for what? 1 bedroom studio? 3 bedroom house? is the only important thing your rent?

I was worried about the water freezing in the pipe causing it to freeze / expand / crack but I may be over thinking that problem.

​

It is all run off down the mountain, as well as water from my gutter discharge. I'm at the bottom of approx a 1mile long slope however there are multiple areas that are flat-ish along the way so I'm not getting the entire hills worth of water in my yard / across my driveway and patio.

​

I can put a Swale in, but in order get the water to go with the slope, and clear my driveway and outbuilding, It would have to be 50+ yards up away from my house, and wouldn't catch all the water

I'm mostly attempting to divert water way from flowing across my patio and driveway and around my yard. I'm hopeful it will work to just catch and divert the surface water... I just have no idea how deep I should be looking to bury the pipe to keep it from being damaged by the winter

It made Jesus cry... can't have Jesus crying now can we!

It gives them a pass to hire for less and retain others who are underpaid and unhappy. They don't need a recession to drive down employment costs, they just need to make people afraid to leave, and willing to accept less for the same job.

That is another society issue that was witnessed pretty heavily, but its part of the larger problem of how do we fully support parents / child care workers without destroying an industry that is essential (pre-k care), punish/lock people into a series of almost servitude to the gov't (reliance on welfare/subsidies), be fair to those who choose not to have kids..

​

in other countries, its generally a "the employer must eat the cost of it". In the US that would just result in a massive reduction in hires of women who may have children as they aren't going to pay 6 months+ of wages to a parent for doing nothing to help their bottom line

They have this already based on income, the income ranges should likely be increased thought

The average cost per child in pre-k daycare is about 750 - 850 a month - lets round it up to 1k a month https://tootris.com/edu/blog/parents/child-care-cost-15080-a-year-pennsylvania-heres-the-breakdown/

​

which breaks down to about 1k a month (12k / year) per child.

There must be (according to the law) no more then a 1:4 ratio of staff to children for infants, this increases to 1:5 for toddlers, and 1:6 for older toddlers... which means AT MOST, each staff person is bringing in 48k, 60k for toddlers, and 72k for Older toddlers in revenue a year caring for the very young. That is total income, assume that there needs to be a boss (who can fill in to cover days off / sick days etc), rent etc... the total income potential is terrible.

​

so what would you consider a "reasonable cap"? the "several thousand a month" is either very premier "private school" level, multiple kids, or in a very high COL like NYC or Seattle/San Fran

​

http://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/055/chapter3270/s3270.51.html&d=reduce

They are posting in a state forum with the first rule being "posts must be relevant to PA", recruiting people to go join non-pa subs is supposedly not supposed to be done, on a topic they have no idea what they are talking about, and trying to get people to join a call which isn't related to PA...

​

so no, she shouldn't be posting it in this forum without understanding how it in any way applies to PA unless it is specific to PA, according to the rules.

We did this before in the 80's/90's... the "Stipend to stay at home mothers" was called Welfare, they received preferential treatment in public / subsidized housing and vouchers, free food via WIC, monthly payments in cash, free medical coverage etc

​

It basically failed society because instead of empowering women to have skills and gain experiences that could be marketed, they more or less became dependent to remain low income (or lose housing) and have more children to increase income.

​

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a much better program then what we have now... but paying people to have kids and stay home historically has not worked well in the US

Just pointing out, this was done previously to a pretty sizeable extent under the public welfare system, in the 80s/90s. The problem is who gets the money? is it based on income or family size? number of children? location? how much is the right amount?

​

If its done wrong, we end up with a society problem of a heavy incentive to have more children to continue earning income while ensuring low on paper income, which means the parent must live in subsidized housing while ensuring no skill growth, no tax revenue, etc.

​

If its done right, its a huge increase in costs to tax payers as we pay a "living salary" to people who aren't in the work force, and very quickly falls back into the above.

​

The current choice isn't normally "I don't want to stay with my kid" its "I cannot afford it", even while making good money, so how much money would need to be paid out of the gov't budget to parents who want to stay home, and for how long? Do we just let them take an advance on their SS? New "Student Loans" that are gov't backed?....

How much would this stipend be?

To be fair, OP can't respond to this because they literally have no idea what they are doing or talking about.

​

I asked them what their proposal was, they don't have one. OP (based on post history) is just pissed because this issue suddenly impacts them in the last 2 - 3 months.

​

They want it free, everywhere, and high quality... and nfc how to do any of htat

they are in good faith as I've witnessed the industry first hand, we also got out of the industry specifically because the parents (almost always mothers) were terrible to deal with because they wanted exactly what you are demanding without any idea or plan or knowledge on how anything works.

​

Good luck, the industry needs to evolve, I look forward to your solutions!

so you want it to be cheaper, despite the vast majority being privately owned and setting their own prices, (which are typically way above what the gov't would pay)

​

Accessible but nobody wants to do the job for the same reason nobody wants to be a teacher (but for less money, more stress, less time off, limited benefits, and worse parents),

and you want it to be better quality, which means higher standards, which means more costs, which means less places offering the service

​

I'm curious how much do you believe 8+ hours of child care per day should cost?

​

my wife was a preschool teacher at 3 different locations, nanny, and public school teacher and we looked into opening our own. We absolutely need to address this issue, I'm just really curious what the solution is other then "Make it better, free, and everywhere"

I'm sorry, I don't think you answered my question, are the issues the income guidelines and everything else is good?

I'm not arguing against it being subsidized, I just don't understand what OP is trying to do, 100% coverage means the gov't will pay exactly X amount per child up to a certain point...

​

So are they trying to remove the current program and replace it, or just up the limit that people qualify for the subsidy at.

I was asking if their goal is to give free to everyone, or raise the limits on the existing offerings.

I'm confused... so you are asking for universal paid for day care for kids from birth?

I'm all about universal health care, especially for children, but there already IS paid for, or heavily subsidized child care, at least in PA. https://www.dhs.pa.gov/Services/Children/Pages/Child-Care-Works-Program.aspx

​

or are you asking for socialized services because people make too much for the program? The limits are 200% the federal poverty limit, or someone making up to ~17$ an hour.

Yeah kind of what I thought...

The PA Congress3 that actually makes laws has been republican controlled with like 2 exceptions since 1980.

Good call, lets go with the Republican leadership that has been in control of PA for 40 years... they are doing amazing...

as opposed to our state in general... are you really sure this is an argument you want to be having when you are trying to defend PA?

Have you been to Philly lately?

39,030,000 pop... down from 39,140,000... in the last year. PA went 13,010,000 down to 12,970,000

So PA lost more percentage in the last year then California... 110k vs 40k, but they have triple the pop.