4 ms·

I'm not sure this is the strongest case you could make for saying this ought to be the responsibility of the government. If people can make more working than ch

I'm not sure this is the strongest case you could make for saying this ought to be the responsibility of the government. If people can make more working than childcare costs, then they can make their own decision about how to invest their own time and money. Why does the government need to pay for this, if they argument is ultimately that the wages of women now working is what ends up paying the cost of the service? I am generally not one to rail against the government running efficient programs for general welfare, I support single payer healthcare in the US and many progressive policies. I do however think we need to consider the line where anything you buy has the government involved in re-distributing resources to make it cheaper for people with less money. Ultimately, it might be good to allow economic forces to produce an economy again where single income households can afford to raise children, regardless of the gender of the parent who is earning an income. More work doesn't always mean societies or families ended up better off, parents spending time raising kids should not be seen as just sunken cost because we could have gotten tax money out of them.

yorwba 7y ago
> If people can make more working than childcare costs, then they can make their own decision about how to invest their own time and money. Why does the government need to pay for this, if they argument is ultimately that the wages of women now working is what ends up paying the cost of the service? Before a stay-at-home parent enters the workforce, they may not have the money to pay for the childcare that would free up time to work. Essentially only governments have both the money and the incentive to invest in making childcare widely available.
- roenxi 7y ago
  That is an excellent reason to provide maybe 1 or 2 months of subsidised healthcare to women who with children who are seeking work. Something extremely targeted and modest. But it seems a bit questionable in the thread context of "the program literally pays for itself" which presumably means the program is encouraging high earning women to enter the workforce, ie, those with valuable skills, substantial experience and a contacts network that means they can probably bear the cost of finding work.
- golergka 7y ago
  So, you seriously consider that a person who can get a salary that would cover child care costs wouldn't be able to borrow a single month salary worth of cash to make the transition?

yorwba 7y ago

> If people can make more working than childcare costs, then they can make their own decision about how to invest their own time and money. Why does the government need to pay for this, if they argument is ultimately that the wages of women now working is what ends up paying the cost of the service? Before a stay-at-home parent enters the workforce, they may not have the money to pay for the childcare that would free up time to work. Essentially only governments have both the money and the incentive to invest in making childcare widely available.

roenxi 7y ago
That is an excellent reason to provide maybe 1 or 2 months of subsidised healthcare to women who with children who are seeking work. Something extremely targeted and modest. But it seems a bit questionable in the thread context of "the program literally pays for itself" which presumably means the program is encouraging high earning women to enter the workforce, ie, those with valuable skills, substantial experience and a contacts network that means they can probably bear the cost of finding work.
golergka 7y ago
So, you seriously consider that a person who can get a salary that would cover child care costs wouldn't be able to borrow a single month salary worth of cash to make the transition?