6 ms·

In my not so humble opinion, it all comes down to a short- vs. farsighted culture and the resulting fundamental attitude towards kids. In the US, kids are seen

In my not so humble opinion, it all comes down to a short- vs. farsighted culture and the resulting fundamental attitude towards kids. In the US, kids are seen at worst a nuisance and at best a personal luxury. In most of the northern/western EU, kids are seen as the future workers, decision makers and keepers of the whole economy 30 years into the future. All of the symptoms you are seeing, be it maternal / paternal leave, financial support for parents, universal health care at least for kids, (mostly) free education — from child care up to college level — how teachers are selected and paid and much more are resulting from this attitude. There's downsides, such as a high tax level, but observations like this one show that America is slowly coming into the age where you see the longterm effects of neglecting its treasure and letting inequality explode rampantly.

bernardino 8y ago
> In the US, kids are seen at worst a nuisance and at best a personal luxury. Please, if you may, explain why you think this is so.
- endymi0n 8y ago
  I think so mainly because of the near total lack of societal support of bringing them up to be educated, responsible adults with opportunities. If you want to have them, fine. But then, you better be prepared to be able to pay for health care, child care and college. Without maternal / paternal leave, having kids also puts their parents at a financial and career disadvantage to non-parents, so they are indeed a luxury.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/education-spending.htm https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/education-spending.htm US might be doing it wrong, but it does spend a lot of money on children
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      There's all sorts of subsidies and programs that only apply to kids. Maybe they aren't as big as they ought to be, but other poster has a weird conclusion going there. For instance, 35 million children get health insurance from the government: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-enrollment-data/report-highlights/child-and-chip-enrollment/index.html https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica... That's close to ½ of the kids in the country.
      - Avamander 8y ago
        > That's close to ½ of the kids in the country. Um, that's a good thing?
        maxerickson 8y ago
        My intention was to contrast against "near total lack of societal support", not to state an opinion about Medicaid and CHIP.
        williamdclt 8y ago
        I think that the point was that "½ of the kids in the country" sounds very low. Admittedly that's not "near total lack of societal support" but still, half of the kids are not provided with something as basic as health insurance from the gov
        maxerickson 8y ago
        More than half if that is what you want to say. In a private insurance model, ½ is a lot. I suppose it can be fun to act all astonished that the US has a private insurance model.
  - swiley 8y ago
    There’s a lot of fear here that giving people something for free means that the people receiving it will abuse it. People who want free education are viewed as “entitled.” The US is really weird about children, they’re the most important thing in most peoples minds but as soon as they turn 18 they’re dangerous and entitled.
    - ebikelaw 8y ago
      The underlying reason is racism. White people dislike the idea of a social system that benefits everybody, because that would include the blacks. This is even true of desperately poor white people, who are very numerous, but would rather deny a social program to black people even if that means they also cannot benefit from it. Many of the countries we think of as quite successful and wealthy and educated and having many social programs are also shockingly homogeneous, so it’s hard to know if, say, Finland would be exactly as nice if they had more different races there. But we can say for certain that racism is holding America back.
      - endymi0n 8y ago
        Just for the record, Norway is just about on par with the US if you count foreign born population, and Germany is even slightly above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...
kzrdude 8y ago
The US cult of the personal interest above all else must have some effect, even on politics. It's a cultural problem, when corruption or self-enrichment is tolerated in public offices where the holders are supposed to act as good stewards of the common project. I think cynicism and acceptance are two sides of the same coin, unfortunately. One cannot cite high tax levels as a downside without looking at what you get for the bargain. High price is not a downside when you get better value for money.
- jopsen 8y ago
  I sometimes jokingly view the welfare state with high taxes as an index fund whose underlying assests is people. I like it because there aren't many legal means by which I can invest in humans :) And if you're trying to diversify your portfolio, why wouldn't you want to bet on humans?
  - flatfilefan 8y ago
    Great way to put it! This is literally the argument for the index funds, right? You are profiting from the economic activity of all businesses in the field by paying an index share price = tax.
  - kzrdude 8y ago
    Diversifying is a good notion too, since it on average has benefits even though detractors want to hold up individual counterexamples.
maxxxxx 8y ago
"In the US, kids are seen at worst a nuisance and at best a personal luxury." That's nonsense. The US is all about children. That doesn't result in long term thinking about their education or maternal/parental leave but children are not seen as a nuisance.
- wetpaws 8y ago
  Just try to tell it folks in bay area paying $2000-$3000 for childcare monthly.
- kimdotcom 8y ago
  I disagree, anecdotally, many of my peers with children recommend not have children and also regret not eloping.
- pfranz 8y ago
  I see both perspectives. As a culture that supports kids the US is way behind on maternity/paternity leave, childcare, leisure time overall, healthcare, higher level education. I see the increase in recent generations leaving religion has created a gap in social support, too (not sure how this maps to places other than the US). The US has a huge consumer culture for kids; suburbs are one way for kids to grow up, cheap toys and entertainment. Movies and entertainment have notoriously targeted PG-13 in recent decades because they're the largest audience (most free time and disposable income). I feel like in the US a century ago there were incentives to have more kids; need for labor, childhood mortality. These incentives have gone away and disincentives have taken their place; women entering the workforce, educating children until their mid-20s before entering the workforce as a career, and little things like the costs needed to raise a child[1]. We haven't really changed anything to improve those disincentives and the results speak for themselves. People are having fewer kids later in life. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys)
jopsen 8y ago
Often it's framed as: if you want the welfare state to exist when you retire we must invest in education to stay competitive in a world where masses of the 3rd world are increasingly able to do our jobs cheaper. The welfare system is in many ways the ultimate index fund, as it earns back it's investment via. taxes :)
flatfilefan 8y ago
Probably true for wealthy decision makers elite, who get to exploit the labor immigration and incumbent workers too by denying them of child benefits and vacation.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Many countries have such socialist systems and are very poor. To cherry pick literally the most successful of such systems is not representative. (Though you could still be essentially correct) Also, Americans, on average, a much richer in the end. The American problem could have to do with 'longer lifespan' meaning 'longer in school' meaning 'longer in debt with higher salaries afterwards' , i.e. the 'higher highs' and 'lower lows' exposing a social problem that was not apparent before. I agree it's an issue though.
collyw 8y ago
I am in the EU, I find kids a nuisance personally. I couldn't possibly see how they could be regarded as a luxury however.

