7 ms·

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

by 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).
klipt 7y ago
Why is subsidized daycare necessary in these cases though? In America if daycare costs X and you earn Y much greater than X, then obviously you'll make more money going to work and sending your kid to daycare than being a stay at home parent. The people who choose to stay at home often either have multiple kids (higher X) or earn little enough (lower Y) that it's not an economic advantage for them to work. But those people would be a net loss (to the government) in the Quebec system too.
- darawk 7y ago
  So, I think the argument would be that many mother's could go back to school and increase their skill-value to Y if they weren't stuck caring for children, maybe. I'm not sure. It's not clear to me that subsidized child-care is necessary, but I think if I were to make the argument, it'd look like that. EDIT: Another argument is that there are economies of scale to subsidized child-care. Such that caring for the marginal child is substantially cheaper than almost anyone's potential income in the traditional labor force.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    > Another argument is that there are economies of scale to subsidized child-care There are some very difficult to snswer questions with a scale argument applied to young children. Without bothering to look for a source it seems quite reasonable that young children who socialise 1:(small n) with a caregiver in a family unit turn out quite differently to those who socalise 1:(big N) in a 'highly efficient' daycare centre. I could see that argument either being a pro or a con; most parents are as bad at parenting as they are at everything else. But the issues involved in creating economies-of-scale in child care mean it should be considered potentially neutral until they have been debated (vs considered as a net-positive as is normal in economics).
- tharne 7y ago
  100%. We shouldn't be creating perverse incentives. Subsidizing a low-wage job is a net loss for everyone. For taxpayers, it's just more money out of their pocket and for the parents, you're being encouraged to leave your children with strangers so you can go and work a job that doesn't pay enough to cover the cost of paying those strangers. We need to get past the ridiculous idea that staying home with one's children while their young is some sort of failure. It's not. It's valuable work, which coincidentally is why childcare is as expensive as it is. Frankly, given the importance of the work, I'm surprised childcare doesn't cost more.
sweeneyrod 7y ago
No, the point is that there is more to life than money. Caring for your own child has value that isn't captured by the amount of money you would have to pay someone else to do it. If you only care about economic efficiency then the whole idea of childcare is misguided; to maximise productivity you should set children to work as soon as they're able. FYI, "comparative advantage" has a specific meaning, it isn't just a synonym for "advantage, but in economics".
tehjoker 7y ago
Subsidized childcare is good, but even though it has liberatory potential this is still coercive to women because now they have a financial incentive to work for somebody other than themselves. This means that this reform is beneficial to the buisness community and many women, but not all women as some would prefer to do the work themselves. We should subsidize childcare in efficient group settings, but we should also pay women that decide to stay home and do that work from public funds at decent salaries. Only then, when women are free to choose their own destiny free of financial pressure can we say we've made the kind of difference in the world we want to see. EDIT: In fact, there are probably many different childcare arrangements that women would pick: alone, in groups with friends or relatives, or in the employed laborforce. All of these should be realistically on the table. EDIT2: While practically speaking in our current society, women would be the most affected, this should apply to any primary caregiver regardless of gender identity.

by darawk 7y ago

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).

klipt 7y ago

Why is subsidized daycare necessary in these cases though? In America if daycare costs X and you earn Y much greater than X, then obviously you'll make more money going to work and sending your kid to daycare than being a stay at home parent. The people who choose to stay at home often either have multiple kids (higher X) or earn little enough (lower Y) that it's not an economic advantage for them to work. But those people would be a net loss (to the government) in the Quebec system too.

darawk 7y ago
So, I think the argument would be that many mother's could go back to school and increase their skill-value to Y if they weren't stuck caring for children, maybe. I'm not sure. It's not clear to me that subsidized child-care is necessary, but I think if I were to make the argument, it'd look like that. EDIT: Another argument is that there are economies of scale to subsidized child-care. Such that caring for the marginal child is substantially cheaper than almost anyone's potential income in the traditional labor force.
- roenxi 7y ago
  > Another argument is that there are economies of scale to subsidized child-care There are some very difficult to snswer questions with a scale argument applied to young children. Without bothering to look for a source it seems quite reasonable that young children who socialise 1:(small n) with a caregiver in a family unit turn out quite differently to those who socalise 1:(big N) in a 'highly efficient' daycare centre. I could see that argument either being a pro or a con; most parents are as bad at parenting as they are at everything else. But the issues involved in creating economies-of-scale in child care mean it should be considered potentially neutral until they have been debated (vs considered as a net-positive as is normal in economics).
tharne 7y ago
100%. We shouldn't be creating perverse incentives. Subsidizing a low-wage job is a net loss for everyone. For taxpayers, it's just more money out of their pocket and for the parents, you're being encouraged to leave your children with strangers so you can go and work a job that doesn't pay enough to cover the cost of paying those strangers. We need to get past the ridiculous idea that staying home with one's children while their young is some sort of failure. It's not. It's valuable work, which coincidentally is why childcare is as expensive as it is. Frankly, given the importance of the work, I'm surprised childcare doesn't cost more.

sweeneyrod 7y ago

No, the point is that there is more to life than money. Caring for your own child has value that isn't captured by the amount of money you would have to pay someone else to do it. If you only care about economic efficiency then the whole idea of childcare is misguided; to maximise productivity you should set children to work as soon as they're able. FYI, "comparative advantage" has a specific meaning, it isn't just a synonym for "advantage, but in economics".

tehjoker 7y ago

Subsidized childcare is good, but even though it has liberatory potential this is still coercive to women because now they have a financial incentive to work for somebody other than themselves. This means that this reform is beneficial to the buisness community and many women, but not all women as some would prefer to do the work themselves. We should subsidize childcare in efficient group settings, but we should also pay women that decide to stay home and do that work from public funds at decent salaries. Only then, when women are free to choose their own destiny free of financial pressure can we say we've made the kind of difference in the world we want to see. EDIT: In fact, there are probably many different childcare arrangements that women would pick: alone, in groups with friends or relatives, or in the employed laborforce. All of these should be realistically on the table. EDIT2: While practically speaking in our current society, women would be the most affected, this should apply to any primary caregiver regardless of gender identity.