Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]
1–10 of 70 posts
Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]
#2Does this suggest that a full time parent yields better outcomes for children than access to childcare? I have read that correctly, I think..
Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]
#3Does this suggest that a full time parent yields better outcomes for children than access to childcare? I have read that correctly, I think..
The authors don't appear to be directly arguing that (at least not in the conclusion, i didn't read the body of the paper)
The authors seem to be arguing that development of non-cognitive skills is important for long-term health, life satisfaction, etc, and that childcare programs that do not measure and attempt to support development of non-cognitive skills may therefore be somewhat harmful. It is possible that some childcare programs may support development of non-cognitive skills, but the Quebec childcare program that they analysed did not.
> We find that the Quebec policy [of making non-parental child care much more affordable]
> had a lasting negative impact on the non-cognitive skills of exposed children, but no consistent
> impact on their cognitive skills. At older ages, program exposure is associated with worsened
> health and life satisfaction, and increased rates of criminal activity. Increases in aggression and
> hyperactivity are concentrated in boys, as is the rise in the crime rates.
> [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. This suggests that
> measuring the impact of child care programs on the non-cognitive development is important.
> When a child care program fails to improve non-cognitive development, it may have no
> long-standing positive effects on children.
> [...] An important outstanding question is whether universally provided child care can have
> widespread positive impacts on non-cognitive development, which our results together with
> evidence such as Heckman et al. (2013) suggest should lead to long run positive outcomes.Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]
#4Does this suggest that a full time parent yields better outcomes for children than access to childcare? I have read that correctly, I think..
The authors don't appear to be directly arguing that (at least not in the conclusion, i didn't read the body of the paper) The authors seem to be arguing that development of non-cognitive skills is important for long-term health, life satisfaction, etc, and that childcare programs that do not measure and attempt to support development of non-cognitive skills may therefore be somewhat harmful. It is possible that some…
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 force but this may not pay off in the long term if future generations fail to perform in life.
Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]
#5Does this suggest that a full time parent yields better outcomes for children than access to childcare? I have read that correctly, I think..
The authors don't appear to be directly arguing that (at least not in the conclusion, i didn't read the body of the paper) The authors seem to be arguing that development of non-cognitive skills is important for long-term health, life satisfaction, etc, and that childcare programs that do not measure and attempt to support development of non-cognitive skills may therefore be somewhat harmful. It is possible that some…
> [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 parents are positive influences. And there are some great government child-care workers. Is it the parent-to-child ratio? Is it counter-productive programming? Is it oversocialization? And why don't these things affect the cognitive skill development just as badly?
Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
The authors don't appear to be directly arguing that (at least not in the conclusion, i didn't read the body of the paper) The authors seem to be arguing that development of non-cognitive skills is important for long-term health, life satisfaction, etc, and that childcare programs that do not measure and attempt to support development of non-cognitive skills may therefore be somewhat harmful. It is possible that some…
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.
Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
The authors don't appear to be directly arguing that (at least not in the conclusion, i didn't read the body of the paper) The authors seem to be arguing that development of non-cognitive skills is important for long-term health, life satisfaction, etc, and that childcare programs that do not measure and attempt to support development of non-cognitive skills may therefore be somewhat harmful. It is possible that some…
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…
> Economically we are far better off with children in care and parents in the work force
Any data to support that? Given that there is a deadweight economic loss due to taxes, if both parents work and the income from the second parent doesn’t exceed the cost of child care + taxes, it would seem that in many cases, two parents working could actually be a net loss for the economy as the family might have less disposable income than if just one parent worked. A family with two kids could very easily spend $50k per year on child care. So the other parent would have to make $50k just to break even before the taxes. The second parent could very easily have to make $80k just to cover child care plus the loss from taxes since that second income is taxed as part of the overall household income. Kids with stay at home parents have higher school performance, which has an economic impact as well.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/eric-bettinger-why-sta...
Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]
#8Earlier 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…
> Economically we are far better off with children in care and parents in the work force Any data to support that? Given that there is a deadweight economic loss due to taxes, if both parents work and the income from the second parent doesn’t exceed the cost of child care + taxes, it would seem that in many cases, two parents working could actually be a net loss for the economy as the family might have less disposabl…
You're correct, I should have phased that something along the lines of.
It is assumed that having both parents in the workforce should produce better economic outcomes.
I also agree that there may be a negative net effect on the economy. But I have no idea if there is evidence for this and think it would be very hard to accurately research this given the number of other variables you'd have to account for.
There is some evidence that there are economic benefits to women entering the workforce. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jors.12336
Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]
#9Earlier 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.
Pay more money for all the desirable jobs, nevermind the undesirable jobs, and don't enslave women under a patriarchy of indentured motherhood. Also, women deserve compensation for entertaining the premise of marriage in all cases, and should retain total autonomy of childcare upon the failure of a marriage, and total purchasing authority, when compensated extra for childcare, after divorce.
Re: Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]
#10Earlier 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…
> Economically we are far better off with children in care and parents in the work force Any data to support that? Given that there is a deadweight economic loss due to taxes, if both parents work and the income from the second parent doesn’t exceed the cost of child care + taxes, it would seem that in many cases, two parents working could actually be a net loss for the economy as the family might have less disposabl…
Take away the dollar figures and it makes sense, 1 person caring for 8 or so children (child care) should be much more efficient than 1 person looking after 1/2/3 children (normal for home care).
That this efficiency ends up lining someone else's pockets would be a separate issue.