bernardino 8y ago

> In the US, kids are seen at worst a nuisance and at best a personal luxury. Please, if you may, explain why you think this is so.

endymi0n 8y ago
I think so mainly because of the near total lack of societal support of bringing them up to be educated, responsible adults with opportunities. If you want to have them, fine. But then, you better be prepared to be able to pay for health care, child care and college. Without maternal / paternal leave, having kids also puts their parents at a financial and career disadvantage to non-parents, so they are indeed a luxury.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/education-spending.htm https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/education-spending.htm US might be doing it wrong, but it does spend a lot of money on children
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    There's all sorts of subsidies and programs that only apply to kids. Maybe they aren't as big as they ought to be, but other poster has a weird conclusion going there. For instance, 35 million children get health insurance from the government: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-enrollment-data/report-highlights/child-and-chip-enrollment/index.html https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica... That's close to ½ of the kids in the country.
    - Avamander 8y ago
      > That's close to ½ of the kids in the country. Um, that's a good thing?
      - maxerickson 8y ago
        My intention was to contrast against "near total lack of societal support", not to state an opinion about Medicaid and CHIP.
        williamdclt 8y ago
        I think that the point was that "½ of the kids in the country" sounds very low. Admittedly that's not "near total lack of societal support" but still, half of the kids are not provided with something as basic as health insurance from the gov
        maxerickson 8y ago
        More than half if that is what you want to say. In a private insurance model, ½ is a lot. I suppose it can be fun to act all astonished that the US has a private insurance model.
- swiley 8y ago
  There’s a lot of fear here that giving people something for free means that the people receiving it will abuse it. People who want free education are viewed as “entitled.” The US is really weird about children, they’re the most important thing in most peoples minds but as soon as they turn 18 they’re dangerous and entitled.
  - ebikelaw 8y ago
    The underlying reason is racism. White people dislike the idea of a social system that benefits everybody, because that would include the blacks. This is even true of desperately poor white people, who are very numerous, but would rather deny a social program to black people even if that means they also cannot benefit from it. Many of the countries we think of as quite successful and wealthy and educated and having many social programs are also shockingly homogeneous, so it’s hard to know if, say, Finland would be exactly as nice if they had more different races there. But we can say for certain that racism is holding America back.
    - endymi0n 8y ago
      Just for the record, Norway is just about on par with the US if you count foreign born population, and Germany is even slightly above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...

