12 ms·

“It would allow more women to enter the workforce”. I understand what the quote means but, honestly, this is one of the big wrong points of our society: that c

• meheleventyone 7y ago
  I don’t think that it’s that people don’t value those things but that people are unable to have the luxury to act on that belief. I’m also not convinced that the choice was made by the broad base of society.
• orev 7y ago
  I think you’re being overly picky and cherry-picking your argument here. I don’t know anyone who thinks that child rearing is not hard work, and all agree that it is valuable. But in the context of this discussion, “productivity” is an economic term for the production of goods or services, and the generation of income for the workers. Child rearing does neither of those things directly, so as an economic activity, it doesn’t register and thus those parents are not part of the workforce. Again, that does not mean it is not a valuable thing to do for both the child and society, but it also does not directly add to GDP, generate income taxes, etc.
  • cjmcqueen 7y ago
    Child rearing produces children that are adults and had the attention of a fully invested parent. Are you sure you're measuring the right thing?
    • tristanstcyr 7y ago
      The reality is that the atomic family model is antiquated. In our society, the individual is the unit We must therefore make the individual strong, meaning that we need to support both parents independent all the while having children. We can observe that the old model was better in terms of a certain metric, but that's not going to help. We need to invest in making child rearing effective in today's world.
      • jriot 7y ago
        The atomic family model is not antiquated. The majority of the country follows that model with research demonstrating that is the best path for success.
      • loco5niner 7y ago
        > In our society, the individual is the unit This is definitely the wrong mindset.
  • makomk 7y ago
    It's funny you should mention GDP, because childcare is one of the iconic well-known examples of why it can be a misleading measure. If person A is paid to care for person B's kids whilst they work, that results in higher GDP than if person B cares for their own kids and person A takes the job instead, even though exactly the same amount is being done, because caring for those kids is no longer a service that counts towards GDP under the latter scenario.
    • bonoboTP 7y ago
      Isn't that a much more general argument? Anytime I do some garden work myself, fix some appliance myself, clean my house, buy groceries, cook my own dinner, do my taxes alone, drive my car myself, etc, I'm not increasing the GDP, but I would be if I paid for the respective service. Also note how in your first scenario both people earn money, in the second scenario only A does (ending up with more than what B had in scenario 1).
• bananabreakfast 7y ago
  You're completely missing the point of the parent comment and misunderstanding the concept of what the workforce is. Being a part of the workforce in this context means you are contributing income taxes. A full time parent contributes $0 in income taxes from their labor and hence is not a part of the workforce. The value of raising a child full time is not at issue here and you're attacking a straw-man. A subsidized day care gives a parent the option of returning to the work force if they wish. This could be because they want to work, or because they have to to feed their family. The parent comment was pointing out that this choice does not result in a deficit to society but rather in a net surplus which makes it worth it to implement and offer regardless of how parents choose to raise their children.
  • topkai22 7y ago
    That’s a problematic definition of in the workforce- in the US 32-47% of people filing tax returns have 0 or negative income tax liability. Paying payroll taxes might be a better definition. Regardless, accounting for value provided in “gray market” untaxed like child rearing, in home work, and volunteer work is very hard and subject to a lot of assumptions in economic models. It’s not a complete strawman argument to worry about it when discussing ROI. Theoretically, we should just grant parents a tax exempt voucher per child every month that is exchangeable for cash or daycare at equivalent rates. That way you aren’t disincentivizing stay at home parents or other familial care (like grandparents or shared part time parenting).
• darawk 7y ago
  I think you're missing the point of the "childcare is not part of the workforce" argument. It's not that it isn't work, and it's not that it isn't important. It's that, in many cases, the economic comparative advantage for the (often) female caretaker of those children is not being fully utilized. That is to say, caring for a child is a service that costs X. But it is being performed by a person who's skills are valued at Y, where Y > X. That represents an economic loss that doesn't have to happen, if instead you substitute someone who's most highly valued skill is worth X for that caretaker. Now, that ignores the benefit of having a child's own parents care for them, which may or may not change how you evaluate the question depending on your perspective on these things.
  • telesilla 7y ago
    Not just an economic advantage either, but for the mental health of the mother, it's very rare to meet a woman who only desires to stay at home for the duration of a child's life.
    • HBKXNCUO 7y ago
      >it's very rare to meet a woman who only desires to stay at home for the duration of a child's life I assume you mean until the child goes to school or perhaps becomes an adult, and in my experience it's not rare to meet women like that. It certainly was not rare in previous generations, so to the extent that it is rare today, it's due to cultural changes. If women's mental health is suffering because certain elements of society have convinced them they should be working instead of caring for their children, we should just as strongly consider countering those elements. What is very rare in my experience is to meet an older woman who wishes she had spent less time with her children when they were young.
      • sweeneyrod 7y ago
        I'm pretty sure your last statement is also true for men, quite possibly to a greater extent (since men more commonly focus on their careers to the exclusion of their children).
