521–530 of 695 posts
Slightly tangent. At some point in future I can imagine humanoid robots will be doing this job. Of course, the robots need to be super reliable before we hand over the our kids
What a disturbing dystopia where the robots are at home taking care of the kids so the parents can go work in the factory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Irrespective of how it technically works, the fairness principle is "you paid in therefore you are paid out". Childless people aren't getting a better or worse deal than anyone else.
But you are missing the inputs. Social security requires two inputs 1) "Paying in" 2) Raising up the next generation to pay it back out. Without both, the entire system collapses and goes insolvent. If I do (1) but barely do (2) I am subsidized by the people that do both (1) and (2), if my payout isn't linked to (2). The genius of social security argument about the childless "paying in" is they rightly identify their…
Childless people pay into the system like everyone else. They aren't freeloaders.
As a parent myself I find this kind of savior complex incredibly embarrassing. We have kids, great. I'm glad our government offers tax benefits, services, and an immigration process to encourage population stability. But let's not pretend we're Atlas holding the nation on our shoulders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My house has never been on fire, should I get a tax rebate for never needing service from the fire department? Government services exist to help people who need them. The idea that government services need to have the same net effect on every citizen is unusually popular in the US and is part of the reason we have worse government services than our peer nations.
Fire protection is generally widely supported because almost everyone shares in the benefit, the protection is a benefit whether or not you need service. The reason we have worse government services is because there's no attempt to make them fair, the benefits are almost always highly skewed along partisan lines and thus usually not passed.
The same is true for things like childcare and education. Improving outcomes for the next generation doesn't only benefit them and their parents, it improves the entire society.
>The reason we have worse government services is because there's no attempt to make them fair, the benefits are almost always highly skewed along partisan lines and thus usually not passed.
You're just debating whether "everyone gets the same" is a better definition of "fair" than "everyone gets what they need". The only way for the government to satisfy the former without UBI (which I would support) is for the government to offer extremely limited services. That's the situation we're in. Because as I have said in another comment, the same argument that applies to stay at home parents applies to childless people so offering any childcare support is unfair according to the "everyone gets the same" definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why not let them go to child care on those days, get those reimbursed, but also use the funds for other things (like supplies for raising kids at home, or to pay for other activities you take them to that aren’t just daycare)?
Because the point of subsidising care is to remove cost barriers to parents getting back into work or dealing with other stuff or socialising kids in a day care environment, not to turn parenting into a profit centre
Flooding the market with new labor increases the supply Against a fixed demand, this lowers wages. So everyone not getting the subsidy feels pressure from stagnating wages plus the increased tax burden.
Let's assume that all those new laborers get paid and therefore demand also increases, moving the equilibrium so some of the wage stagnation pressure is dampened. It's still not going to offset the effect of new labor and taxes.
All this does is modify the equilibrium of supply and demand in the market such that those not receiving the subsidies (or evem those not receiving as much subsidies as others) are negatively impacted through lifestyle discrimination.
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. Disagree. Everyone needs to realize that having two parents who both have "greedy jobs" is a path to misery. Giving out childcare does not change the situation. One parent will always need to step back from their career or there will be misery, I've seen too many cases. Even if both parents are comfortable puttin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe babies aren't meant to be cared for a dozen at a time? But no, we have to "scale" child-rearing, just like we have to scale everything for greater growth numbers. \s
I would expect larger groups of young children to require more even ratios of care takers. I don't know if 3 care takers per 12 children is enough for instance, but I've got a feeling 9 care takers for 36 children is not enough.
These ratios seem reasonable to me. Much better than the 1:25 in elementary school.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate your optimism but I’m skeptical. I dated someone who worked in child care (with a degree in ECE). She was quite miserable caring for a dozen screaming babies all day. I think the burnout and turnover for such a job (which requires a degree but still paid minimum wage) is likely to be extremely high. The other thing that doesn’t make sense to me is the economics of it. The pay for the staff is very low bu…
Maybe babies aren't meant to be cared for a dozen at a time? But no, we have to "scale" child-rearing, just like we have to scale everything for greater growth numbers. \s
So beyond everyone going back to a Neolithic way of life and living in a bunch of straw teepees all bundled close together, daycare is the best solution I've found to this need.
Just as an example, my oldest has been besties with another kid since they were both 7 months old.
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.
Right. I agree, but I think you are appealing to generosity when it works just as well if you appeal to greed and selfishness. If I'm a parent who does not intend to take advantage of the program and therefore not to get any benefit directly, and I assume the program is done well and not rushed, I could reasonably expect: - More parents able to be in the work force (immediately) - Better metrics for the young childre…
> Higher birth rate??? (probably not but this one is interesting regardless) Why probably not? Childcare before primary school is a huge expense in the US, I think the largest for a healthy kid, around 24k$ per year where I live, so basically every other child is another 24k$ to the budget, or one parent not working. With this approach, having 2 or 3 children is more feasible, and the money saved from universal child…
Does the influx of gov mandated childcare centers reduce the annual expense for parents? If so, it does so at the cost to the current workers by reducing their salaries.
If not, now you've put every taxpayer on the hook for 24k+admin_expenses per child per year. That is an immediate blow to everyone except those benefiting more than their increased tax burden.
The benefit is lower wages for those competing against the new laborers and likely higher government tax inflows?
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. Disagree. Everyone needs to realize that having two parents who both have "greedy jobs" is a path to misery. Giving out childcare does not change the situation. One parent will always need to step back from their career or there will be misery, I've seen too many cases. Even if both parents are comfortable puttin…