10 ms·

The article fails to mention France which is managing the low children crisis better than most. Macron moved down the compulsory school age start from 6 (primar

The article fails to mention France which is managing the low children crisis better than most. Macron moved down the compulsory school age start from 6 (primary school) down to 3 (kindergarten). Governments should help families by providing easier access to daycares and kindergartens. Helping young parents get some rest with their first child(ren) will encourage them having more children. I'm a parent of two young children, a 3 years old and a 6 months old. This is the hardest period of my life since high school. I'm 34 and in our circles I'm the youngest dad. Most of other dads' are in their late 30s all the way to early 50s. Yet I do feel I'm making a difference, especially considering that I'm Italian (high longevity + few children). I've been also inspired by my choices of parenthood by the movie IDIOCRACY:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk I was delighted when I red in the Elon Musk biography that he had also saw the movie and that was also one of the reasons for being a parent of multiple kids.

whatshisface 5y ago
>Macron moved down the compulsory school age start from 6 (primary school) down to 3 (kindergarten). Governments should help families by providing easier access to daycares and kindergartens. How is compulsory use easier access?
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Because now government know exactly how many kids it has to fund daycare for and where the facilities should be. I’d even go as far as parental leave should be completely covered until there is government provided daycare, so as the decision to have kids doesn’t carry too much of an economic burden.
  - lvass 5y ago
    Disheartening to see software people praising removal of options using among all things incompetence as justification.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      If you prefer to not send your kid to daycare or to continue to work while you have the option of caring for your kid, that's up to you. Where did I praised removal of options? What option is being removed here?
- woodruffw 5y ago
  I'm guessing what they mean is that it removes some of the financial barriers to parents during early childhood: they can return to work because their child is in school/daycare for most of the day, at limited to no cost to them.
  - mikepurvis 5y ago
    Even if they aren't both working, it allows the home partner to return to being a full time homemaker, and all that that entails: pursuing hobbies or volunteer opportunities, managing the family social life, planning parties and outings, etc. All of these things are potentially much more fulfilling and life giving than spending up to a decade burning yourself to the ground waiting for multiple kids to finally be in full time school so you can have your days back.
- ketzo 5y ago
  If you make something compulsory, a whole system springs up around meeting that compulsion. If the government mandates kindergarten attendance, well, now it's much more important to put funding for kindergartens in your next bill. If every parent of a three-year-old has to think about finding a kindergarten, that's a lot more political clout behind getting better kindergartens. And so on and so forth.
  - oblak 5y ago
    That makes sense. Such a system would also have to include transportation, food, etc. It's probably a good move if the funding is there. France is wealthy enough I think.
  - halfjoking 5y ago
    [flagged]
  - pjerem 5y ago
    I don’t think this will change anything statistically. I have no numbers but as a French, I know literally nobody who have not been to school/kindergarten at 3. Starting school at 3, while not mandatory before the law, was just the norm for barely everyone.
CSSer 5y ago
It’s interesting that you say this because, and this doesn’t change my opinion about its value, education is strongly correlated with a decrease in birth rates in developing and developed countries. There’s also a strong correlation between high marks at a young age and high degrees of success later in life, regardless of grades or performance in between. Taken together, Macron’s policy could actuallly harm the birth rate. I completely agree that families should get more support. I’m just not so sure it’s necessarily that straightforward.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  My own intuition is that the norm of both parents working is hard on fertility. I can't imagine what it would be like without a dedicated full-time parent.
- jszymborski 5y ago
  > I’m just not so sure it’s necessarily that straightforward. Not to sound snide, but I also don't think it's as straightforward as linking two correlative effects. High grades in school is also often predictive of economic background, race, gender etc... that themselves are correlated to birth rates. I don't see here much reason to believe that providing early childhood care would decrease birth rates.
  - CSSer 5y ago
    You don’t. Correlation doesn’t equal causation, of course. My point was that GPs solution might not be enough, not that it was unviable. I tried to demonstrate that by showing that in the worst case it could potentially backfire, not that it necessarily will. I was painting in pretty broad strokes though, mostly because I don’t have any better ideas, so I could see how it just comes across as FUD.
wait_a_minute 5y ago
How about we increase wages so people can afford to work less? Because we are more productive than ever. No thanks on more government-run programs for daycare facilities. No thanks to making participation mandatory at 3 years old for compulsory education outside the home. I prefer they give direct cash to parents in the form of more generous direct payments like they were doing for the last year and a half during the pandemic, thereby empowering parents to make the best decision for their own households. Idgaf about Macron until he publicly gives an account for why France was degrading its nuclear plants prematurely and failing to build more in a timely fashion. And he should also talk about what France will contribute to NATO in the form of defense budget spending as a share of GDP, along with Germany and other western European countries that were slacking off for years. He can otherwise shut up about compulsive kindgarten at 3 rather than 6, because that is subversion of parental authority. More shitty government programs or opportunities for bad and dishonest people to indoctrinate the young from earlier ages, particularly now that some bureaucrats would want to use their responsibilities as if they constitute the power to subvert parental involvement, are a huge no from me. We spent too much already and these politicians only gave us inflation. Now you advocate for them to have more control and say over education by recommending more of their services? Nah, way more efficient, empowering, and aligned with freedom & democracy if parents in a household just get direct cash every month rather than government-run facilities. No thanks. Way too many problems with more gov. Give cash instead, solve the problem. And foster good working environment so wages go up and people can choose to work less and still have a family. Not rocket science
