Date: Thu, 5 Oct 95 13:15:40 CST From: "jim blair" To: alt-politics-usa-misc@cs.utexas.edu, alt-politics-usa-republican@cs.utexas.edu, alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu, alt-politics-libertarian@cs.utexas.edu,philhas@captimes.madison.com Cc: BCc: Subject: The COST of CHILDCARE: too Much for the POOR?? Attached is a letter I sent to our local "progressive" newspaper, the Madison Capitol Times (TCT). It was in response to column presenting figures about how the working poor cannot afford child care: on average they make only $15,000 to $20,000 per year and must spend $5,000 to $7,000 of that for daycare. Therefore the federal government MUST pay for daycare. But the questions I ask are really a puzzle to me. If ANYONE out there knows the answer, please let me know. EDITOR: The letter "Funding child care vital to welfare reform" by Barbara Herrick in the Monday TCT raises some questions. Why is the same amount of money so much when paid FOR child care but so LITTLE when received by child care providers? She gives figures showing between one half and one third of the income of the working poor going to child care. Why don't more women stay home and care for their own kids plus a few of their neighbors? If she is correct, one would need to look after only two other kids to break even, or three others to be ahead. In fact that is the way child care operated when my kids were growing up: mothers in the area took care of the kids of those who worked, and were paid by the working mom. How did a problem that was handled within the neighborhood until a generation ago become a national crisis that can be solved only by politicians in Washington? AND: Subject: Re: False measurements in poverty - figment of capitalist deceit Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:12:09 -0600 From: Jim Blair To: northsider@bel1south.net Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics, alt.poverty, alt.walter-cronkite.poverty.poverty References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 northsider wrote: > > I also know that now it takes two incomes whereas, when I was a little > girl; a working class man could support a family decently on just his > income so she could stay home with the children which was much better > for the kids. > Hi, Now wait a minute. This whole feminist movement started because women back in the 1950's stayed home to raise the kids while the MAN of the house went to work. The wommen decided that the men had a good deal BECAUSE they had a "career", and they decided that they should be having them as well. Now, (after NOW!) you say that the women should stay home and raise the kids??? Explain that to Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. And "better for the kids"? Why says? Jerry Falwell? The problem is NOT due to a mother working: a recent Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty study found that having a mother who works actually helps children to stay in school and to do well in life. (they suggest she serves as a role model to provide a positive attitude towards work). See the book SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS: On the effects of Investments in Children by Barbara Wolfe and Robert Haveman on this point. Ted Compton : > > What age were the children they studied? Hi, ??? The study was of 1700 children over 21 years. They tracked the kids from birth through high school and beyond, so the question does not really have any meaning. They used criteria like how well the kids did in school, and the kind of job and income they had to measure the "success" of the kids. That was better for kids who had working mothers. I have ordered the book from our library, and hope to review it is some detail. I'll post the review and add it to my web page. One factor to consider: it is the wives of higher income men who are more likely to work. And it is the kids of higher income families that tend to do better in school and jobs. So a correlation between working mom and better outcome for the kids would not prove that the kids did better BECAUSE their mom had a job. Kids of similar socio-income status would need to be compared. But income goes up when mom works, so kids of FATHERS of equal income should be compared (or so I would think). But then maybe the higher FAMILY income (because of mom's job) is a factor in kids doing better?? Ted Compton wrote: > The phenomenon of women entering the workplace in large numbers is one > (but only one) of the factors contributing to the presently growing gap > between rich and poor. Hi, Yes, this is certainly a major factor in the widening gap between rich and poor in terms of family or household incomes. The wives of high income men are more likely to work, and to have higher income jobs, than the wives of low income men. The current policy to "correct" this "problem" is the marriage penality in the income tax. But of course the result (as in some European countries) will be a reduction in the number of couples who marry. In Sweden for example, about half of the couples who live together and have childred are not married. Their taxes are much lower that way. -- ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834 .