kzrdude 8y ago

The US cult of the personal interest above all else must have some effect, even on politics. It's a cultural problem, when corruption or self-enrichment is tolerated in public offices where the holders are supposed to act as good stewards of the common project. I think cynicism and acceptance are two sides of the same coin, unfortunately. One cannot cite high tax levels as a downside without looking at what you get for the bargain. High price is not a downside when you get better value for money.

jopsen 8y ago
I sometimes jokingly view the welfare state with high taxes as an index fund whose underlying assests is people. I like it because there aren't many legal means by which I can invest in humans :) And if you're trying to diversify your portfolio, why wouldn't you want to bet on humans?
- flatfilefan 8y ago
  Great way to put it! This is literally the argument for the index funds, right? You are profiting from the economic activity of all businesses in the field by paying an index share price = tax.
- kzrdude 8y ago
  Diversifying is a good notion too, since it on average has benefits even though detractors want to hold up individual counterexamples.

maxxxxx 8y ago

"In the US, kids are seen at worst a nuisance and at best a personal luxury." That's nonsense. The US is all about children. That doesn't result in long term thinking about their education or maternal/parental leave but children are not seen as a nuisance.

wetpaws 8y ago
Just try to tell it folks in bay area paying $2000-$3000 for childcare monthly.
kimdotcom 8y ago
I disagree, anecdotally, many of my peers with children recommend not have children and also regret not eloping.
pfranz 8y ago
I see both perspectives. As a culture that supports kids the US is way behind on maternity/paternity leave, childcare, leisure time overall, healthcare, higher level education. I see the increase in recent generations leaving religion has created a gap in social support, too (not sure how this maps to places other than the US). The US has a huge consumer culture for kids; suburbs are one way for kids to grow up, cheap toys and entertainment. Movies and entertainment have notoriously targeted PG-13 in recent decades because they're the largest audience (most free time and disposable income). I feel like in the US a century ago there were incentives to have more kids; need for labor, childhood mortality. These incentives have gone away and disincentives have taken their place; women entering the workforce, educating children until their mid-20s before entering the workforce as a career, and little things like the costs needed to raise a child[1]. We haven't really changed anything to improve those disincentives and the results speak for themselves. People are having fewer kids later in life. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys)

jopsen 8y ago

Often it's framed as: if you want the welfare state to exist when you retire we must invest in education to stay competitive in a world where masses of the 3rd world are increasingly able to do our jobs cheaper. The welfare system is in many ways the ultimate index fund, as it earns back it's investment via. taxes :)

flatfilefan 8y ago

Probably true for wealthy decision makers elite, who get to exploit the labor immigration and incumbent workers too by denying them of child benefits and vacation.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Many countries have such socialist systems and are very poor. To cherry pick literally the most successful of such systems is not representative. (Though you could still be essentially correct) Also, Americans, on average, a much richer in the end. The American problem could have to do with 'longer lifespan' meaning 'longer in school' meaning 'longer in debt with higher salaries afterwards' , i.e. the 'higher highs' and 'lower lows' exposing a social problem that was not apparent before. I agree it's an issue though.

collyw 8y ago

I am in the EU, I find kids a nuisance personally. I couldn't possibly see how they could be regarded as a luxury however.