|This is why I hate America.
||[Feb. 9th, 2007|01:03 pm]
Am I the only person who realizes the inherent paradox in this situation:|
A mother needs to make income so that she can support her child. In so this, she will almost certainly have to enter the public sector, which means leaving her child with a daycare provider of some sort. Now if the mother is working because she is poor, she may qualify for some sort of subsidized daycare option.
The longer the mother is out of the workforce post-partum, the more desperate her financial situation is going to become, so it is in her best interest to return to the workforce as soon as possible. Luckily, the subsidized daycare options offer childcare from 6 weeks upward. Unluckily, the waitlist for such options (in some places, the only affordable option) is upwards of 4-5 MONTHS. If you are lucky. Anecdotal accounts place it at more like 9 months to a year which, of course, begins at birth. So the earliest a woman can ACTUALLY get daycare if she is too poor to afford it (and thus too poor to stay at home and not work) is optimistically 4 months, realistically 9 months.
What the heck is that about? So even if you really WANT to work, you are forced into a situation where you basically can't if you can't already afford daycare. What's the incentive for a mother not to just say "what the heck, forget it" and draw welfare benefits (also barely enough to live on, but don't get me started).