4 ms·

Even if subsidized, if there aren't providers it doesn't actually fix the problem. Here in WA we have the Fair Start act to provide subsidies, but where it gets

Even if subsidized, if there aren't providers it doesn't actually fix the problem. Here in WA we have the Fair Start act to provide subsidies, but where it gets weird now is... does government step in and also start state-funded care facilities to cover the gap? Or does government create incentives to bring more private care providers into the market? As you point out, there's also a question of whether we've created a kind of rent-seeking if only corporate entities can meet the regulatory standard rather than the bad old days when essentially any stay-at-home mom could take in a few kids.

ndriscoll 4y ago
I guess it's a matter of social networking, but I would think essentially any stay-at-home mom could still take in a few kids. It wouldn't even occur to me to check whether that's "allowed".
- hollywood_court 4y ago
  In addition to taking “in a few kids” they would also take on a great amount of liability and risk. I’m a stay at home dad or at least I was until my son started pre-k a few months ago. There’s no amount of money that would make me feel comfortable also taking care of someone else’s children in my home. Just not worth the trouble or the risk.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Yeah, I'd be leery of it even from friends and family, because nothing blows up like injury to children. Of course, the poorer people have no choice and make it work, but I'm certain they get "caught" now and then.
  - ndriscoll 4y ago
    Maybe I just think we still live in the 90s, but when I was growing up, I know my mom babysat, and I remember one of the neighbors regularly watching us. Liability probably worked about the same way back then, but I don't think anyone ever really asked or thought about it. I doubt anyone was licensed if that even existed. If one of us got hurt, we'd probably get in trouble for doing something we weren't supposed to. I guess I assume that if you have a rapport with a neighbor, you can trust that they won't be out to screw you if a kid gets hurt, but maybe that's naive. Or maybe my parents were just lax; I remember my grandparents let us ride around on a moped that could do ~35 mph when I was probably under 10, and we'd go wander around in a forest near their house, or me and the neighbor kids would go play in the desert near my house growing up when I was probably ~6. Probably never more than .5-1 miles away, but still pretty much only "supervised" by older kids.
    - hollywood_court 4y ago
      I don't plan on making any of the mistakes that my own mother made. At age 5, I was driving my BMX around Montgomery Co, Alabama with a single shot Remington .410 bungee strapped to the handle bars. I was a latch key kid from the day I started kindergarten. I was cooking for myself and dressing myself starting then as well. I won't allow my own child to experience any of that.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        Might depend on the kid. I had almost that much freedom, including unchecked access to firearms, and I absolutely fucking loved it and felt the freedom helped set me up for success as an adult. Other kids would be inside playing with mom and dad and I'd be "lets make a map of the whole fucking county by exploring everything." I feel like the future of my kid is mostly limited by ever more dystopian standards of CPS rather than the kind of freedom I'd like them to have.
        hollywood_court 4y ago
        Perhaps I lack perspective because my son is only 3.5 years old and it's hard to imagine him becoming that mature by 5. I'm lucky to be alive based on some of the dumb stuff I did as a kid. At age 6 I wasn't quite strong enough to saddle our horses by myself so I would just hop on my quarter horse every afternoon after school and ride her bareback. She threw me once because of a snake and I spent ~3 hours hanging upside down with my leg tangled in a barbed wire fence because my ma wasn't at home. The horse was just standing there staring at me the entire time while our 3 dogs took turns licking me in the face as blood dripped from my leg. I can't imagine my own son coming away from such a scenario unscathed, but maybe there is a good bit of development between 3.5 years and 6 years. I honestly don't know as this is our first child.
        notch656a 4y ago
        I'm not saying I'm going to hand my kid a horse and say good luck, nor that you should do so, but the downside of freedom is generally exactly what you say: that the potentiality for danger exists. More free kids probably means more dead kids. Get a bad dice roll and the kid is dead and now you're in jail for some form of neglect induced manslaughter. Get a good dice roll and the kid gets life experiences, confidence, and more ability to navigate the world. Don't roll the dice at all -- maybe the kid locks up and can't rise to the challenge later in life when they meet challenges that threaten their life. Life is a gamble. What I find ever more frustrating is the legislation and the child welfare organizations and courts increasingly take it out of the parents hands to determine what level of freedom and risk is appropriate for their children. I'm not sure there is any 'right' answer, but if there is a threshold I think we've long past moved beyond it towards the point of paranoia.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- poulsbohemian 4y ago
  In some states there are various regulatory hurdles - square footage, insurance, number of caregivers per kid, etc. Not to say that there aren't still under-the-table providers.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  That's exactly how it works in tax brackets that are out of sight out of mind to most here.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ndriscoll 4y ago

