2 ms·

Good move, but I fear this will lead to inequality being further entrenched into the workforce. It appears as if the very skilled workers like the ones at Micro

Good move, but I fear this will lead to inequality being further entrenched into the workforce. It appears as if the very skilled workers like the ones at Microsoft, Netflix etc are going to have great lives, and the lesser workers (who may not have such great jobs) will have shittier lives. That's why the state stepping in is important, this needs to be the norm at a federal level. Otherwise we'll have the rich spend more time with their kids and raising healthier/smarter children, and the poor raising a class of slaves (low child IQ is connected to less parental involvement in early years) to serve the rich. That's not the American dream.

jamestnz 11y ago
> Otherwise we'll have the rich spend more time with their kids An interesting reversal of history, in a sense. For example Victorian England, where the rich were the ones with the means to "outsource" the raising of their kids, and often did so. Children of the posher classes would often have a more intimate and parent-like relationship with their "nanny" (or "nurse" or another member of the household staff), than with their own parents. The childrens' lives and daily timetables were managed entirely by the staff, and they were wheeled into the company of the parents for various daily occasions such as meal-times (and a pat on the head before bed). Aside from this, they spent their time relegated to the nursery, or in classes, or on outings with the staff. Nowadays, on the other hand, spending lots of time with the children is something that might be considered a luxury reserved for the financially secure (who aren't spending all their time taking busses to three jobs).
- gamegoblin 11y ago
  I suspect that any parental-like relationship (such as that between a nanny and child) is more beneficial for the child's development than say, being home alone or in a substandard daycare with disinterested and high-turnover employees.

jamestnz 11y ago

> Otherwise we'll have the rich spend more time with their kids An interesting reversal of history, in a sense. For example Victorian England, where the rich were the ones with the means to "outsource" the raising of their kids, and often did so. Children of the posher classes would often have a more intimate and parent-like relationship with their "nanny" (or "nurse" or another member of the household staff), than with their own parents. The childrens' lives and daily timetables were managed entirely by the staff, and they were wheeled into the company of the parents for various daily occasions such as meal-times (and a pat on the head before bed). Aside from this, they spent their time relegated to the nursery, or in classes, or on outings with the staff. Nowadays, on the other hand, spending lots of time with the children is something that might be considered a luxury reserved for the financially secure (who aren't spending all their time taking busses to three jobs).

gamegoblin 11y ago
I suspect that any parental-like relationship (such as that between a nanny and child) is more beneficial for the child's development than say, being home alone or in a substandard daycare with disinterested and high-turnover employees.