- rossjudson 5y ago
  Do you have kids? This reads like you don't. It reads like libertarian derp. Getting "direct cash" that a young family could use for daycare doesn't make any difference if there's nowhere for them to spend it.
  - wait_a_minute 5y ago
    I am responsible for a household. Stop trying to invalidate an idea or a set of of propositions based on this variety of cheap ad-hominy bs. You’re trying to read between the lines of the post to see if you can neatly categorize a challenge as being part of some bucket you sneer at. That comes across as being dishonest or intellectually lazy. Direct cash to households with kids during almost two years of pandemi has lifted many children out of poverty and given parents more freedom and flexibility. Plenty of evidence of this. When you’re getting direct cash and wages are good and bureaucrats aren’t inflating their way to Power, you can even afford to work less so one of the parents is always around if they want. That’s how it should be and can be and will be.
it_does_follow 5y ago
"I'm having kids because of the movie Idiocracy, and inspired because Elon Musk did the same" has to be peak Poe's law[0]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
- giorgioz 5y ago
  >I've ALSO been inspired to have kids You turned my quote in "I'm having kids because of Idiocracy" You are using Reductio Ad Absurdum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
- qualudeheart 5y ago
  Elon is America’s smartest entrepreneur. He and the brave employees of Space X will guide life to the stars.
  - goldenkey 5y ago
    Are you seriously going to tell me that starting PayPal, having two divorces, 8 kids, and rolling that into Tesla and SpaceX makes someone the smartest entrepreneur? I thought entrepreneur included all parts of life. Elon is not a savior, he's smart, but he got lucky too.
    - it_does_follow 5y ago
      I believe the parent is attempting their own demonstration of Poe's law. I was impressed by the quality (and really hope I'm not wrong).
      - giorgioz 5y ago
        No it wasn't a joke but also you are also blowing out of proportion my reasoning for having children. There have been dozens of reasons why I had kids. One of them, very small compared to the others, is the Idiocracy movie. The idea that smart people have less kids is dangerous for society and I wanted to "be the change that you want to see in the world". Now if you want to take that and blow it out of proportion and say THE ONLY REASON WHY YOU HAD KIDS IS WATCHING THE IDIOCRACY movie you are using Reductio ad Absurdum, you are enlarging my claims until they are absurd. Try instead to watch the movie and then comment on whether Idiocracy is applicable to real world or not.
am1on 5y ago
i doubt elon musk is actively involved in any of his children's lives
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
am1on 5y ago
compulsory education is hardly an incentive to child bearing. if anything those who have kids wish to decide what is best for kids without state compulsions
- yakak 5y ago
  A lot of places have bizarre over-parenting practices that add social pressures on anyone who has children. I would have been much more inclined to have children in a place that either doesn't freak out about free range children like when I grew up or has a set public system over one that makes you feel guilty for not being bio enough, not choosing the right private schools, not getting private tutors, etc, etc. It is interesting to watch parents burn out and get divorced so their children can have a better life than the one social pressures dictate.
ptilt 5y ago
Before this new law, in France kindergarden already existed and 98% of children were already attending kindergarten. (It has always been free as well) I don't think this has been done to tackle the low fertility problem in France, but more to enforce a standardization of the education of young children.
- marto1 5y ago
  say it as it is: standardization of the education for the "undesirables" so they hopefully get in line with the program.
lettergram 5y ago
> Macron moved down the compulsory school age start from 6 (primary school) down to 3 (kindergarten). There’s a bit more to the story than you may think here... you also aren’t allowed to be homeschooled. It’s illegal. They ban religious practices for minors (wearing hijabs, for instance). Some people are took that as directed at Muslim community — https://m.timesofindia.com/world/europe/france-passes-anti-radicalism-bill-that-worries-muslims/articleshow/81029766.cms https://m.timesofindia.com/world/europe/france-passes-anti-r... Also giving you children to the state to be taught is somewhat disturbing. EDIT: By deferring to others to teach your children, they won’t learn your culture, traditions and will (statistically) be worse off than if you teach them yourself. My wife and I settled on making less money (still more than enough), but raising our kids ourselves. It’s hard, but easily the most rewarding thing. Plus our kids are WAY ahead in most areas. Imagine, your children are learning from other children all day at school... is that better than learning from adults all day? No. When they get older we will probably consider a “pod” or one teacher for 6-8 kids with a family we know. You can pay the teacher far more and the parents can be more involved (we can effectively dictate the curriculum). I’m also planning on having my kids help me with work by 8-10. They can learn to participate and be productive far earlier.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  > will (statistically) be worse off than if you teach them yourself This has not been determined. Homeschooling is correlated with better outcomes, but I'm quite certain causality has not been established here.
  - lettergram 5y ago
    We have plenty of evidence supporting the fewer kids per teacher the better the scores. I also suspect the more a teacher cares the better the scores. As mentioned, from the evidence, there’s already a solid correlation. I think with the additional details the causation is likely also there (less students per teacher, highly motivated and engaged teacher). Anyone debating that point IMO is intentionally misleading. There is a clear causation between homeschooling and better outcomes. The only “question” I’ve seen in articles (none in reality) has to do with socioeconomic status. However, if you control for that, you’ll still see better outcomes (aka homeschooled kids in socioeconomic category Y will still out perform public school kids in socioeconomic category Y)
