5 ms·

This is a generic defeatist premise. Yes, if we do not try to make the world a more pleasant place to live in, the world indeed will not be a more pleasant plac

This is a generic defeatist premise. Yes, if we do not try to make the world a more pleasant place to live in, the world indeed will not be a more pleasant place. And yes, poor people (and right now even middle class people) do not have the luxury to have the choice I depicted, or many other choices. But it is worthwhile to have our institutions try to change work culture for the better, exactly so that these options become feasible, both for the middle class and for the even less lucky. Or to rephrase it in your way: there are costs to maintaining these other options, and I am happy to see that there are governments trying (and occasionally succeeding) to pay these costs.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
The government can't pay those costs unless you are suggesting some kind of communal child raising situation rather than having children raised by their parents. Raising children well requires a lot of time and effort. I don't think it's defeatist to acknowledge that. If you want to try to improve that, find some way to raise children without needing so much of their parents' time and energy and without sacrificing quality.
- krastanov 7y ago
  A number of issues with what you said: - daycare (including fancy stuff like daycare on your work's campus where you can join your kid in between work activitie)s is a great idea that has already been tested - it is perfectly reasonable for the extended family to help with child-rearing, especially in location where there is a history of that - It seems crazy to me to suggest we change the ways we raise children, without suggesting changes to the ways careers progress. Even without my hippy suggestions about idealistic version of childcare, a comparatively trivial thing to do is to realign employee and employer incentives. And there are governments that do that successfully. This is why I am calling your comments "defeatist". Stop projecting your view of the world on everyone: yes, your view is consistent and reasonable, if the homemaker is happy with the arangement, but it is not the only possible way to have a healthy family.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    Daycare, the act of handing your infants and toddlers over to minimum wage workers who do not care about your children on an individual basis and who are also supposed to be taking care of several other children, is not a great idea, or even a good idea. It's a bad idea. For any decent parent, it would be a last resort before giving the children up for adoption. Yes of course it's great when the extended family can help. That doesn't happen much in the modern world. It would be great if it did though. >a comparatively trivial thing to do is to realign employee and employer incentives. And there are governments that do that successfully. What does that mean? I think it's defeatist to want so many people slaving away for corporate masters rather than spending time with their families. >Stop projecting your view of the world on everyone I don't know what that means. I'm not going to stop advocating that people make lifestyle choices that I think are best, because as a father of a young child, my child is going to grow up in a world populated by the children that are the result of the lifestyle choices people are making today, and I would prefer for him to be surrounded by people that have been raised as well as possible. >but it is not the only possible way to have a healthy family. It is by far the best way to ensure you have a healthy family that we know of.
    - krastanov 7y ago
      I do not know where you are coming from, but our surroundings must be extremely different. This is why I am saying you should not project your assumptions on everyone. Why do you assume that daycare staff are minimal wage workers as opposed to well paid professionals that know more about intellectual enrichment and child psychology than the average parent? Why are you assuming a career means "slaving away for corporate masters" as opposed to a myriad of ways one can work to enrich the world around them while at the same time being paid (academia, small business, art/design work, community work, the vast majority of lifestyle business, social purpose work, solving intellectually interesting technical problems, etc)? There are people that love their creative jobs, and we should not pretend they are unicorns or that they have to sacrifice their child's upbringing. What you describe sounds borderline selfish to me. I get you are trying to suggest something good, but a person can make the world better (and even be paid for it) without compromising how much they care for their child. Maybe I am talking like that because I am privileged and have an easy life. But then why not advocate that our communities try to make more people's lives easier?

HBKXNCUO 7y ago

The government can't pay those costs unless you are suggesting some kind of communal child raising situation rather than having children raised by their parents. Raising children well requires a lot of time and effort. I don't think it's defeatist to acknowledge that. If you want to try to improve that, find some way to raise children without needing so much of their parents' time and energy and without sacrificing quality.

krastanov 7y ago
A number of issues with what you said: - daycare (including fancy stuff like daycare on your work's campus where you can join your kid in between work activitie)s is a great idea that has already been tested - it is perfectly reasonable for the extended family to help with child-rearing, especially in location where there is a history of that - It seems crazy to me to suggest we change the ways we raise children, without suggesting changes to the ways careers progress. Even without my hippy suggestions about idealistic version of childcare, a comparatively trivial thing to do is to realign employee and employer incentives. And there are governments that do that successfully. This is why I am calling your comments "defeatist". Stop projecting your view of the world on everyone: yes, your view is consistent and reasonable, if the homemaker is happy with the arangement, but it is not the only possible way to have a healthy family.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  Daycare, the act of handing your infants and toddlers over to minimum wage workers who do not care about your children on an individual basis and who are also supposed to be taking care of several other children, is not a great idea, or even a good idea. It's a bad idea. For any decent parent, it would be a last resort before giving the children up for adoption. Yes of course it's great when the extended family can help. That doesn't happen much in the modern world. It would be great if it did though. >a comparatively trivial thing to do is to realign employee and employer incentives. And there are governments that do that successfully. What does that mean? I think it's defeatist to want so many people slaving away for corporate masters rather than spending time with their families. >Stop projecting your view of the world on everyone I don't know what that means. I'm not going to stop advocating that people make lifestyle choices that I think are best, because as a father of a young child, my child is going to grow up in a world populated by the children that are the result of the lifestyle choices people are making today, and I would prefer for him to be surrounded by people that have been raised as well as possible. >but it is not the only possible way to have a healthy family. It is by far the best way to ensure you have a healthy family that we know of.
  - krastanov 7y ago
    I do not know where you are coming from, but our surroundings must be extremely different. This is why I am saying you should not project your assumptions on everyone. Why do you assume that daycare staff are minimal wage workers as opposed to well paid professionals that know more about intellectual enrichment and child psychology than the average parent? Why are you assuming a career means "slaving away for corporate masters" as opposed to a myriad of ways one can work to enrich the world around them while at the same time being paid (academia, small business, art/design work, community work, the vast majority of lifestyle business, social purpose work, solving intellectually interesting technical problems, etc)? There are people that love their creative jobs, and we should not pretend they are unicorns or that they have to sacrifice their child's upbringing. What you describe sounds borderline selfish to me. I get you are trying to suggest something good, but a person can make the world better (and even be paid for it) without compromising how much they care for their child. Maybe I am talking like that because I am privileged and have an easy life. But then why not advocate that our communities try to make more people's lives easier?