351–360 of 695 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> rational geeks Geeks are as emotional and irrational as everybody else. They are even worse in fact because they can rationalize their behavior even harder.
It’s referencing rational geeks and not all geeks or geeks who believe they are rational but just actual rational geeks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Stay at home moms do not provide a less valuable service than childcare providers. I don't know how can anyone arrive at that conclusion. > This policy appears to disincentives children staying with their mother even when it is preferred. This assertion is baffling and far-fetched. There is only one beneficiary of this policy: families who desperately needed access to childcare but could not possibly afford it. Wit…
> With this policy, those who needed childcare but were priced out of the market will be able to access the service they needed. And the rich parents who can afford childcare are also given a subsidy. A married parent who wants to stay home but can't quite afford it is forced to work. Is this really what you want? If it is the poor your care about why not subsidies just them?
I'm going to take the reverse position. I don't like this policy. I think it would be much better to provide a one year paid stipend so that a parent can be home with the children during their tender years. This entire structure is set up to keep the boss happy while a stranger raises your child during their most formative and vulnerable years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would make sense IMO to provide an equal value waiver to those who take care of their kid rather than send them to childcare. Stay at home moms do not provide a less valuable service than childcare providers. This policy appears to disincentives children staying with their mother even when it is preferred.
I just don't understand this mentality. My wife is a stay-at-home mom. We are lucky that we can afford to do this. Most of our kid's friends have both parents working and they pay for child care. If suddenly they were able to have that childcare paid for, that would be wonderful! It doesn't affect our situation at all. Why would we oppose it? I don't need to have my own "waiver" payment in order for me to be in favor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize a lot of people actually prefer to give their child their best instead of outsourcing it so they can focus on bettering the economy, right?
> You realize a lot of people actually prefer to give their child their best instead of outsourcing it My wife and I staggered our work schedules to minimize the time spent at daycare. The one thing we didn’t expect: The kids absolutely loved daycare. It was a great place with excellent caretakers. Most of all, it was socialization with their friends. From reading sneering interment comments (like the one above) I wa…
I'm going to take the reverse position. I don't like this policy. I think it would be much better to provide a one year paid stipend so that a parent can be home with the children during their tender years. This entire structure is set up to keep the boss happy while a stranger raises your child during their most formative and vulnerable years.
Hate to break it to you, but many kids actually do better away from their parents than with them. It's extremely sad, but a consistent finding in early childhood education is that the children who thrive most in daycares tend to come from the least advantaged backgrounds. So a policy of paying parents to stay home would mostly benefit kids who are already well off.
So the children that do well in daycare comes from poor homes? So kids from rich home don't do well in daycare?
Every interaction I've ever had says the opposite. The disruptive bully at school usually comes from a broken home.
This is fantastic! I hope they succeed and there is no abuse or other issues, because it will show how much an economy can grow when women are allowed to work to their full potential. Families who were previously in poverty because the mom would struggle to pay for childcare to work can now have assurance kids are ok while the mom can pursue jobs, start her own small business (huge chunk of businesses are small busin…
> because it will show how much an economy can grow when women are allowed to work to their full potential This feels like the wrong goal. Why does it matter how much an economy can grow? Is that worth not having a parent raise the child? In my opinion, it’s important for kids to spend more time with their families not less. Having one parent at home is very useful for bonding, development, etc. And frankly no childc…
Our kids are fine.
Turns out kids need a lot of time with other kids.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way does this disincentivize anyone? If you want to stay home with your kids, stay home with your kids. This is literally not preventing anyone from being a stay at home parent.
Lots of two-parent working families do the maths, and realize they would pay more in childcare than the income from a second job. This incentivizes one of them to stay at home. Here, the incentive is gone. This is worse for the economy and probably the family.
This is fantastic! I hope they succeed and there is no abuse or other issues, because it will show how much an economy can grow when women are allowed to work to their full potential. Families who were previously in poverty because the mom would struggle to pay for childcare to work can now have assurance kids are ok while the mom can pursue jobs, start her own small business (huge chunk of businesses are small busin…
Would make sense IMO to provide an equal value waiver to those who take care of their kid rather than send them to childcare. Stay at home moms do not provide a less valuable service than childcare providers. This policy appears to disincentives children staying with their mother even when it is preferred.
It does no such thing. If you could afford to be a stay-at-home mom before, this isn't going to make any significant difference to that.
Think of whether it would make sense if you applied your logic to other areas -- do public schools disincentivize people sending their kids to private schools? That would be absurd to say. Creating choice where there wasn't any before doesn't "disincentivize" anything. It gives people options to make the choices that are best for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“This time will be different!” announce the proponents. Watch now, class, as the economic calculation problem works out as predicted in yet another instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
markets have criticism too. this is why we have nothing, neither roads nor businesses, and are currently hallucinating this conversation while scratching at the ground with sticks. do we really need to point to how badly private healthcare has been working?