding. Hey, maybe the government should start enforcing vasectomies and tubal ligations. Then child care wouldn't be such an issue.
    It is designed to do that.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,543
    edited March 16
    mace1229 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mace1229 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    mace1229 said:

    Never said it couldn't work, I just don't see it as the responsibility of the government to find a way to take care of my kids.

    When the cost of living doesn't match properly with wages, it is. It is no longer generally realistic for one parent to stay home and care for children because of the economy. That makes child care the responsibility of the government one way or another, unless the government's position is that everyone should stop breeding. Hey, maybe the government should start enforcing vasectomies and tubal ligations. Then child care wouldn't be such an issue.
    I agree with that. I just don't agree with universal childcare for everyone. My previous comment was requirements designed to support single moms. Single mom wouldn't be the requirement, but in most cases 2 working parents wouldn't qualify.
    In an ideal world the father would be covering half the cost, including childcare. If the mom sacrificed her career for the kids or marriage she'd entitled to alimony as well. But I realize that doesn't always happen, and it seems like it is too easy for deadbeat dads to fall behind. I think it should be tougher for those dads to fall behind and hold them accountable too.
    But single moms are far from the only ones struggling. Families where both parents are around often can't afford child care either, even when both parents are working. You say that in most cases 2 working parents wouldn't qualify. That is a problem unless you are cool with 2 working parents and their kids living on the poverty line. It is very often the case that 2 working parents together can't earn enough to both pay for child care and to maintain a household. It is often the case that pretty much 100% of one parent's wages would go to child care alone, which makes it completely worthless that they work at all. The reason both parents have to work is because 1 income doesn't even maintain a reasonable quality of life for a family BEFORE child care bills, let alone after. This is the whole problem, and yes, it is just that much worse for single parents.
    Working full time at minimum wage would make about $1300 a month. Assuming both parents have a working schedule where they need full time childcare, it usually runs $500/month or less. So there shouldn't be a situation where the whole paycheck goes to childcare.
    Even if both parents, working fulltime at minimum wage they would be taking in over $2600/month. At that rate, they would pay almost no taxes (if any) and qualify for other assistance to help buy food and pay other bills. I'm not saying they'd have a lot of luxuries, but you could survive on that, especially with the government assistance that is out there for families in that situation.
    But if you disagree, then I would prefer to help improve their situation. I would rather see programs that offer trade schools, and childcare while enrolled into the trade school and for 3 months following the completion of the program. That way mom (or dad) has the opportunity to gain skills necessary to improve his job, and a lifetime of childcare wont be necessary.
    It is $1000 a month per child where I live.... But even in your utopia where child care is only $500/month per child, that is $1000 of $1300 per month. Let's say the other parent brings in $2000/month. So that is $2300/month for ALL expenses. Rent, food, clothes, bills, etc. That isn't anywhere near enough for a family to live on unless you are totally find with kids growing up in poverty, and the minimum wage parent is sacrificing all of their time with their own children for only $300/month to spend. At that point they may as well just stay home and care for the kids themselves, leaving the family to survive on $2000/month, which does indeed leave the children living in poverty.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,186
    When we looked into it last year it was about $500/month for daycare, and that's what just about all of my coworkers pay. Its not a Utopia world, its actually here in Colorado.
    A family living on minimum wage gets a lot of support from the government. They can likely qualify for section 8 housing where the government pays a large portion of their rent, get hundreds in food stamps a month.
    I never said they'd be living the luxury life. But it goes farther than you think.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,543
    edited March 16
    mace1229 said:

    When we looked into it last year it was about $500/month for daycare, and that's what just about all of my coworkers pay. Its not a Utopia world, its actually here in Colorado.
    A family living on minimum wage gets a lot of support from the government. They can likely qualify for section 8 housing where the government pays a large portion of their rent, get hundreds in food stamps a month.
    I never said they'd be living the luxury life. But it goes farther than you think.

    I didn't mean to say that you were wrong. I meant that it really is amazingly cheap where you live compared to where I live. Nevertheless, child care is a very well-proven financial burden for those with low wages, so I'm not sure if you're trying to deny that or what. In any case, I don't think they should be living in luxury either, but with your scenario the kids would indeed be living in poverty, and that is my point. The initial premise was that the economy is not set up for many families to thrive in American society because wages don't come close to matching cost of living. I'm not really sure how anyone could deny this, since that fact slaps most of us in the face each and every day that we spend living in our society.... Clearly social programs are not exactly keeping kids out of poverty in the US, even when there are two working parents who have to struggle to pay for child care. 21% of all American children live in poverty, and they aren't all being raised by single mothers. The American poverty line has been solidly determined to demonstrate that the needs of families are severely underestimated. The National Centre for Child Poverty has conducted extensive research and it turns out that the poverty line set by government underestimates that need by half. Given that stat, and lot more than 21% of American children are actually living in poverty, but the government set the bar so low to keep the poverty numbers down, in part to protect their stance on child care funding and to keep the amounts on other welfare programs low.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,186
    A family of 4 where I live will qualify for WIC, a program that provides money to buy essentials to low income families, if they earn less than about 40k/year for a family of 4. Two parents in your scenario will qualify for quite a bit.
    Its a little skewed because they only look at gross pay. Someone who has an employer who pays very little towards benefits and gets a larger chunk taken out wont be qualified, but someone else with the same net pay who has a smaller paycheck but employer does contribute more towards benefits would qualify, even though their net pay is the same after benefits.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,543
    edited March 16
    mace1229 said:

    A family of 4 where I live will qualify for WIC, a program that provides money to buy essentials to low income families, if they earn less than about 40k/year for a family of 4. Two parents in your scenario will qualify for quite a bit.
    Its a little skewed because they only look at gross pay. Someone who has an employer who pays very little towards benefits and gets a larger chunk taken out wont be qualified, but someone else with the same net pay who has a smaller paycheck but employer does contribute more towards benefits would qualify, even though their net pay is the same after benefits.