walkhour 5y ago
Whatever verbal logic is given to justify compulsory earlier access it will be just talk until it's actually proven that it has the effect of increasing the birthrate. It may have the opposite effect and then we'll come up with a different verbal logic to justify why it decreased the birth rate. Verbal logic was given to justify the war against poverty in the sixties and sixty years and trillions of dollars later USA has a higher poverty rate than then. I'm not saying it was a bad idea, just that forecasters were wrong en masse. So this may work or not, but honestly nobody knows, and those giving verbal logic for why it will succeed are purely speculating.
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  Let's run the experiment then :)
OtomotO 5y ago
The solution isn't to breed and then not (be able to) care for the own offspring (emotionally), because of low wages and an idiotic system. If you decide to have children, care for them. I hate this "the society as a whole has to care for the children" attitude and putting them in someone else's care as soon as possible. Note that I do not hate children, nor parents and I don't mind spending money on education and care for children. I just think the solution should be to work less and be able to live a meaningful life. Later in life, children should care for their elderly parents. This system is far superior to the "go die in a house full of old people" approach. Mind again: I am not talking about taking care of someone with special needs like Alzheimer's etc.
sidewndr46 5y ago
I don't have children but find it interesting that one way you propose that government can make it easier for families to have children is to create services that involve the children spending even less of their childhood with their family. I agree education of a child is very important. Not necessarily public education, although that can be quite good in some respects. But if a government wants to make it easier to have children wouldn't it make more sense to come up with policies that allow a couple to afford to raise children on a single income? That way, one parent is always able to spend time with the children when needed.
moonchrome 5y ago
>Governments should help families by providing easier access to daycares and kindergartens. Helping young parents get some rest with their first child(ren) will encourage them having more children. As a new parent of a 14 month year old boy - kindergartens have very low impact on our decision to have more children. We're lucky enough that we can afford to rent an apartment for my in-laws and that they are retired so they can take care of our son. Putting him in to kindergarten at this age would be traumatic to him and to us (parents) - he's only starting to figure things out and abandoning him to a stranger who have to split their time/attention between 10 other children at this stage seems cruel. Not to mention kindergartens are disease incubators and we would probably spend first few months getting him adjusted and treating him at home while he's sick (+ catching stuff from him). The thing that would actually impact our decision to have more children (early-mid 30s) : - fully paid maternity leave - right now it's 100% for first 6 months and after that it's capped at national average - which is >70% pay cut for both of us - despite both of us earning significantly above average - there's 0 decent opportunities to buy a family home right now - everything that's worth something is long gone off the market, and if something comes up people with cash to buy upfront show up faster than you can dial the ad The rest is outside of governments control, biggest thing being wife has to give up career for a non-trivial ammount of time (even if I took out some maternity leave realistically she has to take at least 6 months off). I suspect that retirement age plays a non-trivial part in this as well - having retired parents to fall back on as support when having multiple children while having active careers is very valuable.
- apexalpha 5y ago
  >We're lucky enough that we can afford to rent an apartment for my in-laws and that they are retired so they can take care of our son. Putting him in to kindergarten at this age would be traumatic to him and to us (parents) - So you agree that having someone extra to watch over your kids is something that's needed? For most people, that is kindergarten. >he's only starting to figure things out and abandoning him to a stranger who have to split their time/attention between 10 other children at this stage seems cruel. Almost every kid does this. I have, so have all other kids. It's really not that bad, your kid needs to learn to socialize eventually. It's a bit insulting to call it 'cruel' to bring your kid to kindergarten. >Not to mention kindergartens are disease incubators and we would probably spend first few months getting him adjusted and treating him at home while he's sick (+ catching stuff from him). Yes, that's how the human immune system is supposed to work.
birksherty 5y ago
Having kids for the economy and what else is selfish. Kids should not be brought to fix things screwed up by their parents and grandparents. These kids are used like the fuel cells like in The Matrix, not because there is some benefit to them, there is none btw. Life itself is pretty hard for most people, most just don't accept truth and make up a reason to cope. Copium. It's heartbreaking seeing children fleeing their home, losing everyone they know like in Syrian and now Ukraine just in last decade. Then there is climate change, which will be devastating in near future. Even IPCC report is manipulated by lobbying. https://twitter.com/MrMatthewTodd/status/1490987272044703752 https://twitter.com/MrMatthewTodd/status/1490987272044703752
mooreds 5y ago
What is funny to me is that some people who are all about the free market fail to recognize incentives when it comes to children. Sure, there are non-monetary considerations (big ones!) but the economic costs of having children (both out of pocket and opportunity) are continuing to rise. If you want more of something, subsidize it, either explicitly or by reducing its relative costs. Here's an off the cuff list of suggestions which would reduce the cost of children: * Accessible free or low cost daycare/childcare * Accessible low cost health care * Cheaper housing near job centers I'm sure there are more. But how are we going to pay for all that? Consider it an investment allowing a country to continue to have a growing tax base.

