A rise in US mortgage rates has lowered housing affordability to its lowest level in almost four decades. Holding out for a break is a high-stakes bet for those looking to get into the housing market. The property boom's price rises finally slowed last year, but house prices have recovered the roughly $3 trillion they lost. One indicator of borrowing costs has reached a level not seen in almost two decades, and the federal reserve has hinted it may raise rates further, boosting the likelihood of 8% mortgage rates.

Housing affordability hits worst point in 40 years

Sales of new U.S. single-family homes surged to the highest level in nearly 1-1/2 years in May, benefiting from a dearth of previously owned homes available for sale. 
New home sales jumped 12.2 per cent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 763,000 units last month, the highest level since February 2022, the Commerce Department said on Tuesday.

April's sales pace was revised down to 680,000 units from 
the previously reported 683,000. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast new home sales, which account for a small share of U.S. home sales, slipping to a rate of 675,000 units.

Sales shot up 20 per cent on a year-on-year basis in May. New home sales are counted at the signing of a contract, making them a leading indicator of the housing market. They, however, can be volatile on a month-to-month basis.&nbsp;

The housing market has likely found a floor and could be even improving. Data last week showed homebuilder confidence rising into positive territory in June for the first time in 11 months. Housing starts surged in May as supply remains tight, while home resales edged up.&nbsp;

Economists say the signs of revival in the housing market suggested the Federal Reserve would need to keep raising interest rates. The housing market has been the biggest causality of the US central bank's fastest rate hiking cycle since the 1980s. The Fed, which has raised its policy rate by 500 basis points since March 2022, has signalled two more rate increases this year to cool demand in the overall economy.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/is-trouble-brewing-in-the-us-housing-markets-565042">Also read |&nbsp;Is trouble brewing in the US housing markets?</a>

The increase in sales last month was despite mortgage rates resuming their upward trend. The average rate on the popular 30-year fixed mortgage was higher in May relative to April, rising to 6.57 per cent by the last week of the month, according to data from mortgage finance agency Freddie Mac. New home sales posted double-digit growth in the Northeast, South and West. They rose 4.1 per cent in the Midwest.

The median new house price in May was $416,300, a 7.6 per cent drop from a year ago. There were 428,000 new homes on the market at the end of last month, down from 432,000 in April. At May's sales pace, it would take 6.7 months to clear the supply of houses on the market, down from 7.6 months in April.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Sales of new U.S. single-family homes surged to the highest level in nearly 1-1/2 years in May, benefiting from a dearth of previously owned homes available for sale.

Sales of new U.S. single-family homes surged to the highest level in nearly 1-1/2 years in May, benefiting from a dearth of previously owned homes available for sale. New home sales jumped 12.2 per cent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 763,000 units last month, the highest level since February 2022, the Commerce Department said on Tuesday. April's sales pace was revised down to 680,000 units from the previously reported 683,000. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast new home sales, which account for a small share of U.S. home sales, slipping to a rate of 675,000 units. Sales shot up 20 per cent on a year-on-year basis in May. New home sales are counted at the signing of a contract, making them a leading indicator of the housing market. They, however, can be volatile on a month-to-month basis. The housing market has likely found a floor and could be even improving. Data last week showed homebuilder confidence rising into positive territory in June for the first time in 11 months. Housing starts surged in May as supply remains tight, while home resales edged up. Economists say the signs of revival in the housing market suggested the Federal Reserve would need to keep raising interest rates. The housing market has been the biggest causality of the US central bank's fastest rate hiking cycle since the 1980s. The Fed, which has raised its policy rate by 500 basis points since March 2022, has signalled two more rate increases this year to cool demand in the overall economy. Also read | Is trouble brewing in the US housing markets? The increase in sales last month was despite mortgage rates resuming their upward trend. The average rate on the popular 30-year fixed mortgage was higher in May relative to April, rising to 6.57 per cent by the last week of the month, according to data from mortgage finance agency Freddie Mac. New home sales posted double-digit growth in the Northeast, South and West. They rose 4.1 per cent in the Midwest. The median new house price in May was $416,300, a 7.6 per cent drop from a year ago. There were 428,000 new homes on the market at the end of last month, down from 432,000 in April. At May's sales pace, it would take 6.7 months to clear the supply of houses on the market, down from 7.6 months in April. WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

US new home sales jump in May; median house price falls

Hong Kong 's central bank plans to test the use of its digital currency under a pilot project in its HK$1.8 trillion ($229 billion) mortgage market, with an aim to slash a month-long loan approval process by half, according to the pilot participants.

