19 ms·

> it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids Are you suggesting that the father should pay the mother a salary for raising the kids? (Or same th

> it's crazy that a women doesn't get paid for raising kids Are you suggesting that the father should pay the mother a salary for raising the kids? (Or same thing with the sexes reversed if it's the father raising the kid) Isn't that just a more formal arrangement of a stay-at-home mother/father? The main difference would be: more financial independence to the stay-at-home party, which is good in my book, but I'm not sure if that's what you're suggesting.

jedberg 6y ago
I believe the proposal is that the government should pay stay at home parents to remain that way, because it is a net benefit to society.
- klipt 6y ago
  Isn't it economically more efficient to have kids go to daycares (which benefit from economies of scale) and have both parents work and pay taxes? Of course some people prefer to raise their kids themselves, but that seems more like an expensive lifestyle choice than a necessity.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    There are lots of studies showing that being raised by your own parents is far more beneficial than a day care. But as you point out, that's a privilege reserved for the wealthy. Paying people to be stay at home parents would make it a viable choice for a lot more people. It would also help reverse the trend of the fertility rate dropping below 2.1
    - iends 6y ago
      Please share those studies.
  - sbierwagen 6y ago
    >which benefit from economies of scale The economy of scale isn't as big as one might like. Child care staff ratios for infants and toddlers are something like 1:3 to 1:4. Between that and the cost of compliance, licensing, insurance, and the inevitable scandals when deployed at scale, (If you have 1 million caregivers, you absolutely will have some number of murders or molestations. Unfortunate when a parent does it to their own child, but A Public Scandal when a government employee does it) you have got to start wondering if it's worth the hassle. Or you can have mothers take care of their own children. Which has been the default of every human society for tens of thousands of years.
  - plutonorm 6y ago
    Yeah. Lets become drones and all live in a giant hive. Good plan.
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  That proposal runs into issues. In particular, the income replacement flavor implicitly suggests that the positive externality of a stay at home parent is exactly equal to the market rate pay in a wholly unrelated profession. That seems very unlikely to be true.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    Presumably it would be a fixed amount for everyone, and not based on the job you've left.
    - bradleyjg 6y ago
      In that case I’m tentatively for it. But I don’t think it will be useful in the kinds of situations being discussed in the blog post and comments.
- astrange 6y ago
  The ARPA past today does have child allowances in it. They're projected to end half of child poverty in the US (because it turns out you can unironically end poverty by giving people money.) Well, until they run out anyway.

jedberg 6y ago

I believe the proposal is that the government should pay stay at home parents to remain that way, because it is a net benefit to society.

klipt 6y ago
Isn't it economically more efficient to have kids go to daycares (which benefit from economies of scale) and have both parents work and pay taxes? Of course some people prefer to raise their kids themselves, but that seems more like an expensive lifestyle choice than a necessity.
- jedberg 6y ago
  There are lots of studies showing that being raised by your own parents is far more beneficial than a day care. But as you point out, that's a privilege reserved for the wealthy. Paying people to be stay at home parents would make it a viable choice for a lot more people. It would also help reverse the trend of the fertility rate dropping below 2.1
  - iends 6y ago
    Please share those studies.
- sbierwagen 6y ago
  >which benefit from economies of scale The economy of scale isn't as big as one might like. Child care staff ratios for infants and toddlers are something like 1:3 to 1:4. Between that and the cost of compliance, licensing, insurance, and the inevitable scandals when deployed at scale, (If you have 1 million caregivers, you absolutely will have some number of murders or molestations. Unfortunate when a parent does it to their own child, but A Public Scandal when a government employee does it) you have got to start wondering if it's worth the hassle. Or you can have mothers take care of their own children. Which has been the default of every human society for tens of thousands of years.
- plutonorm 6y ago
  Yeah. Lets become drones and all live in a giant hive. Good plan.
bradleyjg 6y ago
That proposal runs into issues. In particular, the income replacement flavor implicitly suggests that the positive externality of a stay at home parent is exactly equal to the market rate pay in a wholly unrelated profession. That seems very unlikely to be true.
- jedberg 6y ago
  Presumably it would be a fixed amount for everyone, and not based on the job you've left.
  - bradleyjg 6y ago
    In that case I’m tentatively for it. But I don’t think it will be useful in the kinds of situations being discussed in the blog post and comments.
astrange 6y ago
The ARPA past today does have child allowances in it. They're projected to end half of child poverty in the US (because it turns out you can unironically end poverty by giving people money.) Well, until they run out anyway.