Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]

nber.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 70 posts

Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]

#21

Post by drivebycomment »

killjoywashere wrote: post #6
xupybd wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I think they are saying the lack of non-cognitive skills appears to be what is lacking. But there does seem to be some evidence that those who are in parental care better develop these skills and have better outcomes. I think the tricky part will be demonstrating how to provide these non-cognitive skills outside of parental care. Economically we are far better off with children in care and parents in the work for…

I have some real cognitive dissonance with the mixed desires for women to have complete equality in the workplace, and children who are perfectly cared for as though they were in their mother's arms, yet the children can't come to work in many cases for very practical reasons (highly intellectually demanding work settings, high risk work settings, etc). And at the same time, it's all men's fault.

I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that stay-at-home dad would result in worse outcome of children. So, it would be fair to criticize men if men aren't sharing the burden of raising the children 50/50 (after the first year or so of nursing period is over).

Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]

#22

Post by omegaworks »

mattnewport wrote: post #18
flukus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what is the market failure that requires subsidies for child care in order to obtain this hypothesised greater efficiency? I'm guessing that varies, but around here the main ones seem to be demand outstripping supply due to setup costs (expensive real estate), lack of trained workers, rapidly growing population (child care doesn't get much lead time from census data) and regulation (parents can't operate their own…

The price of something being higher than you'd prefer does not mean there is a market failure. Child care is not a public good and there are not obvious externalities. Excessive regulation might be a factor but that is not market failure. The fact that the unsubsidized cost of child care is higher than some parents are willing to pay may just be evidence that there are no efficiencies to be gained for those parents.…

You're computing the value of a parent's career as a single point in time salary value, and not as a integration under the curve of salary earned over time. A parent may not have the cash reserves at that single point in time to pay for childcare out of pocket, that doesn't mean that the value they get from staying employed over time does not exceed that cost.

Leaving the workforce starts you over at zero.

Universal childcare, especially in the earliest stages of life, provides societal externalities that vastly outweigh the cost of providing it. It ought to be a public good.

Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]

#23

Post by rayiner »

killjoywashere wrote: post #6
xupybd wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I think they are saying the lack of non-cognitive skills appears to be what is lacking. But there does seem to be some evidence that those who are in parental care better develop these skills and have better outcomes. I think the tricky part will be demonstrating how to provide these non-cognitive skills outside of parental care. Economically we are far better off with children in care and parents in the work for…

I have some real cognitive dissonance with the mixed desires for women to have complete equality in the workplace, and children who are perfectly cared for as though they were in their mother's arms, yet the children can't come to work in many cases for very practical reasons (highly intellectually demanding work settings, high risk work settings, etc). And at the same time, it's all men's fault.

The evidence for advantages from being raised by a parent rather than other caregivers is extremely thin, and more important, unquantified. We invoke all those platitudes about the importance of mothering because we lack the data to make meaningful assertions.

How much more will your child earn if you stay home and raise it, instead of going to work and leaving it in daycare? And does that offset the advantages we know accrue to children from higher parental income? We don’t really have any evidence that being cared for by a stay at home parent improves outcomes. We have quite a lot of evidence that, e.g., SAT scores correlate highly with parental income.

Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]

#24

Post by james_s_tayler »

learc83 wrote: post #19
tejohnso wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [these findings] provide strong support for the argument that non-cognitive development is a crucial determinant of the long-term success of child care programs. Okay so non-cognitive development is important and clearly lacking in government supported child-care. I think the more interesting question is: Why is there such a difference between government supported child-care and parental care? Not all stay-at-home…

>Is it the parent-to-child ratio? That's probably most of it. Studies show that siblings born too close together have reduced intelligence compared to siblings born further apart. Studies also show that the number of words per day spoken to a child has a direct impact on intelligence. A small child will completely monopolize all of your attention for huge chunks of the day. It's just not possible for one person to pr…

Studies probably show the opposite is true too.

Social science has proved itself not to be trustworthy enough that we can just bandy about the terms "studies show" like it means something. It doesn't mean anything anymore and we need to start holding people to higher standards of proof and competency.