whatshisface 5y ago

>Macron moved down the compulsory school age start from 6 (primary school) down to 3 (kindergarten). Governments should help families by providing easier access to daycares and kindergartens. How is compulsory use easier access?

rbanffy 5y ago
Because now government know exactly how many kids it has to fund daycare for and where the facilities should be. I’d even go as far as parental leave should be completely covered until there is government provided daycare, so as the decision to have kids doesn’t carry too much of an economic burden.
- lvass 5y ago
  Disheartening to see software people praising removal of options using among all things incompetence as justification.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    If you prefer to not send your kid to daycare or to continue to work while you have the option of caring for your kid, that's up to you. Where did I praised removal of options? What option is being removed here?
woodruffw 5y ago
I'm guessing what they mean is that it removes some of the financial barriers to parents during early childhood: they can return to work because their child is in school/daycare for most of the day, at limited to no cost to them.
- mikepurvis 5y ago
  Even if they aren't both working, it allows the home partner to return to being a full time homemaker, and all that that entails: pursuing hobbies or volunteer opportunities, managing the family social life, planning parties and outings, etc. All of these things are potentially much more fulfilling and life giving than spending up to a decade burning yourself to the ground waiting for multiple kids to finally be in full time school so you can have your days back.
ketzo 5y ago
If you make something compulsory, a whole system springs up around meeting that compulsion. If the government mandates kindergarten attendance, well, now it's much more important to put funding for kindergartens in your next bill. If every parent of a three-year-old has to think about finding a kindergarten, that's a lot more political clout behind getting better kindergartens. And so on and so forth.
- oblak 5y ago
  That makes sense. Such a system would also have to include transportation, food, etc. It's probably a good move if the funding is there. France is wealthy enough I think.
- halfjoking 5y ago
  [flagged]
- pjerem 5y ago
  I don’t think this will change anything statistically. I have no numbers but as a French, I know literally nobody who have not been to school/kindergarten at 3. Starting school at 3, while not mandatory before the law, was just the norm for barely everyone.