I guess it's a matter of social networking, but I would think essentially any stay-at-home mom could still take in a few kids. It wouldn't even occur to me to check whether that's "allowed".

hollywood_court 4y ago
In addition to taking “in a few kids” they would also take on a great amount of liability and risk. I’m a stay at home dad or at least I was until my son started pre-k a few months ago. There’s no amount of money that would make me feel comfortable also taking care of someone else’s children in my home. Just not worth the trouble or the risk.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Yeah, I'd be leery of it even from friends and family, because nothing blows up like injury to children. Of course, the poorer people have no choice and make it work, but I'm certain they get "caught" now and then.
- ndriscoll 4y ago
  Maybe I just think we still live in the 90s, but when I was growing up, I know my mom babysat, and I remember one of the neighbors regularly watching us. Liability probably worked about the same way back then, but I don't think anyone ever really asked or thought about it. I doubt anyone was licensed if that even existed. If one of us got hurt, we'd probably get in trouble for doing something we weren't supposed to. I guess I assume that if you have a rapport with a neighbor, you can trust that they won't be out to screw you if a kid gets hurt, but maybe that's naive. Or maybe my parents were just lax; I remember my grandparents let us ride around on a moped that could do ~35 mph when I was probably under 10, and we'd go wander around in a forest near their house, or me and the neighbor kids would go play in the desert near my house growing up when I was probably ~6. Probably never more than .5-1 miles away, but still pretty much only "supervised" by older kids.
  - hollywood_court 4y ago
    I don't plan on making any of the mistakes that my own mother made. At age 5, I was driving my BMX around Montgomery Co, Alabama with a single shot Remington .410 bungee strapped to the handle bars. I was a latch key kid from the day I started kindergarten. I was cooking for myself and dressing myself starting then as well. I won't allow my own child to experience any of that.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Might depend on the kid. I had almost that much freedom, including unchecked access to firearms, and I absolutely fucking loved it and felt the freedom helped set me up for success as an adult. Other kids would be inside playing with mom and dad and I'd be "lets make a map of the whole fucking county by exploring everything." I feel like the future of my kid is mostly limited by ever more dystopian standards of CPS rather than the kind of freedom I'd like them to have.
      - hollywood_court 4y ago
        Perhaps I lack perspective because my son is only 3.5 years old and it's hard to imagine him becoming that mature by 5. I'm lucky to be alive based on some of the dumb stuff I did as a kid. At age 6 I wasn't quite strong enough to saddle our horses by myself so I would just hop on my quarter horse every afternoon after school and ride her bareback. She threw me once because of a snake and I spent ~3 hours hanging upside down with my leg tangled in a barbed wire fence because my ma wasn't at home. The horse was just standing there staring at me the entire time while our 3 dogs took turns licking me in the face as blood dripped from my leg. I can't imagine my own son coming away from such a scenario unscathed, but maybe there is a good bit of development between 3.5 years and 6 years. I honestly don't know as this is our first child.
        notch656a 4y ago
        I'm not saying I'm going to hand my kid a horse and say good luck, nor that you should do so, but the downside of freedom is generally exactly what you say: that the potentiality for danger exists. More free kids probably means more dead kids. Get a bad dice roll and the kid is dead and now you're in jail for some form of neglect induced manslaughter. Get a good dice roll and the kid gets life experiences, confidence, and more ability to navigate the world. Don't roll the dice at all -- maybe the kid locks up and can't rise to the challenge later in life when they meet challenges that threaten their life. Life is a gamble. What I find ever more frustrating is the legislation and the child welfare organizations and courts increasingly take it out of the parents hands to determine what level of freedom and risk is appropriate for their children. I'm not sure there is any 'right' answer, but if there is a threshold I think we've long past moved beyond it towards the point of paranoia.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
poulsbohemian 4y ago
In some states there are various regulatory hurdles - square footage, insurance, number of caregivers per kid, etc. Not to say that there aren't still under-the-table providers.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
That's exactly how it works in tax brackets that are out of sight out of mind to most here.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]