2 ms·

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, mayb

by 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).