The test comes amid fierce competition among banks to attract mortgage customers in the world's least affordable housing market, with some lenders even handing out hefty cash rebates to draw in clients.

Here's a look at how the digital currency, e-HK dollar (e-HKD), can be potentially used in the mortgage business:

<h2>What is the e-HKD pilot programme?</h2>

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) kicked off the e-HKD pilot programme in May under which 16 firms were selected to examine the digital currency's use across 14 projects.

Two of the pilot participants, Fubon Bank (Hong Kong) and blockchain solutions provider Ripple, will examine the e-HKD's use in residential mortgage loans, which accounted for a-fifth of the banking sector's loan book in April.

<h2>How will the pilot test e-HKD's use in mortgages?</h2>

The pilot project will look at potentially giving e-HKD loans to homebuyers in an e-wallet, both online and offline, the pilot participants said.

At the core of the project are property title deeds, which are collateral backing banks' mortgages.

The project aims to turn deed records into digital tokens on the blockchain, helping keep a single source of truth about the deed which is integrated into the loan approval process.

Currently information on the title deed is first collected from the customer and then checked against a separate property title deed register.

Ripple said in an email it expects the use of the e-HKD to remove the need for a substantial amount of work currently performed by lawyers.

<h2>How will e-HKD reduce loan approval time?</h2>

In Hong Kong, it often takes a month, sometimes more, for a borrower to be able to start drawing down loan from the time of application. The pilot aims to reduce this wait by half.

Under the proposed use of the e-HKD in the mortgage market, when conditions such as loan-to-value ratio and the property value are met on the bank's digital platform, the e-HKD loan will be automatically released as the title deed would already be secured on the blockchain, the participants said.

Fubon said it expects the technology can be used in both new loan applications and mortgage top-ups.

<h2>What are the benefits of a digital ownership record?</h2>

Traditionally, banks inspect the ownership record of a property to rule out any pending issues and confirm there are no impediments to transfer before issuing a loan. These processes involve law firms and records stored at the Land Registry.

By storing title deeds on the blockchain, it removes the need for checks and reconciliation across separate systems.

<h2>What is the next step for e-HKD?</h2>

The HKMA has not decided on the official launch date of the e-HKD. All pilot participants need to present their project findings to the HKMA by September.

Hong Kong 's central bank plans to test the use of its digital currency under a pilot project in its HK$1.8 trillion ($229 billion) mortgage market, with an aim to slash a month-long loan approval process by half, according to the pilot participants.

Hong Kong 's central bank plans to test the use of its digital currency under a pilot project in its HK$1.8 trillion ($229 billion) mortgage market, with an aim to slash a month-long loan approval process by half, according to the pilot participants. The test comes amid fierce competition among banks to attract mortgage customers in the world's least affordable housing market, with some lenders even handing out hefty cash rebates to draw in clients. Here's a look at how the digital currency, e-HK dollar (e-HKD), can be potentially used in the mortgage business: What is the e-HKD pilot programme? The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) kicked off the e-HKD pilot programme in May under which 16 firms were selected to examine the digital currency's use across 14 projects. Two of the pilot participants, Fubon Bank (Hong Kong) and blockchain solutions provider Ripple, will examine the e-HKD's use in residential mortgage loans, which accounted for a-fifth of the banking sector's loan book in April. How will the pilot test e-HKD's use in mortgages? The pilot project will look at potentially giving e-HKD loans to homebuyers in an e-wallet, both online and offline, the pilot participants said. At the core of the project are property title deeds, which are collateral backing banks' mortgages. The project aims to turn deed records into digital tokens on the blockchain, helping keep a single source of truth about the deed which is integrated into the loan approval process. Currently information on the title deed is first collected from the customer and then checked against a separate property title deed register. Ripple said in an email it expects the use of the e-HKD to remove the need for a substantial amount of work currently performed by lawyers. How will e-HKD reduce loan approval time? In Hong Kong, it often takes a month, sometimes more, for a borrower to be able to start drawing down loan from the time of application. The pilot aims to reduce this wait by half. Under the proposed use of the e-HKD in the mortgage market, when conditions such as loan-to-value ratio and the property value are met on the bank's digital platform, the e-HKD loan will be automatically released as the title deed would already be secured on the blockchain, the participants said. Fubon said it expects the technology can be used in both new loan applications and mortgage top-ups. What are the benefits of a digital ownership record? Traditionally, banks inspect the ownership record of a property to rule out any pending issues and confirm there are no impediments to transfer before issuing a loan. These processes involve law firms and records stored at the Land Registry. By storing title deeds on the blockchain, it removes the need for checks and reconciliation across separate systems. What is the next step for e-HKD? The HKMA has not decided on the official launch date of the e-HKD. All pilot participants need to present their project findings to the HKMA by September.

