"In war towns all over the United States
women are called upon to leave their homes and take jobs."
During World War II, nearly 1 in 3 American men went off to war.
And women were expected to take their place at work.
"They discovered that factory work is usually no more difficult than house work."
"Isn't this pretty hot for you?"
"Well I hear it gets kind of hot around a kitchen stove, too."
But the problem was...
who was going to watch Rosie the Riveter’s kids?
“When married women with small children have to take jobs
everything possible will be done to provide day-care for the children.”
For 50 cents a day, which would be about $8 now
mothers could leave their kids at a government-funded day care center.
Lunch was included.
America actually set up universal child care for working mothers.
Canada and other countries did too.
Around half a million American children attended these centers.
But when the war ended...
"Joy is unconfined."
...so did the daycare.
Families protested, calling for the centers to be permanent.
But the federal funding stopped in 1946.
And so the US missed that start
to begin a climb towards other child care policies.
Other countries didn’t.
Canada had the same protests.
And some provinces decided to keep their centers open.
That decision started them down a path
where it was easy to implement other government-run policies.
So, how did the US end up here?
Here are some of the richest countries in the world.
And here’s when each of them established a paid maternity leave policy.
And a universal child care policy.
And let’s throw in paid paternity leave for good measure.
In France, they’ve actually had some form of universal child care since the 1800s.
But formalized the system in 1945.
In Sweden, considered to have one of the best systems in the world,
they were the first ones to guarantee paid paternity leave.
And they’ve provided full child care for all children since 1985.
You’ll notice the US has none of these policies.
Technically there is a 12-week maternity leave policy.
It’s just not paid.
That’s up to your employer.
And a few states offer preschool and there are some child care programs
but they’re mostly for low-income families and far from universal.
Child care in the US right now is very fragmented
There are different programs that function for different purposes
and often work against each other.
Take a closer look at this chart.
After WWII was a popular time for these child care policies
but so was the 70s.
The early 70s were a time for women’s rights.
Equal employment laws had just passed.
Divorce laws were loosened.
And many countries established universal child care policies.
It almost happened in the US, too.
Almost.
What happened in 1971 is that
there was obviously a sense that we needed to do something about child care.
And Congress actually acted.
Both the House and Senate passed the Comprehensive Child Development Act.
This was a really extraordinary bill
because it would have provided a universal child care.
It would not have been stigmatized in the same way
that welfare programs would have been.
It would have been available to a much wider group of families.
But then President Richard Nixon vetoed it.
No one expected the veto.
It was a terrible shock.
His veto message said that this is going to create communal child care rearing.
It would Sovietize the American family.
That language was a response to criticism that he was going soft on communism
like by visiting China.
But really...
The right wing began to see this
as an encroachment because it could be used
potentially by white, middle-class families
in order to support women leaving the home and going out into the workforce.
They're not supposed to be working.
We do want to make, you know poor, black, and brown indigenous mothers
like those are the non-deserving kinds of mothers that shouldn't be on welfare.
They should be working.
Conservative Phyllis Schlafly led that opposition.
"Women whose husbands have left them or divorced them or whatever, have a very hard time."
"But when you look at these wives who
simply want a standard of living higher than their husband is producing
crying around that they want somebody else to pay for their daycare."
They were organizing against child care because it would take mothers out of the home.
Just as the European countries were starting their child care systems
we were shutting the door.
The day after Nixon vetoes the CDA
he signed into law a bill that created child care tax deductions
for middle class and affluent families.
This creates a two tiered system,
on one hand, you have these tax supports.
And then on the other hand, you get these much more stigmatized
direct supports for only low-income families.
Meanwhile these countries were able to follow a path from one universal policy to another.
Experts call this “path dependency.”
So for these countries, once they established one universal policy
creating others was fairly straightforward.
Where in the US, it’s been easier to design policies within the parameters
of the existing income-based programs
or tax breaks that Nixon founded.
He set a path where
any kind of federal child care policy would be as underfunded, stigmatized, as possible.
It's a system that reinforces and deepens inequalities of race, gender, and class.
It doesn't end up helping so many of our families.
But just because we’re on that path doesn’t mean we can’t change.
Just look at the United Kingdom.
From a birds eye view these, countries are following very similar paths.
Neither continued the day care centers after WWII.
Both had attempted child care policy in the 70s.
The UK’s failed attempt was actually led by conservative Margaret Thatcher.
But in the 90s, the UK actually shifted and established a universal pre-k program.
So, what changed?
It's framed as education, not welfare.
So those questions of deservingness
aren't applicable in the same way because it's education for all children.
It's part-time, it's not as generous, but I think that it is
an example of how you can readjust your priorities
and change direction.
The US had universal child care once.
And almost did again.
But with policy, it’s never really game over.