Utah day care costs for two children balloon
By the numbers: To put it in perspective, that's roughly $5,400 more annually than you'd pay for the average one-bedroom apartment in Salt Lake City.
The big picture: The cost of child care in the U.S. just keeps climbing as prices rose 29% from 2020 to 2024, outpacing overall inflation, Axios' Emily Peck reports.
Why it matters: Rising costs put a huge financial strain on families, forcing some parents — typically women — to either ratchet back their working hours or leave the labor force entirely.
For single parents, the calculus can be even more painful.
It's also a drag on economic growth overall.
By the numbers: The average annual cost of daycare tuition nationwide for one toddler and one infant rose to $28,168 last year, per the report.
That's about 35% of median household annual income in the U.S., based on Census data released in 2024.
Between the lines: The percentages are no less brutal in states with higher incomes.
The cost of care for two children in Massachusetts is $47,012 — 44% of the median household income in that state.
Zoom out: The U.S. doesn't have publicly funded universal childcare.
However, the federal government does put money into the system for kids in low-income families through block grants to the states, as well as Head Start, the decades-old federal program that provides childcare, nutrition assistance and other services to the nation's poorest families
There were worries that the White House would stop funding Head Start, but the administration has said that won't happen.
Yes, but: President Trump's budget proposals look to keep federal funding levels for child care flat next year — that's effectively a cut given inflation, says Anne Hedgepeth, senior vice president of policy and research at Child Care Aware.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump buys more than $100 million in bonds in office, disclosure shows
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump has bought more than $100 million in company, state and municipal bonds since taking office in January, his disclosures showed this week. The forms, posted online on Tuesday, show the billionaire Republican president made more than 600 financial purchases since January 21, the day after he was inaugurated for his second term in the White House. The August 12 filing from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics does not list exact amounts for each purchase, only giving a broad range. They include corporate bonds from Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo, as well as Meta, Qualcomm, The Home Depot, T-Mobile USA and UnitedHealth Group. Other debt purchases include various bonds issued by cities, states, counties and school districts as well as gas districts, and other issuers. The holdings cover areas that could benefit from U.S. policy shifts under his administration. Trump, a businessman-turned-politician, has said he has put his companies into a trust managed by his children. His annual disclosure form filed in June showed his income from various sources still ultimately accrues to the president - something that has opened him to accusations of conflicts of interest. The White House on Wednesday did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
Crypto groups accuse banks of attempting to ‘relitigate' stablecoin law
Two prominent crypto groups are accusing banks of attempting to 'relitigate' issues within the stablecoin bill that President Trump signed into law last month. The Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) and Blockchain Association argued in a letter to leaders of the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday that they should reject the push by banks to tweak language in the GENIUS Act on rewards payments, state powers and limits on nonbank stablecoin issuers. 'As you are aware, these matters were the subject of extensive debate, negotiation, and compromise during the legislative process,' CCI CEO Ji Hun Kim and Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger wrote. 'The Letters unfortunately seek to create an uncompetitive payment stablecoin environment, protecting banks at the expense of broader industry growth, competition, and consumer choice, which form the bedrock of America's vibrant financial and innovation landscape,' they continued. The American Bankers Association and its counterparts in the states called on senators last week to extend a provision barring interest payments on stablecoins to cover other digital asset actors. They suggested this provision can be 'easily bypassed' when crypto exchanges or affiliates offer rewards to stablecoin holders. The Bank Policy Institute (BPI) similarly urged lawmakers to close the 'interest loophole' last week, arguing that stablecoins cannot act as substitutes for bank deposits, money market funds or investment products. 'These distinctions are why payment stablecoins should not pay interest the way highly regulated and supervised banks do on deposits or offer yield as money market funds do,' BPI wrote. They pointed to a Treasury Department report from earlier this year that indicated stablecoins could result in $6.6 trillion in deposit outflows from banks. The crypto groups pushed back on these arguments, citing a recent analysis that found stablecoin adoption had no significant impact on deposit outflows. They also argued the ability to offer rewards creates a more 'level playing field' for the industry to compete with banks. The two sides are also warring over GENIUS Act provisions impacting state decisions and restrictions on nonbanks' abilities to offer stablecoins. The banking industry is arguing to repeal a section of the law that restricts the authority of states to bar uninsured out-of-state institutions from operating across state lines. The crypto industry contends this is a 'necessary safeguard to protect stablecoin holders' by allowing them to redeem the digital tokens from holders in other states and without which the system would become a 'fragmented, balkanized regulatory regime.' Another point of contention is the GENIUS Act's existing limits on which nonbank financial institutions can issue stablecoins. The law currently bars public nonbank companies from getting in on the action but still allows private firms to do so. Banks argue this is another 'loophole' that threatens to upend the separation between banking and commerce, while the crypto groups suggest the law 'strikes the right balance.' The push to amend the GENIUS Act comes as lawmakers gear up to consider broader crypto market structure legislation in the fall when they return from their August recess. In July, the House passed its version of the market structure bill, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which included amendments to the stablecoin law. However, the Senate appears poised to drive ahead with its own legislation after Republican lawmakers released a discussion draft last month.