Explainer: How Hong Kong plans to test its digital dollar in $229 billion mortgage market

To understand the problems Democrats hope to solve with their supersized plan to make child care better and more affordable, consider the small Southern city of Greensboro, North Carolina, where many parents spend more for care than they do for mortgages, yet teachers get paid like fast-food workers and centers cannot hire enough staff.

With its white pillars and soaring steeple, the Friendly Avenue Baptist Church evokes an illusory past when fathers left for work, mothers stayed home to mother, and education began when children turned 5. But its sought-after preschool illuminates the dilemmas of modern family life.

Until their elder son started kindergarten this fall, Jessica and Matt Lolley paid almost $2,000 a month for their two boys’ care — roughly one-third of their income and far more than their payments on their three-bedroom house. But one of the teachers who watched the boys earns so little — $10 an hour — that she spends half her time working at Starbucks, where the pay is 50% higher and includes health insurance.

The center’s director wants to raise wages but has little room to pass along costs to parents who are already stretched. She has been trying since February to replace a teacher who quit without warning; four applicants accepted the job in turn, but none showed up.

“I’ve been an administrator for 30 years, and I’ve never seen anything like this,” said the director, Sandy Johnson. “Directors are at the point where they’re willing to hire anyone who walks through the door. The children deserve far more than that, and the families deserve far more than that.”

Democrats describe the problem as a fundamental market failure — it simply costs more to provide care than many families can afford — and are pushing an unusually ambitious plan to bridge the gap with federal subsidies.

The huge social policy bill being pushed by President Joe Biden would cap families’ child care expenses at 7% of their income, offer large subsidies to child care centers and require the centers to raise wages in hopes of improving teacher quality. A version before the House would cost $250 billion over a decade and raise annual spending fivefold or more within a few years. An additional $200 billion would provide universal prekindergarten.

“This would be the biggest investment in the history of child care,” said Stephanie Schmit, an analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy, a research group that supports the measure. “For too long, parents have had to struggle with the high cost of care, while child care providers have been incredibly undervalued and underpaid. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do right for everyone.”

Prospects remain uncertain for the broader bill, which includes new educational, health care and child-rearing subsidies. Some Democrats balked at Biden’s request for $3.5 trillion over 10 years and proposed a figure closer to $2 trillion.

Republicans strongly oppose the safety-net expansion, saying that it is unaffordable and smacks of socialism, and some conservatives warn the child care provisions would inflate costs, impose burdensome regulations and penalize parents who prefer informal care.

As Democrats describe it, child care is an issue not just of family finance but of macroeconomics (parents need it to join the workforce); brain development (much of which happens before children start school); and racial equity (the low-paid workforce is disproportionately composed of minorities).

In Greensboro, parents know little about the Democrats’ plan but much about child care costs, which can cause them to reconfigure work hours, postpone the purchase of cars and appliances or have fewer children than they desire.

“We had no idea child care was going to cost this much,’’ said Jessica Lolley, who works in human resources for the public school system and whose husband sells plumbing fixtures at Lowe’s. “There’s no way we could afford to have another child.”

Greensboro has been a hub of child care advocacy since at least the early 1990s, when local organizers helped lead a national campaign called Worthy Wages, which sought to raise pay and improve working conditions. The state government is also known as a leader. It offers scholarships to child care workers who want more education and runs two wage subsidy programs, which together reach about 1 in 8 child care workers and provide average bonuses of roughly $2,400 a year.

Still, the problems of high costs and low wages remain.

“Much of what North Carolina has done is terrific, but it’s going to take the resources of the federal government to make change on the scale we need,” said Rosemarie Vardell, a retired professor who helped lead the Worthy Wages campaign.

The Treasury Department reported last month that the average cost of care is roughly $10,000 a year per child and consumes about 13% of family income, nearly twice what the government considers affordable. At the same time, it noted the average teacher earns about $24,000 a year, many live in poverty, and nearly half receive some public assistance.

“It’s among the lowest-paid of all occupations,” said Lea J.E. Austin of the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. “People have a hard time seeing that this is complex, specialized work.”