As a rule I would suggest it's no longer viable to say studies show, you must provide the details of which studies have shown that.

I'm not saying anything for or against your position by the way. Just "studies show" doesn't cut it any more.

Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]

#25

Post by xupybd »

pay_more_money wrote: post #20
xupybd wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Pay more money for all the desirable jobs, never mind the undesirable jobs But how? We've found that market economies tend to work the best. These pay based on supply and demand. The other option is a planned economy where you might be able to attempt something like this but all examples of planned economies have resulted in so much suffering I don't think we want to try that again. Who is going to drive the rubbish…

Here's a subtle clue: even under tightly controlled, planned social arrangements, for example, when you attempt to bring a criminal to justice, you might sometimes find incentives that create underground market economies. Spooky bribery at a distance, if you will. Surrogate motherhood is rare and problematic, but in some cases there is enough incentive to simply carry a child for a reward, and then exit the parental…

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are saying here?

Are you saying that the court system is forcing people into charade marriages? If so I'm not sure there is evidence of that. The number of divorces and single parenthood has skyrocketed in recent years. If anything I think there is something about modern society pushing people away from marriage.

But as I say I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.

Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]

#26

Post by rayiner »

drivebycomment wrote: post #21
killjoywashere wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have some real cognitive dissonance with the mixed desires for women to have complete equality in the workplace, and children who are perfectly cared for as though they were in their mother's arms, yet the children can't come to work in many cases for very practical reasons (highly intellectually demanding work settings, high risk work settings, etc). And at the same time, it's all men's fault.

I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that stay-at-home dad would result in worse outcome of children. So, it would be fair to criticize men if men aren't sharing the burden of raising the children 50/50 (after the first year or so of nursing period is over).

The nursing period is also not a differentiating factor. The long-term benefit from breastfeeding is very thin, likely not even a couple of IQ points if that: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/139/4/e2016184...; https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/everybody-calm-down-abo...

Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]

#28

Post by flukus »

mattnewport wrote: post #18
flukus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what is the market failure that requires subsidies for child care in order to obtain this hypothesised greater efficiency? I'm guessing that varies, but around here the main ones seem to be demand outstripping supply due to setup costs (expensive real estate), lack of trained workers, rapidly growing population (child care doesn't get much lead time from census data) and regulation (parents can't operate their own…

The price of something being higher than you'd prefer does not mean there is a market failure. Child care is not a public good and there are not obvious externalities. Excessive regulation might be a factor but that is not market failure. The fact that the unsubsidized cost of child care is higher than some parents are willing to pay may just be evidence that there are no efficiencies to be gained for those parents.…

> The price of something being higher than you'd prefer does not mean there is a market failure.

The price of something being much higher than the cost of production is a market failure, in this case the market has failed to produce enough supply.

If the cost of wheat production remained constant but the cheapest you could get a loaf for was $50 would you not consider that a market failure?

Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]

#29

Post by steve_taylor »

rayiner wrote: post #26
drivebycomment wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that stay-at-home dad would result in worse outcome of children. So, it would be fair to criticize men if men aren't sharing the burden of raising the children 50/50 (after the first year or so of nursing period is over).

The nursing period is also not a differentiating factor. The long-term benefit from breastfeeding is very thin, likely not even a couple of IQ points if that: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/139/4/e2016184... ; https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/everybody-calm-down-abo...

Some recent studies have found lack of breastfeeding and autism to be linked.

Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]

#30

Post by rayiner »

steve_taylor wrote: post #29
rayiner wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nursing period is also not a differentiating factor. The long-term benefit from breastfeeding is very thin, likely not even a couple of IQ points if that: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/139/4/e2016184... ; https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/everybody-calm-down-abo...

Some recent studies have found lack of breastfeeding and autism to be linked.

“Linked” is a weasel word for lack of a a quantifiable result. (Not breastfeeding increases autism risk by X%.) The better thing is to look to the massive medical experiment we happened to have conducted in the last 50 years. From 1970 to today, breastfeeding rates have inverted. Back then, 70% of babies were never breastfed, even in the hospital. Today, it is the opposite.

But rates of autism are not much higher among Gen X-ers than millenials.

Post reply on HN