CSSer 5y ago

It’s interesting that you say this because, and this doesn’t change my opinion about its value, education is strongly correlated with a decrease in birth rates in developing and developed countries. There’s also a strong correlation between high marks at a young age and high degrees of success later in life, regardless of grades or performance in between. Taken together, Macron’s policy could actuallly harm the birth rate. I completely agree that families should get more support. I’m just not so sure it’s necessarily that straightforward.

ALittleLight 5y ago
My own intuition is that the norm of both parents working is hard on fertility. I can't imagine what it would be like without a dedicated full-time parent.
jszymborski 5y ago
> I’m just not so sure it’s necessarily that straightforward. Not to sound snide, but I also don't think it's as straightforward as linking two correlative effects. High grades in school is also often predictive of economic background, race, gender etc... that themselves are correlated to birth rates. I don't see here much reason to believe that providing early childhood care would decrease birth rates.
- CSSer 5y ago
  You don’t. Correlation doesn’t equal causation, of course. My point was that GPs solution might not be enough, not that it was unviable. I tried to demonstrate that by showing that in the worst case it could potentially backfire, not that it necessarily will. I was painting in pretty broad strokes though, mostly because I don’t have any better ideas, so I could see how it just comes across as FUD.

wait_a_minute 5y ago

How about we increase wages so people can afford to work less? Because we are more productive than ever. No thanks on more government-run programs for daycare facilities. No thanks to making participation mandatory at 3 years old for compulsory education outside the home. I prefer they give direct cash to parents in the form of more generous direct payments like they were doing for the last year and a half during the pandemic, thereby empowering parents to make the best decision for their own households. Idgaf about Macron until he publicly gives an account for why France was degrading its nuclear plants prematurely and failing to build more in a timely fashion. And he should also talk about what France will contribute to NATO in the form of defense budget spending as a share of GDP, along with Germany and other western European countries that were slacking off for years. He can otherwise shut up about compulsive kindgarten at 3 rather than 6, because that is subversion of parental authority. More shitty government programs or opportunities for bad and dishonest people to indoctrinate the young from earlier ages, particularly now that some bureaucrats would want to use their responsibilities as if they constitute the power to subvert parental involvement, are a huge no from me. We spent too much already and these politicians only gave us inflation. Now you advocate for them to have more control and say over education by recommending more of their services? Nah, way more efficient, empowering, and aligned with freedom & democracy if parents in a household just get direct cash every month rather than government-run facilities. No thanks. Way too many problems with more gov. Give cash instead, solve the problem. And foster good working environment so wages go up and people can choose to work less and still have a family. Not rocket science

rossjudson 5y ago
Do you have kids? This reads like you don't. It reads like libertarian derp. Getting "direct cash" that a young family could use for daycare doesn't make any difference if there's nowhere for them to spend it.
- wait_a_minute 5y ago
  I am responsible for a household. Stop trying to invalidate an idea or a set of of propositions based on this variety of cheap ad-hominy bs. You’re trying to read between the lines of the post to see if you can neatly categorize a challenge as being part of some bucket you sneer at. That comes across as being dishonest or intellectually lazy. Direct cash to households with kids during almost two years of pandemi has lifted many children out of poverty and given parents more freedom and flexibility. Plenty of evidence of this. When you’re getting direct cash and wages are good and bureaucrats aren’t inflating their way to Power, you can even afford to work less so one of the parents is always around if they want. That’s how it should be and can be and will be.

it_does_follow 5y ago

"I'm having kids because of the movie Idiocracy, and inspired because Elon Musk did the same" has to be peak Poe's law[0]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