The coronavirus pandemic has made the problem worse. Competing employers have raised pay, and some teachers are afraid to supervise children who cannot be vaccinated or masked. Nationally, the workforce has declined by about 12% from pre-pandemic levels.

“Everyone I know has significantly increased entry-level pay, and we’re not close to being able to fill positions,” Johnson, the Friendly Avenue director, said on a recent call with other Greensboro administrators.

“Ditto!” said Donna Danzy, who runs two highly rated centers. “There are dwindling numbers of people interested in doing this kind of work. They are not seeing the joy.”

“There are really great centers who have had to close,” said another director, Devon Walton. “We have a waiting list a mile long.”

Although center directors say they cannot hire, teachers say they cannot pay their bills. Earning $10 an hour at the Little Leaders Learning Academy, Uvika Joseph, a single mother, got food stamps and Medicaid for her three children. She just left to become an assistant in the public schools, where she expects to earn nearly twice as much and will receive health insurance.

“The only reason I am leaving is the pay,” she said. “I love the kids.”

To make ends meet, Rashelle Myers, who has an associate degree in early childhood education, splits a 60-hour workweek between the Friendly Avenue center and Starbucks. She called the Democrats’ plan to raise wages “amazing” and overdue.

“I make $10 an hour to shape the future of children but make $15 an hour to hand someone a cup of coffee,” she said. “That doesn’t make sense.”

Low pay leads to high turnover, which the Treasury Department said was at least 26% a year. April Harden Crocker, a Friendly Avenue teacher, has taught for nearly three decades — “it’s my passion, it’s my heart, I just have to do it” — but she warned that employee churn harms care.

“Babies don’t like strangers’ faces. If you keep bringing new people in, they get really upset,” she said. “If the pay was better we would get more devoted people.”

Child care is expensive because it is labor-intensive. Many centers spend half or more of their budget on wages, so raising pay has a major financial impact. Under the Democrats’ plan, the federal government would cover all new costs for the first three years, but states would then pay 10%.

How much Democrats would raise pay remains unclear. The House bill says child care workers should receive a “living wage,” which it does not define, but also says they should be paid the same as elementary educators with the same credentials, a different standard.

Other uncertainties remain. Biden proposed subsidies for about three-quarters of households, excluding the most affluent. But the House version covers everyone.

Beyond legislative detail, progressives are seeking a paradigm shift. They see child care much like public education: a service on which society depends and therefore should ensure.

“It’s a public good and should be treated that way,” said Julie Kashen, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation. “The shared stake in seeing children thrive doesn’t suddenly begin when they turn 5.”

Conservatives fear government intrusion into the family realm. Rachel Greszler, an analyst with the Heritage Foundation, recently warned Congress that the measure would increase costs and drive small centers out of business, especially those based in homes and churches. She also said the policy would penalize parents who stay at home, taxing them to expand center-based care and ignoring the “tremendous personal and societal value” of full-time child-rearing.

Lolley said she thought about staying at home after having a second child but needed the health insurance that came with her job.

“Oh, my God, it was terrible,” she said of the cost, more than $20,000 a year, of having two children in care. She hung on with significant help from her parents, knowing that “we wouldn’t have a kid in day care forever.”

Most Greensboro parents, asked about the bill, agreed that the problem it tackles is serious, but their views of federal help varied.

“I’d love for this to pass,” said Melissa Robertson, a freight broker, after hearing a summary of the legislation. She and her wife said their two children are thriving at the Wishview Children’s Center, but it costs twice as much as their mortgage, and a shortage of infant care causes Robertson to work from home several days a week.

“It can be kind of difficult when you’ve got a screaming baby in the background,” she said. “Sometimes clients are like, ‘Oh, can’t you get them into child care?’” With two working parents as the norm, she said, “we should be able to provide child care.”

But another Wishview parent, Jamie Pritchard, had reservations. She and her husband, Matt, who work at the same insurance firm, have three children in care and pay about $34,000 a year. “Basically, my paycheck goes to pay for child care,” she said.

Still, she warned subsidies could lead to higher taxes. “If we were not financially stable, we would be all for that,” she said. “But I always think that if we’re getting help, the money has to come from somewhere.”

Lolley knew nothing of the plan until a reporter described it, and she reacted with enthusiasm tinged with concern. She praised the potential financial relief and the “wonderful” help for teachers, whom she called devoted and “very underpaid.”

But she also noted that federal money often brings federal rules.

