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

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

#11

Post by sonnyblarney » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 2:55 AM UTC

tejohnso wrote: post #5

shoo wrote: post #3

Earlier 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…

> [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…

"non-cognitive development is important and clearly lacking in government supported child-care."

I really doubt this.

FYI I live in Quebec, and on my Highstreet there are a handful of daycares where normal businesses/stores/restaurants would be.

Because they are small and common, it seems everyone is only a few hundred meters from their childcare around here.

There are so, so many correlating factors that I'm going to say it's really difficult to measure these things.

+ The amount of marijuana that people smoke has skyrocketed in recent years, and they smoke young here. I know that smoking pot in early years i.e. 13-14 is bad news.

+ The number of children born to non-married and cohabitation parents is very high these days.

+ Quebec has a very different culture than the rest of N. America. They are chill here these days. For a lot of complex cultural and political reasons, I would say there is a defeatist, antagonist attitude (for the last 100 years), but in the most recent generation ... it's like they also have a kind of 'given up' attitude. They don't seem to care about much at all.

I'm just throwing up some examples, I have no idea what it is, but I suggest that the issues in later education are due to a bunch of factors and that prevalence of childcare isn't really the big one. Maybe, but I doubt it.

Also I should add that this 'universal childcare' thing is a huge deal. It really changes things. In the ROC ('Rest of Canada') or the US, it's getting stupid expensive to have children. Here in Quebec ... it seems 'normal' to have kids. Just a few dollars a day. My sister in BC is a Finance Director with 3 kids and she only breaks even on daycare (!!!) essentially doing her job so she still has it when the kids are out. That's insane.

All political issues and massive costs/taxes aside ... having cheap, really local daycare is a hugely relevant thing to communities and parents.

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

#12

Post by xupybd » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 2:55 AM UTC

pay_more_money wrote: post #9

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.

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.

>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 trucks, clean the toilets, keep the sewers flowing and look after the sick and elderly if we get rid of all the undesirable jobs? Some jobs are horrible to do but we need them done.

Evidence that children cared for in the home may have better outcomes than those in child care need not lead to the conclusion that women must be forced into indentured motherhood. It simply means we have a problem to investigate. There might be a better way to do this.

But doesn't your comment that women "should retain total autonomy of childcare upon the failure of a marriage" suggest that you think women are the only party responsible for childcare?

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

#13

Post by mattnewport » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 3:09 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #10

briandear wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This ignores a large number of factors. To look at it like an economist, if your hypothesis is true, what is the market failure that requires subsidies for child care in order to obtain this hypothesised greater efficiency?

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

#14

Post by Spooky23 » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 3:14 AM UTC

xupybd wrote: post #8

briandear wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

There are economic benefits to women and families. I think it’s fairly sensible to propose that the doubling of the supply of workforce has impacted the price paid for labor.

The old fashioned troops and notions that hurt women in the workforce hurt men outside of the workforce. Guys with wives who make more get a lot of grief. When problems happen, it’s nearly impossible for working age men or couples to get safety net benefits.

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

#15

Post by Spooky23 » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 3:15 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #10

briandear wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

For most families, the efficiency gained is a few thousand dollars a year max.

The real motivator is that leaving the workforce these days for any length of time is a death sentence for future employment.

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

#16

Post by cheez » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 3:53 AM UTC

pay_more_money wrote: post #9

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.

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.

Obviously a joke poster

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

#17

Post by flukus » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 3:59 AM UTC

mattnewport wrote: post #13

flukus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This ignores a large number of factors. To look at it like an economist, if your hypothesis is true, what is the market failure that requires subsidies for child care in order to obtain this hypothesised greater efficiency?

> 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 systems).

There are plenty of market failures here when it comes to childcare.

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

#18

Post by mattnewport » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 4:17 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #17

mattnewport wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This ignores a large number of factors. To look at it like an economist, if your hypothesis is true, what is the market failure that requires subsidies for child care in order to obtain this hypothesised greater efficiency?

> 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. Perhaps the economies of scale for child care are less than you assume.

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

#19

Post by learc83 » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 4:21 AM UTC

tejohnso wrote: post #5

shoo wrote: post #3

Earlier 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…

> [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 provide that much interaction to multiple children.

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

#20

Post by pay_more_money » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 4:23 AM UTC

xupybd wrote: post #12

pay_more_money wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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 role.

Sometimes, this might even happen with unplanned pregnancies. What's the tipping point that splits the difference between terminating a pregnancy, versus a charade marriage incentivized by court mandated custody and support arrangements that bring justice to an potentially unjust circumstance befalling an unfortunate couple?