  • 7y ago
• dobleboble 7y ago
  A tax credit of $10/day/child for stay at home parents might make sense?
  • godot 7y ago
    (Admittedly I only skimmed through the article, but) Isn't the article saying that because of the program, child care is reduced to costing $10/day, but otherwise would cost much more? For example, in lower COL places in the US, it usually costs the range of $100/day for a nanny that works 8 hours a day, and for higher COL places (e.g. Palo Alto) it could even be say $300/day. Daycare (with groups of children) can be a bit cheaper, for sure. But the point being, to have tax credit that matches that kind of effect, we'd need at least tax credits of $90/day/child for stay at home parents, to make sense, and including weekends too (i.e. 365 days a year).
• tharne 7y ago
  Agreed. There are very few things in life as important as raising one's children well. To say that we should incentivize or otherwise coerce people into outsourcing the upbringing of their own children so they can punch a time-clock is beyond misguided. We've elevated "careers" to an almost god-like status where we end up engineering our lives to serve our careers instead of the other way around.
  • com2kid 7y ago
    > Agreed. There are very few things in life as important as raising one's children well. To say that we should incentivize or otherwise coerce people into outsourcing the upbringing of their own children so they can punch a time-clock is beyond misguided. This same statement can be applied to healthcare (our family's health is one of the most important things we have, why do we outsource it to doctors?) and cooking (nutritious meals are the keystones of a good life, why do we let anyone else cook for our family?) Also how is giving someone a choice to work or raise kids misguided? Are you assuming people don't get satisfaction from their work? Or that there can't be a balance? I'll agree that we worship at the corporate alter too much, and that our society actively works against raising a family, but helping lower the cost of childcare is encouraging families. As it stands right now people aren't having kids because it is so expensive, and telling them "your values are wrong, stop working and have a kid instead!" isn't going to change minds en masse.
    • tharne 7y ago
      Comparing raising children to receiving healthcare is absurd. Raising children is an instinct that's hardwired in each of us. Administering healthcare as we do today is a modern technical skill specific to a particular time and place. Regarding your last comment about people not having kids because it's too expensive, while that may be a popular thing to say it's 100% false. As individuals and societies become wealthier they have fewer kids not more. The poorest places have the highest birth rates and that's true both within and and between countries. People are free to have as many or as few kids as they like, but it's silly to argue that money is a barrier when we are living in the wealthiest era in human history. Why are people having fewer kids? Who knows, but my guess is that it probably has something to do with historically high levels of access to birth reliable birth control and the decreased importance that most folks place on having large families. Those aren't necessarily bad things, they're just historical outliers.
• com2kid 7y ago
  > This is one of those cultural ideas embedded in XXI Century logic which only does harm and transmits the wrong message: people’s life is as valuable as the money the work or the “job” they have, and of course, caring for the family is not a proper job. First off, what if someone doesn't want to be a stay at home parent? Why force traditional values on them? But, in terms of pure economics, let's put it at an extreme. Child-care is too expensive, a woman who would otherwise go on to make breakthroughs in medical science stays at home. The lost value to society is in the literal millions. This scenario only has to be repeated a few times before it becomes economically irresponsible to not offer subsidized child care. And, given how large the population is, this situation will happen. The ideal of capitalism is that people are rewarded for their contributions to society overall, by providing value for others (ideally increasing net happiness!) people are reimbursed. Now I'm not going to even try and say that is what always happens, obviously things have gotten a bit off kilter, but by and large I'd say that for many jobs out there, that is still true. And the thing is, some people have an outsized impact, potential is on a curve, and if a single person on the far end of the "can help out humanity' curve is not enabled to do all that they can do to help out, then we all lose out.
  • petra 7y ago
    I'm not sure . In a very large share of people work either in bullshit jobs or unnecessary jobs or are replacablable. On the other hand, if children would get more love,maybe more of them would grow to be exceptional?
    • com2kid 7y ago
      The problem is there is no easy way to know in large swaths what jobs are BS or unnecessary. And of course someone could have a BS job and then later move on to a job that does have an impact! Trying to evaluate the worth of people is pretty much futile, and whenever it has been attempted there have been huge negative outcomes. And even during less extreme historical circumstances, it is just expensive to do, the recent example being drug testing for welfare recipients. The cost to do the drug testing far exceeded the money the government saved denying benefits. In the end being non-judgemental and treating people equally turns out to be a rather economically efficient solution.
• chris5745 7y ago
  I understand the spirit of your position, but I think many or most people certainly value “homemaking” for lack of a better term. It’s not a “job” in the sense of monetary revenue, but it makes having a “job” possible for a partner, and has indirect monetary value in addition to the non-quantifiable value of the role itself. Like many “jobs”, homemaking is almost always thankless. I think instead of trying to get our caretaker(s) on the cover of Fortune or whatever we should just thank them more.
  • toasterlovin 7y ago
    > I think many or most people certainly value “homemaking” There is definitely a good sized segment of America that views homemaking as occupying some position below earning a salary. My wife (a homemaker) encounters this routinely among a certain set of career aspiring women.