“If it would make things worse for the school in any way,” she said, “I personally would rather stretch to keep paying the bills.”

To understand the problems Democrats hope to solve with their supersized plan to make child care better and more affordable, consider the small Southern city of Greensboro, North Carolina, where many parents spend more for care than they do for mortgages, yet teachers get paid like fast-food workers and centers cannot hire enough staff.

To understand the problems Democrats hope to solve with their supersized plan to make child care better and more affordable, consider the small Southern city of Greensboro, North Carolina, where many parents spend more for care than they do for mortgages, yet teachers get paid like fast-food workers and centers cannot hire enough staff. With its white pillars and soaring steeple, the Friendly Avenue Baptist Church evokes an illusory past when fathers left for work, mothers stayed home to mother, and education began when children turned 5. But its sought-after preschool illuminates the dilemmas of modern family life. Until their elder son started kindergarten this fall, Jessica and Matt Lolley paid almost $2,000 a month for their two boys’ care — roughly one-third of their income and far more than their payments on their three-bedroom house. But one of the teachers who watched the boys earns so little — $10 an hour — that she spends half her time working at Starbucks, where the pay is 50% higher and includes health insurance. The center’s director wants to raise wages but has little room to pass along costs to parents who are already stretched. She has been trying since February to replace a teacher who quit without warning; four applicants accepted the job in turn, but none showed up. “I’ve been an administrator for 30 years, and I’ve never seen anything like this,” said the director, Sandy Johnson. “Directors are at the point where they’re willing to hire anyone who walks through the door. The children deserve far more than that, and the families deserve far more than that.” Democrats describe the problem as a fundamental market failure — it simply costs more to provide care than many families can afford — and are pushing an unusually ambitious plan to bridge the gap with federal subsidies. The huge social policy bill being pushed by President Joe Biden would cap families’ child care expenses at 7% of their income, offer large subsidies to child care centers and require the centers to raise wages in hopes of improving teacher quality. A version before the House would cost $250 billion over a decade and raise annual spending fivefold or more within a few years. An additional $200 billion would provide universal prekindergarten. “This would be the biggest investment in the history of child care,” said Stephanie Schmit, an analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy, a research group that supports the measure. “For too long, parents have had to struggle with the high cost of care, while child care providers have been incredibly undervalued and underpaid. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do right for everyone.” Prospects remain uncertain for the broader bill, which includes new educational, health care and child-rearing subsidies. Some Democrats balked at Biden’s request for $3.5 trillion over 10 years and proposed a figure closer to $2 trillion. Republicans strongly oppose the safety-net expansion, saying that it is unaffordable and smacks of socialism, and some conservatives warn the child care provisions would inflate costs, impose burdensome regulations and penalize parents who prefer informal care. As Democrats describe it, child care is an issue not just of family finance but of macroeconomics (parents need it to join the workforce); brain development (much of which happens before children start school); and racial equity (the low-paid workforce is disproportionately composed of minorities). In Greensboro, parents know little about the Democrats’ plan but much about child care costs, which can cause them to reconfigure work hours, postpone the purchase of cars and appliances or have fewer children than they desire. “We had no idea child care was going to cost this much,’’ said Jessica Lolley, who works in human resources for the public school system and whose husband sells plumbing fixtures at Lowe’s. “There’s no way we could afford to have another child.” Greensboro has been a hub of child care advocacy since at least the early 1990s, when local organizers helped lead a national campaign called Worthy Wages, which sought to raise pay and improve working conditions. The state government is also known as a leader. It offers scholarships to child care workers who want more education and runs two wage subsidy programs, which together reach about 1 in 8 child care workers and provide average bonuses of roughly $2,400 a year. Still, the problems of high costs and low wages remain. “Much of what North Carolina has done is terrific, but it’s going to take the resources of the federal government to make change on the scale we need,” said Rosemarie Vardell, a retired professor who helped lead the Worthy Wages campaign. The Treasury Department reported last month that the average cost of care is roughly $10,000 a year per child and consumes about 13% of family income, nearly twice what the government considers affordable. At the same time, it noted the average teacher earns about $24,000 a year, many live in poverty, and nearly half receive some public assistance. “It’s among the lowest-paid of all occupations,” said Lea J.E. Austin of the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment. “People have a hard time seeing that this is complex, specialized work.” The coronavirus