giorgioz 5y ago
>I've ALSO been inspired to have kids You turned my quote in "I'm having kids because of Idiocracy" You are using Reductio Ad Absurdum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
qualudeheart 5y ago
Elon is America’s smartest entrepreneur. He and the brave employees of Space X will guide life to the stars.
- goldenkey 5y ago
  Are you seriously going to tell me that starting PayPal, having two divorces, 8 kids, and rolling that into Tesla and SpaceX makes someone the smartest entrepreneur? I thought entrepreneur included all parts of life. Elon is not a savior, he's smart, but he got lucky too.
  - it_does_follow 5y ago
    I believe the parent is attempting their own demonstration of Poe's law. I was impressed by the quality (and really hope I'm not wrong).
    - giorgioz 5y ago
      No it wasn't a joke but also you are also blowing out of proportion my reasoning for having children. There have been dozens of reasons why I had kids. One of them, very small compared to the others, is the Idiocracy movie. The idea that smart people have less kids is dangerous for society and I wanted to "be the change that you want to see in the world". Now if you want to take that and blow it out of proportion and say THE ONLY REASON WHY YOU HAD KIDS IS WATCHING THE IDIOCRACY movie you are using Reductio ad Absurdum, you are enlarging my claims until they are absurd. Try instead to watch the movie and then comment on whether Idiocracy is applicable to real world or not.

am1on 5y ago

i doubt elon musk is actively involved in any of his children's lives

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

am1on 5y ago

compulsory education is hardly an incentive to child bearing. if anything those who have kids wish to decide what is best for kids without state compulsions

yakak 5y ago
A lot of places have bizarre over-parenting practices that add social pressures on anyone who has children. I would have been much more inclined to have children in a place that either doesn't freak out about free range children like when I grew up or has a set public system over one that makes you feel guilty for not being bio enough, not choosing the right private schools, not getting private tutors, etc, etc. It is interesting to watch parents burn out and get divorced so their children can have a better life than the one social pressures dictate.

ptilt 5y ago

Before this new law, in France kindergarden already existed and 98% of children were already attending kindergarten. (It has always been free as well) I don't think this has been done to tackle the low fertility problem in France, but more to enforce a standardization of the education of young children.

marto1 5y ago
say it as it is: standardization of the education for the "undesirables" so they hopefully get in line with the program.

lettergram 5y ago

> Macron moved down the compulsory school age start from 6 (primary school) down to 3 (kindergarten). There’s a bit more to the story than you may think here... you also aren’t allowed to be homeschooled. It’s illegal. They ban religious practices for minors (wearing hijabs, for instance). Some people are took that as directed at Muslim community — https://m.timesofindia.com/world/europe/france-passes-anti-radicalism-bill-that-worries-muslims/articleshow/81029766.cms https://m.timesofindia.com/world/europe/france-passes-anti-r... Also giving you children to the state to be taught is somewhat disturbing. EDIT: By deferring to others to teach your children, they won’t learn your culture, traditions and will (statistically) be worse off than if you teach them yourself. My wife and I settled on making less money (still more than enough), but raising our kids ourselves. It’s hard, but easily the most rewarding thing. Plus our kids are WAY ahead in most areas. Imagine, your children are learning from other children all day at school... is that better than learning from adults all day? No. When they get older we will probably consider a “pod” or one teacher for 6-8 kids with a family we know. You can pay the teacher far more and the parents can be more involved (we can effectively dictate the curriculum). I’m also planning on having my kids help me with work by 8-10. They can learn to participate and be productive far earlier.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
> will (statistically) be worse off than if you teach them yourself This has not been determined. Homeschooling is correlated with better outcomes, but I'm quite certain causality has not been established here.
- lettergram 5y ago
  We have plenty of evidence supporting the fewer kids per teacher the better the scores. I also suspect the more a teacher cares the better the scores. As mentioned, from the evidence, there’s already a solid correlation. I think with the additional details the causation is likely also there (less students per teacher, highly motivated and engaged teacher). Anyone debating that point IMO is intentionally misleading. There is a clear causation between homeschooling and better outcomes. The only “question” I’ve seen in articles (none in reality) has to do with socioeconomic status. However, if you control for that, you’ll still see better outcomes (aka homeschooled kids in socioeconomic category Y will still out perform public school kids in socioeconomic category Y)

walkhour 5y ago

Whatever verbal logic is given to justify compulsory earlier access it will be just talk until it's actually proven that it has the effect of increasing the birthrate. It may have the opposite effect and then we'll come up with a different verbal logic to justify why it decreased the birth rate. Verbal logic was given to justify the war against poverty in the sixties and sixty years and trillions of dollars later USA has a higher poverty rate than then. I'm not saying it was a bad idea, just that forecasters were wrong en masse. So this may work or not, but honestly nobody knows, and those giving verbal logic for why it will succeed are purely speculating.

kelseyfrog 5y ago
Let's run the experiment then :)

