The entirely predictable consequences of minimum wage increases.
I am not sure why this is a concern. If you don’t want to pay the higher prices, the watch your own kid. Seems pretty simple. This is no different than the fact that my physician charging higher prices because the government restricts entry into medicine.
I think if they are responsible for small children they should be getting paid more than the minimum wage.
That aside, I agree with this 1000%:
"I feel the state needs to be helping a little more,” said Larson, “it would be nice if parents didn’t have to spend a majority of their paychecks for childcare.”
The state absolutely should step up.
I don’t understand how most people scrape by. If I went out and got a job that allowed any flexibility for part-time, chances are high it wouldn’t cover the costs of childcare, or it would mostly even out. It doesn’t make practical sense. Yet, if I looked for something more lucrative, I’m not convinced I could be there in the same way for my kid. It’s also surprising how much positive feedback I’ve recieved from people who wish they could stay home.
But yes, minimum wage increase by 2020 passed here. So I tell myself that I will be earning at least twelve dollars an hour by doing my own childcare.
It’s a concern if you’re a single parent working a job to support your children rather than relying on welfare.
The state doesn’t have any money other than what it can squeeze from taxpayers. How does a worker benefit if instead of paying more to his child care provider, he instead pays more in taxes to the state to give to his child care provider? All having the “state stepping up” does is to add another layer of overhead to the process.
The state raising our children - oh yeah, what could possibly go wrong with that :rolleyes:
On the other hand, it looks like it worked well in North Korea.
No, the parents should take responsibility for their child. Child care is a part of that.
I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I have enough trouble trying to pay for and take care of my own kids without being mandated to pay for someone else’s.
I don’t mind helping out with day care set up through the church or other charities. Doing what I can for those I know who ran into trouble, changing circumstances. But this idea that everyone’s choices in life need to be subsidized by the taxpayer (i.e. other folks) needs to end. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
How about the radical idea that the state spends a little money to promote marriage instead of destroying it? I am close to two families I saw this weekend. One is my niece and her husband who have six young children. The other is my neighbor who is a single mother who adopted three young children when her niece, the bio-mom, went to prison. Both mothers are registered nurses. Guess which family is under the greatest stress, financial and otherwise?
In this instance, what you have is parents trying to take responsibility for their children by providing appropriate child care and the state stepping in and setting up a barrier to them to do that.
The option many people take is to simply not have any children at all or if they find themselves with one ,some will simply have an abortion. This is a pro-life issue. To frame it any other way is nonsensical.
Many families can’t survive on one income and childcare can cost the same or more than one of the incomes. So it’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t. With subsidies the daycares can use a sliding scale. We have subsidized day care here in MA, you need to work 30 hours a week and your fee is based on you pay (the one I’m aware of is for low income people specifically). I have no idea why this is such a controversial idea around here.
As far as paying for other peoples children, rugged individualism is a lie. Human beings are relational beings. The Church teaches this and she has never stated that other people are not your problem, in fact She teaches the opposite. We are responsible for our neighbors. In my opinion, in this case it’s impossible for an individual to pay for other’s day care so it’s up to the state to handle it.
[INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God](“http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html”)
- Secondly, the creation accounts in Genesis make it clear that man is not created as an isolated individual: “God created mankind in his image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). God placed the first human beings in relation to one another, each with a partner of the other sex. The Bible affirms that man exists in relation with other persons, with God, with the world, and with himself. According to this conception, man is not an isolated individual but a person – an essentially relational being. Far from entailing a pure actualism that would deny its permanent ontological status, the fundamentally relational character of the imago Dei itself constitutes its ontological structure and the basis for its exercise of freedom and responsibility.
Where does it say in the Bible (or elsewhere) that the government is responsible for this?