    Yeah, it's always easy to make it seem on paper that people are all provided for. But you live in reality just like me. I'm sure you must recognize that social programs don't keep a huge number of Americans out of poverty, and I'm not talking about drunks and addicts and lazy people. As I said, these amounts afforded families are based on a poverty line that sorely underestimates the needs of families, so I'm not sure how you figure from that that those programs are adequate.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,186
    I figure because in some cases families living on assistance actually make more than me once you factor in the benefits they receive. I'm a public employee where we have had a pay freeze more years than not with increasing health costs that are approaching $800/month just for my employee contribution. With the addition of a second child we almost qualify for WIC. If my gross pay was $200/month less I would. But someone who makes just a little less than me is going to pay very little in health benefits because that would be subsidized, qualify for WIC and get a large portion of their groceries paid for, possibly qualify for reduced housing, get a subsidized cell phone and plan. Pretty soon it'll be subsidized cable and HBO so they can watch Game of Thrones with everyone else. I don't think we need to add free childcare on top of that in most cases. I'm sure there are exceptions.
    We've had to cut back on spending, find creative ways to afford a fun lifestyle, but we make it work.
    I'm not against assistance.
    The problem I see is too often people begin to rely on it, and never improve their situation. Of course not all, but still too many. I saw it with unemployment, when you give 2 years of unemployment it suddenly took 23 months for people to find a job. There are lots of people who work hard every day and only make it with the help from government, and there are lots who realize they can make it with what is given to them and never try to improve. And for many they just don't have the opportunity to improve. The problem is these programs don't offer any incentive or pathway for them to improve.
    If we should provide childcare, then make it a short term program for 18 months. Enroll in a community college which is very cheap (and subsidize that even, my year of community college was cheaper than a month of childcare). So that in 18 months of working your butt off and many sleepless night you at least have an education or a trade skill to get the better job. That to me sounds much better than the current system where many stay at the same level of poverty for years.
    Just something to help improve their life, not just sustain the minimum required to live in this country. But what do you expect when the subsidies the government offers have no deadline, and only increase with the more kids you have and the less you make?
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,543
    Why should people working FULL TIME JOBS live in poverty at all? We're talking about employed people here, remember?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,186
    That's why I said provide opportunities to rise out of poverty. The current system of handouts clearly doesn't do that.
    Employed people can go to school, I did. Sure, there are obstacles, but like I said instead of just indefinitely increasing handouts, use that money and effort to create programs. Programs like night school for working moms and provide childcare. Place a term limit on the programs so there's an incentive to finish, get a degree or skill, and not work for $8/hr anymore.
    I never said it was easy, but getting a degree usually isn't. I still think its better than just increasing the handouts and allowing their situation to never improve.
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,536
    .
    PJ_Soul said:

    Why should people working FULL TIME JOBS live in poverty at all? We're talking about employed people here, remember?

    What is full time? Does that mean anything anymore?

    ..32, 40, 50 hours a week, depending...

    Is it better to have 1/2 the population working 40 hours a week? Or to have the entire population working 20 hours a week?
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,543
    CM189191 said:

    .

    PJ_Soul said:

    Why should people working FULL TIME JOBS live in poverty at all? We're talking about employed people here, remember?

    What is full time? Does that mean anything anymore?

    ..32, 40, 50 hours a week, depending...

    Is it better to have 1/2 the population working 40 hours a week? Or to have the entire population working 20 hours a week?
    Full time is 35 hours or more per week.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,536
    PJ_Soul said:

    CM189191 said:

    .

    PJ_Soul said:

    Why should people working FULL TIME JOBS live in poverty at all? We're talking about employed people here, remember?

    What is full time? Does that mean anything anymore?

    ..32, 40, 50 hours a week, depending...

    Is it better to have 1/2 the population working 40 hours a week? Or to have the entire population working 20 hours a week?
    Full time is 35 hours or more per week.
    says who? why not 25 hours a week?
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,543
    edited March 20
    CM189191 said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    CM189191 said:

    .

    PJ_Soul said:

    Why should people working FULL TIME JOBS live in poverty at all? We're talking about employed people here, remember?

    What is full time? Does that mean anything anymore?

    ..32, 40, 50 hours a week, depending...

    Is it better to have 1/2 the population working 40 hours a week? Or to have the entire population working 20 hours a week?
    Full time is 35 hours or more per week.
    says who? why not 25 hours a week?
    Well it's a legal definition, but I was mistaken in that it is 30+ hours a week and not 35. Anyway, it's not a subjective number.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
167891012»
Sign In or Register to comment.