Or you could just admit parunting is an absolute failure

Advocating for "free" (taxpayer funded) afterschool programs for bratz. Because if we end up with "free" afterschool programs and "free" daycare then any brat is in the care of adults until 7-8 p.m. on weekdays, correct? I'm positive the brats are just going to be thrilled with the idea of extended school, where the work and bullying continues. Some of those kids are out waiting for a school bus at 6 a.m. or earlier in the morning and that means they will be gone from home for over 12 hours every weekday.

And oh wow Marcia...we pay an extra $1000 a month in property taxes to fund this BS. Renters watch their rent increase by more than 25% annually for the last five years to fund this BS. More people are becoming homeless because they can't afford to pay their increased bills required to finance more bratsitting. Retired people are being forced out of the area because they can't afford an additional $12K increase in their bills.

Administration nightmare: We all know that once they open the doors to this bullshit that there is no way they are going to all this trouble to do this for 1-2 hours each day. And how many people do you know of who would be willing to work a job where they are expected to babysit brats for 1-2 hours a day only? Guarantee the gubermint would figure out a way to make this at least a 4-hour gig if not bloat it out to an 8-hour gig. And who is going to pay for the revolving door of employees and the background checks required to be around brats? They already overwork teachers, so making them work a second (or third) shift isn't going to happen unless you want to see an even higher turnover rate. And let's not forget about those daycare aged brats, they could probably shoehorn them into this too.

You aren't going to find many quality adults willing to volunteer (volunteer: unpaid labor) to do this bullshit. Adults are either working, looking for a job or not working. The ones not working aren't going to want to spend time commuting to a no-pay gig for a couple of hours a day and being stuck in bad traffic potentially both ways. I guess they could force those in college for teaching to do this as intern work but I suspect it would backfire and lots of prospective teachers would change majors. Plus, this assumes there is a college nearby.

I've seen a huge push in the media to try to guilt adults into volunteering for at least the last 10 years and lots of adults also push the idea that decent people volunteer. If you replace the word volunteer with unpaid labor it becomes amusing: decent people do unpaid labor! Welp, all adults I know of do unpaid labor: running errands, cooking, cleaning, yard work, etc. So, I guess by that logic any adult who does unpaid labor is a decent person. So, if someone asks you what kind of volunteering you do: I run errands, do yardwork, cook, clean, etc.

I see all of this as parunts not wanting to deal with their bratz and looking for "free" babysitting so that they only have to interact with said brats early in the morning and then late in the evening. And I'd bet the after-school programs would be expected to feed the brats dinner too. And it just wouldn't be fair if the after-school programs didn't offer transportation both from the school to the facility and then from the facility to the parunts home/apartments.

Don't be surprised if these same parunts whine and expect to have the after-school program open on the weekends too.

So, parunts want to only parunt on the weekends? Fine, hire a nanny or over enroll your brat in extracurriculars. If a bunch of parunts want a service then I guarantee you there is an entrepreneur willing to provide said service as long as they are being paid fairly. The government isn't the fail-safe backup for services that entrepreneurs figure out through due diligence it won't be a profitable pursuit and abandon.

Kids will always struggle because there will always be a decent percentage of regretful parunts, parunts who are overwhelmed by life and parunts who neglect/abuse their brats. If money solved the problem there wouldn't be so many maladjusted kids/adults with rich parents. And even if a kid manages to have parents who are terrific there is a very high chance the kid will still end up with issues, because most of us have issues.

The only positive thing that could result from this is the possibility that there will be more retirement communities that do everything they can to discourage any residents that have kids by voting against schools, etc. and keeping property taxes at a sane level.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kids-are-struggling-why-isn-t-congress-scaling-what-works-to-help-them/ar-AA1j3jrw?ocid=msedgntphdr&cvid=4368add113a044fdbdbe40a86aa9f8ba&ei=124

Deal with the cost of living crisis by getting inflation under control, setting minimum wage appropriately, and setting caps on rent increases. Then everyone will have more discretionary income, and not be losing their homes or unable to heat them. Breeders can use their improved finances to pay for childcare, while the rest of us can use it for something else, like adding to our pensions.

When everyone is suffering, measures which only seek to benefit a segment of the population are nothing but discrimination against the rest of us.

Quote
yurble
Deal with the cost of living crisis by getting inflation under control, setting minimum wage appropriately, and setting caps on rent increases. Then everyone will have more discretionary income, and not be losing their homes or unable to heat them. Breeders can use their improved finances to pay for childcare, while the rest of us can use it for something else, like adding to our pensions.

When everyone is suffering, measures which only seek to benefit a segment of the population are nothing but discrimination against the rest of us.

This is brilliant. Everyone can win.

I'm not sure how these property companies have managed to get a monopoly but I lived it for years (2005-2010 and 2012-2013). I'd move into a place and within 2-3 years my rent would spike up by over 25% in one year. Yet on the website they'd offer a discount cheaper than my current rent to "new" renters. The only way I could take advantage of this deal was to move to another apartment and if it had a conglomerate property management company it would start over again. And they'd claim it was "market rate" which was funny because during the great recession my rent still went up by 25%+ in one year.

If you moved it would cost you around $2500 for a move. If you stayed in place it would be about the same increase. It would eat your raise (if you received one) plus lots of time and energy if you also moved. After a few years you may end up priced out of the apartment or area, so you'd be stuck at the apartment complex unless you want to move to a cheaper area that invariably had a much worse commute. For instance, if rent is $2300 you have to make at least that times three to rent, so if you earn less than $82,800 they won't rent to you. And $82,800 was more than what 50% of the people made in the area. And a large increase in rent isn't fair to high earners either, no one should have to pay these huge increases. Lots of high earners end up buying a house and in some cases they can't afford it because houses here start at around 1 million and it takes either one high income or two really good incomes to be able to afford this. I know lots of people who are house poor and any market downturn means they are upside down in their house.

I wrote to my state governor a year ago and never received any kind of response. Even though I no longer live it I see the monopoly and it can easily derail savings, retirement, etc. for someone who earns average/less than average for their local area and it is all to make some property management company owners very very wealthy.

After the great recession this started happening every year, so the price of rent would jump up every year. I got out of it after one year of renting. It is like running on a treadmill and never being able to save or get ahead because of the rent monopoly.

I think there are companies (not conglomerate property management companies with hundreds of properties in various states) that do not do this. It is to the point that knowing about the property company running your complex is much more important than where you live.

I would bet this is exactly what is happening in most mid-sized or large cities or suburbs. It isn't happening in depressed areas but those areas have their own set of problems.