OtomotO 5y ago

The solution isn't to breed and then not (be able to) care for the own offspring (emotionally), because of low wages and an idiotic system. If you decide to have children, care for them. I hate this "the society as a whole has to care for the children" attitude and putting them in someone else's care as soon as possible. Note that I do not hate children, nor parents and I don't mind spending money on education and care for children. I just think the solution should be to work less and be able to live a meaningful life. Later in life, children should care for their elderly parents. This system is far superior to the "go die in a house full of old people" approach. Mind again: I am not talking about taking care of someone with special needs like Alzheimer's etc.

sidewndr46 5y ago

I don't have children but find it interesting that one way you propose that government can make it easier for families to have children is to create services that involve the children spending even less of their childhood with their family. I agree education of a child is very important. Not necessarily public education, although that can be quite good in some respects. But if a government wants to make it easier to have children wouldn't it make more sense to come up with policies that allow a couple to afford to raise children on a single income? That way, one parent is always able to spend time with the children when needed.

moonchrome 5y ago

>Governments should help families by providing easier access to daycares and kindergartens. Helping young parents get some rest with their first child(ren) will encourage them having more children. As a new parent of a 14 month year old boy - kindergartens have very low impact on our decision to have more children. We're lucky enough that we can afford to rent an apartment for my in-laws and that they are retired so they can take care of our son. Putting him in to kindergarten at this age would be traumatic to him and to us (parents) - he's only starting to figure things out and abandoning him to a stranger who have to split their time/attention between 10 other children at this stage seems cruel. Not to mention kindergartens are disease incubators and we would probably spend first few months getting him adjusted and treating him at home while he's sick (+ catching stuff from him). The thing that would actually impact our decision to have more children (early-mid 30s) : - fully paid maternity leave - right now it's 100% for first 6 months and after that it's capped at national average - which is >70% pay cut for both of us - despite both of us earning significantly above average - there's 0 decent opportunities to buy a family home right now - everything that's worth something is long gone off the market, and if something comes up people with cash to buy upfront show up faster than you can dial the ad The rest is outside of governments control, biggest thing being wife has to give up career for a non-trivial ammount of time (even if I took out some maternity leave realistically she has to take at least 6 months off). I suspect that retirement age plays a non-trivial part in this as well - having retired parents to fall back on as support when having multiple children while having active careers is very valuable.

apexalpha 5y ago
>We're lucky enough that we can afford to rent an apartment for my in-laws and that they are retired so they can take care of our son. Putting him in to kindergarten at this age would be traumatic to him and to us (parents) - So you agree that having someone extra to watch over your kids is something that's needed? For most people, that is kindergarten. >he's only starting to figure things out and abandoning him to a stranger who have to split their time/attention between 10 other children at this stage seems cruel. Almost every kid does this. I have, so have all other kids. It's really not that bad, your kid needs to learn to socialize eventually. It's a bit insulting to call it 'cruel' to bring your kid to kindergarten. >Not to mention kindergartens are disease incubators and we would probably spend first few months getting him adjusted and treating him at home while he's sick (+ catching stuff from him). Yes, that's how the human immune system is supposed to work.

birksherty 5y ago

Having kids for the economy and what else is selfish. Kids should not be brought to fix things screwed up by their parents and grandparents. These kids are used like the fuel cells like in The Matrix, not because there is some benefit to them, there is none btw. Life itself is pretty hard for most people, most just don't accept truth and make up a reason to cope. Copium. It's heartbreaking seeing children fleeing their home, losing everyone they know like in Syrian and now Ukraine just in last decade. Then there is climate change, which will be devastating in near future. Even IPCC report is manipulated by lobbying. https://twitter.com/MrMatthewTodd/status/1490987272044703752 https://twitter.com/MrMatthewTodd/status/1490987272044703752

mooreds 5y ago

What is funny to me is that some people who are all about the free market fail to recognize incentives when it comes to children. Sure, there are non-monetary considerations (big ones!) but the economic costs of having children (both out of pocket and opportunity) are continuing to rise. If you want more of something, subsidize it, either explicitly or by reducing its relative costs. Here's an off the cuff list of suggestions which would reduce the cost of children: * Accessible free or low cost daycare/childcare * Accessible low cost health care * Cheaper housing near job centers I'm sure there are more. But how are we going to pay for all that? Consider it an investment allowing a country to continue to have a growing tax base.