pandemic has made the problem worse. Competing employers have raised pay, and some teachers are afraid to supervise children who cannot be vaccinated or masked. Nationally, the workforce has declined by about 12% from pre-pandemic levels. “Everyone I know has significantly increased entry-level pay, and we’re not close to being able to fill positions,” Johnson, the Friendly Avenue director, said on a recent call with other Greensboro administrators. “Ditto!” said Donna Danzy, who runs two highly rated centers. “There are dwindling numbers of people interested in doing this kind of work. They are not seeing the joy.” “There are really great centers who have had to close,” said another director, Devon Walton. “We have a waiting list a mile long.” Although center directors say they cannot hire, teachers say they cannot pay their bills. Earning $10 an hour at the Little Leaders Learning Academy, Uvika Joseph, a single mother, got food stamps and Medicaid for her three children. She just left to become an assistant in the public schools, where she expects to earn nearly twice as much and will receive health insurance. “The only reason I am leaving is the pay,” she said. “I love the kids.” To make ends meet, Rashelle Myers, who has an associate degree in early childhood education, splits a 60-hour workweek between the Friendly Avenue center and Starbucks. She called the Democrats’ plan to raise wages “amazing” and overdue. “I make $10 an hour to shape the future of children but make $15 an hour to hand someone a cup of coffee,” she said. “That doesn’t make sense.” Low pay leads to high turnover, which the Treasury Department said was at least 26% a year. April Harden Crocker, a Friendly Avenue teacher, has taught for nearly three decades — “it’s my passion, it’s my heart, I just have to do it” — but she warned that employee churn harms care. “Babies don’t like strangers’ faces. If you keep bringing new people in, they get really upset,” she said. “If the pay was better we would get more devoted people.” Child care is expensive because it is labor-intensive. Many centers spend half or more of their budget on wages, so raising pay has a major financial impact. Under the Democrats’ plan, the federal government would cover all new costs for the first three years, but states would then pay 10%. How much Democrats would raise pay remains unclear. The House bill says child care workers should receive a “living wage,” which it does not define, but also says they should be paid the same as elementary educators with the same credentials, a different standard. Other uncertainties remain. Biden proposed subsidies for about three-quarters of households, excluding the most affluent. But the House version covers everyone. Beyond legislative detail, progressives are seeking a paradigm shift. They see child care much like public education: a service on which society depends and therefore should ensure. “It’s a public good and should be treated that way,” said Julie Kashen, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation. “The shared stake in seeing children thrive doesn’t suddenly begin when they turn 5.” Conservatives fear government intrusion into the family realm. Rachel Greszler, an analyst with the Heritage Foundation, recently warned Congress that the measure would increase costs and drive small centers out of business, especially those based in homes and churches. She also said the policy would penalize parents who stay at home, taxing them to expand center-based care and ignoring the “tremendous personal and societal value” of full-time child-rearing. Lolley said she thought about staying at home after having a second child but needed the health insurance that came with her job. “Oh, my God, it was terrible,” she said of the cost, more than $20,000 a year, of having two children in care. She hung on with significant help from her parents, knowing that “we wouldn’t have a kid in day care forever.” Most Greensboro parents, asked about the bill, agreed that the problem it tackles is serious, but their views of federal help varied. “I’d love for this to pass,” said Melissa Robertson, a freight broker, after hearing a summary of the legislation. She and her wife said their two children are thriving at the Wishview Children’s Center, but it costs twice as much as their mortgage, and a shortage of infant care causes Robertson to work from home several days a week. “It can be kind of difficult when you’ve got a screaming baby in the background,” she said. “Sometimes clients are like, ‘Oh, can’t you get them into child care?’” With two working parents as the norm, she said, “we should be able to provide child care.” But another Wishview parent, Jamie Pritchard, had reservations. She and her husband, Matt, who work at the same insurance firm, have three children in care and pay about $34,000 a year. “Basically, my paycheck goes to pay for child care,” she said. Still, she warned subsidies could lead to higher taxes. “If we were not financially stable, we would be all for that,” she said. “But I always think that if we’re getting help, the money has to come from somewhere.” Lolley knew nothing of the plan until a reporter described it, and she reacted with enthusiasm tinged with concern. She praised the potential financial relief and the “wonderful” help for teachers, whom she called devoted and “very underpaid.” But she also noted that federal money often brings federal rules. “If it would make things worse for the school in any way,” she said, “I personally would rather stretch to keep paying the bills.”

When child care costs more than the mortgage

mortgage

Mortgage, News on Mortgage, stories on Mortgage, articles on Mortgage, Mortgage stories at Wion, Mortgage news, Mortgage latest news