• cjmcqueen 7y ago
  Completely agree. Raising a family is work and it does add to the greater good of the world. And, it's not being measured properly, which leads oeople to assume that dual income is the "right goal" when it's an intrinsic bias to the situation.
• decebalus1 7y ago
  > I understand what the quote means but, honestly, this is one of the big wrong points of our society: that caring for the children full-time is NOT being part of the workforce. I see it more as a way of self-sufficiency and financial independence from the spouse. I believe one of the wrong points in our 'free' society is that it's perfectly acceptable to basically rely on your spouse for financial stability. That is a frequent source of abuse, resentment, unfulfilled dreams, and the regular 'i raised MY kids' narrative during divorce proceedings etc.. > people’s life is as valuable as the money the work or the “job” they have, Unfortunately this is the world we live in, especially with the lack of social safety net provided by the state. Someone must go out and make money in order to sustain a certain level of quality of life.
  • godot 7y ago
    > I believe one of the wrong points in our 'free' society is that it's perfectly acceptable to basically rely on your spouse for financial stability. That is a frequent source of abuse, resentment, unfulfilled dreams, and the regular 'i raised MY kids' narrative during divorce proceedings etc.. But here's the opposite view point: as parents, both my spouse and I would rather have either myself or my spouse be a full time carer of our baby, than sending her off to daycare and have both of us working. What do you suggest is the solution then; other than making enough money / hitting the startup lottery jackpot and retiring before having kids?
    • decebalus1 7y ago
      you're talking temporary solutions. I was responding to permanent solutions.
      • godot 7y ago
        I don't really know what you mean. Can you elaborate?
        • decebalus1 7y ago
          Sorry, I misread your point. Nevermind, I thought you were talking about something else. > What do you suggest is the solution then; other than making enough money / hitting the startup lottery jackpot and retiring before having kids? Maybe not a popular opinion but I firmly believe that the state needs to use the parent's tax money into protecting it's newest citizen by providing generous paid time off to its caregivers. Lots of states in Europe do it successfully. The US implements some sort of social Darwinism in which the more well-off kids get either more facetime with their parents or higher quality care.
• whytaka 7y ago
  But it is. It’s just that it’s made more communal. I don’t really see the moral panic in having children being raised together in groups rather than by a dedicated or househusband.
• empath75 7y ago
  Maybe we should pay parents to stay home and watch their kids instead of subsidizing day care.
  • dragonwriter 7y ago
    Or we could just subsidize parents and let them choose how best to use the subsidy to provide for their kids.
• User23 7y ago
  It’s always struck me as strange. Working for a boss that doesn’t care about you past the next review is liberating, but working for a family that loves you more than anything is oppressive.
• fortran77 7y ago
  Also why can't men take care of the children and women work? If childcare is so expensive, maybe in two-parent households, one parent's job should be to raise the children while the other works.
  • HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    >Also why can't men take care of the children and women work? They can, and some do, but there is the tricky problem that women tend not to want to be married to men that make less money than them.
  • werdnapk 7y ago
    This is what I do. I take the parental leave (I can take 7-9 months I believe) and my wife goes back to work (she makes more than I do, so it makes sense).
  • SkyBelow 7y ago
    One thing to account for this is the social pressure in which way people marry in respect to their own economic condition. Why this exist is an entire other discussion, but it has lasting impacts.
  • tharne 7y ago
    > Also why can't men take care of the children and women work? They can, and often do. I know of several executives where I work who have stay at home husbands. This arrangement may not be as common as the traditional one, but it's more common than you think
• richardw 7y ago
  It's an incredible contribution, but in general childrearing isn't a skill you'd use in other areas of work. So the time spent on it is wasted compared to the extra e.g. 5 years becoming more competitive.
• pergadad 7y ago
  Ask yourself: is caring for my 2-3 kids at home, cleaning the house, cooking, laundry, ... Really the most interesting way I want to spend my life? There are some (mostly women) who choose this. There are many many more (mostly women) who do this because they don't see any other choice, either due to cultural pressure or due to financials. There are also studies that show it's good for the kids to be with other kids and in a more structured learning environment than a home can offer. It's not that childcare is undervalued it's that most women want to see themselves as more than just responsible for bearing and rearing children. What you are defending is the classical conservative relationship model. Nothing wrong with that. Indeed it can be pleasant for many people. For many more it is not a satisfactory way to live their life. It's also often not satisfactory for the working partner that rarely gets to see their kids. Now, where it gets interesting would be more flexible models like they are common in the Nordics, e.g. both parents working 60-80% and alternating childcare and household duties on different days/weeks. THAT is a progressive and for all sides positive model.
  • loco5niner 7y ago
    > is caring for my 2-3 kids at home, cleaning the house, cooking, laundry, ... Really the most interesting way I want to spend my life? I would absolutely chose that over punching a clock everyday. You have to do the cooking and cleaning and laundry anyway and you're also leaving an aweful lot out of the good stuff out in your description.