3 ms·

> Do those people benefit in some way from the children that the parents have (pensions, steady supply of labour for the economy, etc)? I note that we pay for

by anamax 16y ago

> Do those people benefit in some way from the children that the parents have (pensions, steady supply of labour for the economy, etc)? I note that we pay for that labor, so you're trying to double count. Also, if you're going to argue that we should pay because we benefit, you can't complain when I point out that we can get children for a lot less than 18 months of time-off by relatively high-paid people.

nagrom 16y ago
You do pay for that labour, but a ready supply keeps the cost down. You've ignored the other benefits too. You may be able to get children for less - but can you get the same quality of children? Would the children be as well-rounded, would society be as happy? I wouldn't think so. Ans why do you assume that the 18 months of paternity leave relates only to well-paid people? The majority of people who benefit from this scheme will certainly be the less well-off since it applies across the board and there are more poorly- and averagely-paid people than well-off people. You haven't even tried to prove what seems to be your original thesis - that mandated generous child care allowances are a negative thing, or even a selfish thing.
- anamax 16y ago
  > You may be able to get children for less - but can you get the same quality of children? Probably. > would society be as happy? I wouldn't think so You're assuming that society is happy subsidizing the kids that you want to subsidize. How about some evidence? > Ans why do you assume that the 18 months of paternity leave relates only to well-paid people? I didn't, but the well-off will be paid more.... Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable. They're also less able to take any income hit. As a result, the money will go disproportionately to the well-off. That's how almost all of the "not means tested" programs "for the children" work. > You haven't even tried to prove what seems to be your original thesis Pay attention much? The above is my first comment that addressed child care and it doesn't contain that "thesis". It's not enough to have good intent, you have to actually get the details right.
  - nagrom 16y ago
    > Probably. You wanted me to to provide details? How about you lead by example? Or are you not paying attention? There are numerous studies showing that a lack of parental attention is a leading indicator to a poor quality of life in adulthood. You want to make an assertion that prolonged parental contact on average does not increase the maturity, social responsibility and quality of life of a child then you have to show some evidence. > You're assuming that society is happy subsidizing the kids that you want to subsidize. How about some evidence? I assume that the Swedish society is happy subsidising decent parental leave because there's a lack of obvious pressure from the majority to end such a practice. Just like there's a lack of similar pressure in France, Germany and many other European nations. Not only that, but the popular press are writing articles in favour of it! I'd say that people are not against it from these indicators. What kind of 'evidence' do you want me to produce? >Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable. Now you're showing your own bias. Why do you think that someone who takes their leave will be seen as unreliable? If it's a societal norm then they are seen as decent parents, not as unreliable. The mad pressure to live in the workplace across the whole of society is American and eastern Asian - that kind of culture is not followed in Europe, happily. > As a result, the money will go disproportionately to the well-off. That's how almost all of the "not means tested" programs "for the children" work. Wonderful generalisation. Again, a distinct lack of details, despite your aggressive and patronising tone. How about reflecting that someone with less free cash benefits more from these programs, since they have fewer reserves to fall back on. The rich have the choice, the poor don't. And these types of scheme give the poor the choice. > Pay attention much? The above is my first comment that addressed child care and it doesn't contain that "thesis". You think that subsidising child care is a bad thing - your thesis/attitude/opinion is against the article, that the Swedish system is a poor model. That much is clear from your sarcastic response. Despite your aggressive tone and your begging for details, you've not put across a coherent point of view, nor have you presented any evidence in favour of your viewpoint. Instead, you've been reactionary and aggressive. How about a cogent, coherent argument in favour of your point of view with 'details' and evidence? Otherwise your attitude comes across as you don't want to pay for it, therefore it must be bad thing.
    - 16y ago

by anamax 16y ago

nagrom 16y ago

You do pay for that labour, but a ready supply keeps the cost down. You've ignored the other benefits too. You may be able to get children for less - but can you get the same quality of children? Would the children be as well-rounded, would society be as happy? I wouldn't think so. Ans why do you assume that the 18 months of paternity leave relates only to well-paid people? The majority of people who benefit from this scheme will certainly be the less well-off since it applies across the board and there are more poorly- and averagely-paid people than well-off people. You haven't even tried to prove what seems to be your original thesis - that mandated generous child care allowances are a negative thing, or even a selfish thing.

anamax 16y ago
> You may be able to get children for less - but can you get the same quality of children? Probably. > would society be as happy? I wouldn't think so You're assuming that society is happy subsidizing the kids that you want to subsidize. How about some evidence? > Ans why do you assume that the 18 months of paternity leave relates only to well-paid people? I didn't, but the well-off will be paid more.... Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable. They're also less able to take any income hit. As a result, the money will go disproportionately to the well-off. That's how almost all of the "not means tested" programs "for the children" work. > You haven't even tried to prove what seems to be your original thesis Pay attention much? The above is my first comment that addressed child care and it doesn't contain that "thesis". It's not enough to have good intent, you have to actually get the details right.
- nagrom 16y ago
  > Probably. You wanted me to to provide details? How about you lead by example? Or are you not paying attention? There are numerous studies showing that a lack of parental attention is a leading indicator to a poor quality of life in adulthood. You want to make an assertion that prolonged parental contact on average does not increase the maturity, social responsibility and quality of life of a child then you have to show some evidence. > You're assuming that society is happy subsidizing the kids that you want to subsidize. How about some evidence? I assume that the Swedish society is happy subsidising decent parental leave because there's a lack of obvious pressure from the majority to end such a practice. Just like there's a lack of similar pressure in France, Germany and many other European nations. Not only that, but the popular press are writing articles in favour of it! I'd say that people are not against it from these indicators. What kind of 'evidence' do you want me to produce? >Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable. Now you're showing your own bias. Why do you think that someone who takes their leave will be seen as unreliable? If it's a societal norm then they are seen as decent parents, not as unreliable. The mad pressure to live in the workplace across the whole of society is American and eastern Asian - that kind of culture is not followed in Europe, happily. > As a result, the money will go disproportionately to the well-off. That's how almost all of the "not means tested" programs "for the children" work. Wonderful generalisation. Again, a distinct lack of details, despite your aggressive and patronising tone. How about reflecting that someone with less free cash benefits more from these programs, since they have fewer reserves to fall back on. The rich have the choice, the poor don't. And these types of scheme give the poor the choice. > Pay attention much? The above is my first comment that addressed child care and it doesn't contain that "thesis". You think that subsidising child care is a bad thing - your thesis/attitude/opinion is against the article, that the Swedish system is a poor model. That much is clear from your sarcastic response. Despite your aggressive tone and your begging for details, you've not put across a coherent point of view, nor have you presented any evidence in favour of your viewpoint. Instead, you've been reactionary and aggressive. How about a cogent, coherent argument in favour of your point of view with 'details' and evidence? Otherwise your attitude comes across as you don't want to pay for it, therefore it must be bad thing.
  - 16y ago