Jesus said that if someone asks for your cloak, give him your coat as well. But I don’t recall Jesus saying “have the government use force to take other people’s coats, and give them to the needy…”
As an aside, I have a question. In terms of the economy of salvation, how much merit does one accrue by personally helping a person e.g. with their child care expenses…versus voting for everybody else to take care of somebody with child care expenses? I’d guess that the answer is that you get more merit if you do it yourself. If you have done much for them personally, bravo. If you have just voted for other people to do it…(no bravo).
I don’t think the Bible talks about it but the Church certainly has. I don’t remember where to look at the moment; I forget if I’m thinking of the Catechism or the Compendium. She teaches that the state has a role to play in helping the poor. You can’t have a global society and rely on private charity. It’s not enough.
I don’t believe we “merit” heaven as if God has a check list of good things and bad things that we’ve done. You either love or you don’t love.
I guess my point was that before we force others to help us with our charitable desires at the point of a government gun, we should do what we can ourselves. That is taught by the Church - subsidiarity.
And in the judgement of the nations, Christ doesn’t say “Good job voting to feed the poor, voting to give drink to the thirsty, etc.” He said “because YOU fed, gave drink, etc.”.
Do you think you have a personal responsibility for things like this, or is your responsibility limited to ensuring that “the government does it?”
2223 Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues. This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery - the preconditions of all true freedom. Parents should teach their children to subordinate the “material and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones.” Parents have a grave responsibility to give good example to their children. By knowing how to acknowledge their own failings to their children, parents will be better able to guide and correct them:
He who loves his son will not spare the rod. . . . He who disciplines his son will profit by him. Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
I think we also have an obligation to not be a burden to others, the Church does teach personal responsibility and that we are responsible for our choices.
Unfortunately a lot of the requirement to do this is driven by the breakdown of the family due to folks not abiding by or even agreeing with basic Christian values. The return of 'family valuesq and the respect for intact families and what they can bring won’t happen if we use the government to subsidize bad choices.
Charity, should be a choice, a gift that is given motivated by love for our fellow man not forced, and received with gratitude vice a perceived duty/entitlement from a government. Government providing charity alienates the receiver from the giver. The risk is they don’t see this as the sacrifice/gift it is from individuals when it is filtered through a faceless government.
True, a lot of that driven by folks keeping up with the Jone’s. It’s become a spiral, as there became more two income families, family income rose but they also drove housing prices up since they had more money to spend. As housing prices (and rent) spiraled up it forced more and more folks to go two income. What used to be a choice for a little additional income has become almost mandatory in some areas to afford a home.
Unfortunately, I’m a bit sour on this subject since I live in an area where I’ve been lectured by folks that they need help with child care while they have two cars bought in the last year which replaced cars less than 5 years old. (I’ve got a 2002 and a 2006 I’ve been fortunate enough to keep running)
It is a big deal…a sad big deal because poor people can never get ahead. It is basically impossible to succeed as a single parent on a limited income without extraordinary help from multiple sources of charity.
Poverty isn’t new but we can constantly look for new ways to further help those in need.
How many WIC employees does it take to hand out about $25 worth of food coupons to the poor once a month?
There needs to be a shaking and thinning of government employees. Government employees outnumber factory workers in the USA! Free up some of that money and plump up funds for people that really need it.
I think we are skimming the edge of becoming like Greece anyway.
baby sitting should be a labor of love, not a career.
I’m going to assume we both live in the Centennial State and I think people are going to be in for a shock as these increases kick in over the next 4 years. It is more than a 15% a year raise and most of the rest of us won’t be getting guaranteed raises like people will now have flipping burgers. The fact that it is in our state constitution is simply ridiculous, but it is what it is.
I’ve been in San Francisco that has a minimum wage of $13 per hour and it impacts the cost of everything. I think voters thought it would raise worker’s standard of living, but I doubt it will. It will just mean fewer minimum wage jobs available or retail rate hikes; likely both. Once you get out of the front range I think voters just killed many towns that were already struggling. I can’t see places in Limon, Burlington, or dozens of other places being able to absorb the labor cost increases. I am afraid to see how much this stalls Colorado’s economy over the next 5 years.