20 ms·

It sounds totally bonkers if you’re not used to it but this is actually the norm in other countries. Both of us had comparatively long parental leave for both k

It sounds totally bonkers if you’re not used to it but this is actually the norm in other countries. Both of us had comparatively long parental leave for both kids. Both kids went into really nice state kindergarten before they were 18 months. Before that if we were poorer we’d have our childcare subsidised. Both kids get things like a sports club grant each year, free dental care and free healthcare. There are state run after school clubs and so on. The amazing thing to me is you think the OP was asking for something unbelievable.

closeparen 5y ago
Big difference between providing a free/affordable childcare center vs. paying the parent to not work for 5 years.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  Yes but I didn’t take the OP as wanting not to work or needing all their expenses covered. Subsidise doesn’t necessarily mean that.
echelon 5y ago
I'm trying to find reasonable thresholds and weigh the societal pros and cons. > The amazing thing to me is you think the OP was asking for something unbelievable. The five years that OP alluded to is a really long time to not be working. That's 5/40 years for any given career (for a single child), meaning one eighth of a childfree person's productivity has to cover for it. At least at this extreme scale. > Both of us had comparatively long parental leave for both kids. How long was it? I'm genuinely curious. Again, I'm not against subsidizing childcare and supporting children. Some of the expectations of parents seem to be really high, especially to someone whose parents both worked throughout my early childhood. The current costs of childcare in my area are $80-$250/wk for infants unless you're going for something super Bougie for your baby.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  Three months each with six months shared. My friends and coworkers who’ve lived in the US describe pre-school childcare as dystopian. Even when expensive. If you think of it as 5/(40 * 2) or if you had two kids relatively close together 7/(40 * 3) the math is significantly better. It’s also very telling that caring for kids is not seen as being productive.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Where does the 40*3 term come from? I'm assuming the 5/(40*2) is 5 years of subsidy out of two 40-year careers. I can't figure where the 3 term is coming from unless it's 2 children from 3 total people or something else that I'm missing.
    - meheleventyone 5y ago
      Yes it’s three careers. I say just before it if you have two kids close together. Two years is a normal gap. So seven years of subsidy out of three forty year careers. The mother and two children each have forty years of “productivity”.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        (I think) That only works if neither child is eligible for this leave during their career. If you imagine Adam and Betty have two kids Charlie and Debbie who have two kids Earl and Felicia who have Gary and Helen… each generation receives N years of leave income from (2M - N) years of work income. You can’t take Betty, Charlie, and Debbie’s work income (or total productivity) against just Betty’s leave income. I think you take Adam and Betty’s combined leave against their combined M years and M years minus N years of leave, C&D’s N against their 2M-N, etc. (you can time-shift it however you like if you want to think of some generation paying for a different generation, but the long-run math doesn’t change for replacement rate births) In your example, this seems like 7 years of 73 years (9.6%) is going to this program, not 7/120 (5.8%)

closeparen 5y ago

Big difference between providing a free/affordable childcare center vs. paying the parent to not work for 5 years.

meheleventyone 5y ago
Yes but I didn’t take the OP as wanting not to work or needing all their expenses covered. Subsidise doesn’t necessarily mean that.

echelon 5y ago

I'm trying to find reasonable thresholds and weigh the societal pros and cons. > The amazing thing to me is you think the OP was asking for something unbelievable. The five years that OP alluded to is a really long time to not be working. That's 5/40 years for any given career (for a single child), meaning one eighth of a childfree person's productivity has to cover for it. At least at this extreme scale. > Both of us had comparatively long parental leave for both kids. How long was it? I'm genuinely curious. Again, I'm not against subsidizing childcare and supporting children. Some of the expectations of parents seem to be really high, especially to someone whose parents both worked throughout my early childhood. The current costs of childcare in my area are $80-$250/wk for infants unless you're going for something super Bougie for your baby.

meheleventyone 5y ago
Three months each with six months shared. My friends and coworkers who’ve lived in the US describe pre-school childcare as dystopian. Even when expensive. If you think of it as 5/(40 * 2) or if you had two kids relatively close together 7/(40 * 3) the math is significantly better. It’s also very telling that caring for kids is not seen as being productive.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Where does the 40*3 term come from? I'm assuming the 5/(40*2) is 5 years of subsidy out of two 40-year careers. I can't figure where the 3 term is coming from unless it's 2 children from 3 total people or something else that I'm missing.
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    Yes it’s three careers. I say just before it if you have two kids close together. Two years is a normal gap. So seven years of subsidy out of three forty year careers. The mother and two children each have forty years of “productivity”.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      (I think) That only works if neither child is eligible for this leave during their career. If you imagine Adam and Betty have two kids Charlie and Debbie who have two kids Earl and Felicia who have Gary and Helen… each generation receives N years of leave income from (2M - N) years of work income. You can’t take Betty, Charlie, and Debbie’s work income (or total productivity) against just Betty’s leave income. I think you take Adam and Betty’s combined leave against their combined M years and M years minus N years of leave, C&D’s N against their 2M-N, etc. (you can time-shift it however you like if you want to think of some generation paying for a different generation, but the long-run math doesn’t change for replacement rate births) In your example, this seems like 7 years of 73 years (9.6%) is going to this program, not 7/120 (5.8%)