Why Don't We Pay Stay at Home Parents?
Childcare cost are astronomical, and our current system isn't working. The solution is easier than many are willing to admit.
Thanks for being a subscriber to Let's Not Be Trash. If you’re new here, we (mostly me, Evan J. Mastronardi and Karina Maria Write about patriarchy, politics, race, culture, music, and ruminations. The goal is to discuss important issues in a digestible and relatable way because nobody wants to read a Ted Talk.
If you’re new, please consider subscribing. If you’re already on the list and have a few coins, consider upgrading to a paid subscriber. If you have commitment issues but want to contribute, you can buy me a coffee.
If you like my substack and want to discover other great writers, check out this directory from Marc Typo, The Cook-Out.
A couple of years ago, I had the pleasure and horror of working for an elected official. He was a council member. The job was difficult for many reasons, but I did great work, and it taught me a lot. We helped constituents apply for citizenship, saved people from illegal evictions, and pushed for more affordable housing opportunities when we could. But this was Brooklyn in 2013, the Barclays Center had just opened, and gentrification was coming on strong. I often felt more helpless than productive or successful.
One of the things you have to get used to as a low-level staffer for an elected official is the limits of your powers. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of opportunities to do good work or connect people to resources, but some problems are too big to solve with a phone call. The story I’m about to share is a perfect example of that. On a slow Thursday, a married couple came to our office looking for support. The wife had given birth to their son a couple of months ago, and she needed to return to work so they could afford their rent. The landlord of their building was raising their rent by an additional $300, and there was no way they could afford to stay with just the husband’s income.
After a couple of weeks of searching, she found a job, but there was one obstacle: childcare. She and her husband checked out a couple of daycares in the neighborhood, and the cheapest childcare they could find was for $900/week. The husband was making $45,000/year, and the job the wife found only paid $30,000. There was no way they could afford this and still pay their $1900 a month rent.
They came to our office looking for assistance to cover this expense. There was nothing I could do. She made too much money to qualify for childcare. Her only options were to not work and have half of the childcare covered by the city or keep the job and find creative ways to care for their child. She walked away without any clear answers, and I went through another constituent, frustrated with the way our system makes life unreasonably hard for regular people.
I’m a few years removed from that experience, and my politics have evolved. Back then, I didn’t like that we couldn’t help her, but I didn’t know what we could do. I thought it was just one of those problems that would never have a solution. That version of Stanley was wrong. The United States is one of, if not the wealthiest, nations in the world. We can do whatever the hell we want. Our challenges only exist because the people we have trusted with leadership are unwilling to do what is necessary and wise.
These same leaders are urging people to get back to work, meanwhile, millions of parents must find a way to do so without adequate childcare, and many would rather be home. If that’s the case, why not just pay stay-at-home parents?
Does this idea seem crazy? It shouldn’t; our current childcare system is costly and ineffective. According to a report from the national network, Childcare Aware, the average cost of childcare in the United States is over $10,000 a year. According to the Lending Tree, "Across the U.S., parents are seeing an average annual cost increase of 41% for center-based childcare providers, and spending an average of $14,117 annually, up from $9,977 pre-pandemic.” Parents are spending up to 20% of their income on childcare, and for what?
The American Recovery Act introduced the expanded childcare tax credit. Under it, qualifying families received monthly payments of up to $300 per child under 6 and up to $250 per child under 18. Families could claim the remaining money from the credit when they filed their tax returns for the year. While active, the program helped lift 3 million Americans out of poverty. Unfortunately, because of “Moderate Democrats” like Joe Manchin and newly minted independent, Kirsten Sinema, Democrats were unable to extend or improve this program. Instead, they were forced to let an effective policy expire while millions of families suffered.
What if we took the victories from the Childcare tax credit and expanded it? The concept is simple: if you have a child and are willing to commit to being a full-time stay-at-home parent, the federal government would pay you $35,000 per year or $2900 a month. That kind of additional income would be a game-changer for working families. The research is on our side; cash benefits for parents can dramatically cut child poverty. Just look at the UK. According to an article from Vox.com, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Labour Party introduced a universal benefit in the UK in 1999. The measure was part of a broader set of proposals to tackle child poverty, including tax credits, means-tested programs, a national minimum wage, a workers' tax credit, universal pre-K, expanded child care, and much longer parental leave. The result was that absolute poverty fell by more than half from 1999 to 2009.”
The UK isn’t the only place that provides generous cash benefits to parents; 11 of the wealthiest nations in the world do, and the results are fantastic. Unfortunately, in the U.S, families struggle to make ends meet, and parents are missing critical time with their children. If it’s clear that children need their parents, and that our current system isn’t working, what’s stopping us from doing something different?
The Trump Administration and its dysfunctional leadership style have made it hard to look towards the future. But if we want a world where everyone can strive, we must start envisioning what that looks like now. No matter who is in power, a world where we respect the time, energy, and effort it takes to raise children is a good place to be. Our current idea about what’s possible has reached its limit; it’s time to start imagining something better.
If there was one initiative I could pour all my energy into, it would be paying caregivers a monthly stipend. Whether you care for your own small children or elderly family members, I think we deserve to be paid. I love being a SAHM but the single income is hard to navigate with cost for food & living increasing at the same rate my spouses income increases. Hot take: if feminist movements could’ve pushed for domestic labor to be compensated for instead of women just working with men then we’d be better along in our society
I agree. I used to be a care provider. Unless the parent(s) really want to work, it is sad to keep paying care providers higher wages so parents can keep spending less time with their kids. Many individual care providers can't afford to work on lower wages, either. It is backwards in both directions, and a parent should be an equally eligible (and the most desirable) paid care provider since it's at the expense and in replacement of their other work opportunities. I agree it would still make the entire household (including kids) more stable participants in the economy/housing etc.