481–490 of 540 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd think the Economist would care more about this study: https://childcarecanada.org/documents/child-care-news/11/06/... Showing that subsidized day care pays for itself.
The Economist is a capitalism cheerleader, so no, they would not care for that study.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are immigrants privileged then?
Speaking as an immigrant: yes, absolutely! Legal immigrants generally have to be quite privileged in their place of origin to have the education level necessary to clear the bar in most places to be considered for any kind of visa that allows permanent residency, and to be financially well off enough to afford both the paperwork and the move itself.
What about illegal?
It takes a village. When I was a kid (youngest of four) growing up in a suburb of a small town, my mom would often drop me off at a neighbor's house to watch me while she ran errands or did stuff for my siblings. No payment, just neighbors being neighborly. Now, I can't fathom something like that being feasible in our increasingly individualistic neighborhood. Regretfully, I don't even know the names of most of my ne…
> I know that's mostly my fault for not meeting my neighbors. But also, most families aren't even home during the day anymore because they have to work. You still can. I managed to make friends with a few neighbors just by asking a few innocuous questions every time we meet. Some are friendlier than others. I don't talk to everyone I meet, just those I think could be friendly. I'm usually wrong though and the ones I'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look, if you want to justify your position by just pointing out that it's the way things have historically been done, expect to have it pointed out how ridiculous you are being. Anyway, Equating child care with the inherent biological sexual dimorphism of childbirth is certainly a take.
You conveniently left off “infant care”. Only one gender lactates, and that’s only the tip of the iceberg. If you want to talk about “ridiculous”, ignoring reality doesn’t make it any less real, no matter how much you might find it ideologically inconvenient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that that's the wrong goal. Ideally, families can afford to live off of one salary so that mothers could choose to continue to care for their children if they wanted to do so. Currently, very few families are privileged enough to live off of one salary. Both parents need to work in order to make ends meet. I'm not saying it's an easy problem to solve, or that free childcare isn't a good interim solution. Bu…
Raising children is basically a full time job. Why not compensate it as such?
Sure it goes to everyone, but I think that's okay. Some parents would still choose to both work, and use their monthly check to pay for daycare. I think the important thing is freedom to choose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"until very recently" includes pre-industrial times to my understanding when education did not exist in an organized fashion for the poor. [edit] And in what world is Abraham Lincoln considered "the poor" for his times? I am sure you can come up with some less fortunate people during the same times which didn't really get the experience of that one room schoolhouse.
Illinois had universal free public school since 1825, so no, you couldn’t find anyone who didn’t have access to that experience (or better).
And it seems I need to spell it out for you, right there in the US during the same times, children of black people in the south didn't get access to education[1]. Serfdom was a thing in Europe until the early 1900, serfs children didn't get access to proper education[2]. I'm giving you a link to Russian education, but the whole of Eastern Europe was at a similar level. I don't know what kind of rose tinted cool aid you guys have been drinking.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_during_the_slave_per...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"until very recently" includes pre-industrial times to my understanding when education did not exist in an organized fashion for the poor. [edit] And in what world is Abraham Lincoln considered "the poor" for his times? I am sure you can come up with some less fortunate people during the same times which didn't really get the experience of that one room schoolhouse.
> And in what world is Abraham Lincoln considered "the poor" In the world where he was born on the frontier in a log cabin, which is this one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You conveniently left off “infant care”. Only one gender lactates, and that’s only the tip of the iceberg. If you want to talk about “ridiculous”, ignoring reality doesn’t make it any less real, no matter how much you might find it ideologically inconvenient.
You're the one moving the phrase from "child care" to "infant care". And by 6 months the majority of parents are using formula anyway. And there's a percentage of women that for whatever reason can't properly breastfeed. You're really grasping at straws here.
Once you have spent six months or a year raising an infant, it is personally psychologically difficult (and developmentally questionable) to cut that tie.
I get that it’s ideologically convenient to pretend that men and women are interchangeable economic cogs, but the sexes are fundamentally different in very pertinent ways.
We all lose under this model, but ultimately the people who lose the most when economic and social policy rejects our inconvenient biological differences are the children themselves.
Family should be able to support themselves on a single earner’s salary. That’s what we should prioritize. They can decide themselves who should stay home, if anyone; gender doesn’t need to factor into our policy if we simply make it our goal for families to not require dual incomes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's because it runs like a business that we're able to enjoy a high standard of living. If the economy stops growing, or worse, degrades, everyone will suffer incredibly. Job loss, investment loss, higher cost of living. There's a wide gulf between childcare for none and childcare for all. I'm an atheist, but some of the cheapest childcare is at churches. Orders of magnitude cheaper than private childcare because th…
The economy will stop growing eventually. Nothing grows forever. If we have built our society around the notion of perpetual economic growth, we have already accepted that "everyone will suffer incredibly", and we're only arguing about which generation will be the one to bear it.
That isn't necessarily true. If we find continual efficiency gains, it may never stop growing for thousands of years.
Most growth curves in life are S-curves. Population growth, etc. But technological advancement could continue until we become a type II civilization.
That's absolutely sci-fi speculation, but there are no signs of technological advancement ending.
If each round of advancement increases efficiency, growth continues. I don't see an end in sight.