zlacker

>>toomuc+(OP)
I'm going to take the reverse position. I don't like this policy.

I think it would be much better to provide a one year paid stipend so that a parent can be home with the children during their tender years.

This entire structure is set up to keep the boss happy while a stranger raises your child during their most formative and vulnerable years.

>>declan+df
Worse. Not just a "stranger" but a subset of strangers running "real businesses".

I would rather my kid be raised by a) spouse b) grandparents c) no-habla cash only daycare (who are catering to customers who's average values are much closer to mine than an above the table business). Only after all those options are exhausted do I look toward a "real business".

So basically this is a subsidy of the 4th place option.

>>potato+Yo
> Worse. Not just a "stranger" but a subset of strangers running "real businesses".

Real businesses subject to real inspections and real assessments, you mean? With "strangers" who need to have qualifications and background checks?

To each their own of course but I'd prefer somewhere I know is actually judged to be a safe environment than some under the table option.

>>afavou+lq
The incentive alignment of a stay at home mom who's taking care of 10-15 kids (which is typically what these operations are) to add some extra income is way better than a "real" operation that's got one manager and some min-wage employees running around herding 15 kids each while simultaneously trying to keep the state off their back.

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect the former to have ADA compliant doors or hot water that meets state regulations but the "give a fuck factor" is just so, so, so much higher when someone is working out of their own home, one of their own kids is in the mix, the rest of them are kids of a friend or friend of a friend, etc, than it is when your kid is being looked after by some 20yo college kid who's doing this part time.