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
From aid to trade: Recalibrating US strategy for global prosperity
The dissolution of the U.S. Agency for International Development marks a seismic realignment in America's approach to global development — shifting emphasis from traditional aid models to a greater focus on commercial partnerships grounded in mutual economic interest. Developing nations have long called for closer U.S. trade ties and greater investment in infrastructure. Last month, President Trump made the pivot explicit during a meeting with five West African presidents: 'We're shifting from aid to trade.' The need for stronger economic engagement is urgent. China now accounts for four times as much trade with Africa as the U.S. While China has been building industrial zones, a large amount of America's past approach has been relying on inflexible five-year plans and virtue-signaling grants. I experienced this contrast firsthand. In 2016, I founded Lori Systems, a logistics tech company in Africa. We were once offered a grant from a Western development finance institution, on the condition that half of our truck drivers be women. This condition made no sense, though. Less than 1 percent of truck drivers in their own country were women, to say nothing of the countries where we were working. In contrast, Chinese investors who approached us asked us how an investment could accelerate their nation's infrastructure goals. They focused on tangible outcomes, not performative ones. U.S. foreign assistance has saved many lives and contributed to the stabilization of fragile states, but over time it became mired in bureaucracy and stagnation. The world has changed — and so must the nation's approach. As researcher Efosa Ojomo shows, prosperity stems from treating nations as commercial partners, not charity cases. This will unlock trade, stronger institutions and sustained growth. Trump is pushing for a much needed forward-looking reengagement — an evolution that aligns U.S. strategic interests with emerging market economic outcomes. That means: Engaging countries as partners, not dependents; with skin in the game and measurable outcomes. Backing U.S. businesses to win on the global stage. Investing in strategic infrastructure that drives economic stability such as power, ports, fiber and cloud infrastructure aligned with U.S. interests. Preserving high-impact programs like the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and the President's Malaria Initiative, which have delivered unmatched, life-saving results and global health stability. This approach isn't charity — it's smart foreign policy. Vietnam shows how trade can help lift nations while serving U.S. interests. In 1995, nearly all Vietnamese lived in poverty and exports totaled only $5 billion. Over the next three decades, exports climbed to $400 billion, extreme poverty was reduced to almost zero, and two-way trade with the U.S. reached $113 billion — providing strong diversification to American supply chains. As President Nguema of Gabon said last month, 'We are not poor countries. We are rich countries when it comes to raw materials, but we need partners to support us and help us develop those resources with win-win partnerships.' He welcomed the revised U.S. leadership doctrine but warned that in America's absence 'other countries might come instead of you.' The old system frustrated many American taxpayers and disillusioned partner nations. A modern, pro-growth model is not only more respectful but also potentially more effective if done right. Now is the moment the nation can shift from a dynamic of donors and recipients to one of partners pursuing shared interests. America's private sector, one of history's greatest engines of value creation, has the opportunity to drive lasting development across emerging markets and the world. Joshua Sandler is the CEO of Truegov, a GovTech company. He previously built venture-backed businesses across Africa and advised governments on infrastructure, trade, tax policy and economic development.
