4 ms·

> I don't think society should pay doctors and lawyers their regular hourly rate for childcare for 18 years per child But we pretty much are already. First wi

> I don't think society should pay doctors and lawyers their regular hourly rate for childcare for 18 years per child But we pretty much are already. First with paid parental leave (sometimes over 400 days) and then forever after that, by pretending that this is not a gap in work experience and therefore calling anything short of bumping salary and seniority in line with people who were working as "discrimination". Like people who are away for a year, and come back promoted. And that's not even mentioning how much of the slack coworkers he to pick up from a parent needing to leave at 3pm every day from now on. We're all meant to pretend they work just as hard, and deserve to be paid just as much. (Not every parent offloads work like this onto their coworkers, but a lot of them do. So it's a huge cost statistically not paid by the person who made the choice)

modeless 4y ago
> But we pretty much are already. LOL sorry, not even close. But it doesn't matter whether we are or not, not in the slightest. What matters is whether we're subsidizing enough to stabilize the fertility rate. Which we're empirically not.
- knorker 4y ago
  The reduction isn't because of lack of subsidies, but simply a change in needs and wants. People no longer want to have 4-5 kids, no matter if you 10x the paid time off or double the subsidies. This too empirically. And no, actually. Your "LOL" aside, we actually are. Anyone who takes time off for child raising gets a bump literally forever. So yes, actually. I'm not saying fully compensated, obviously. But people do it or don't do it based on if they want, not the money (given a basic level of comp, which we are waaaay beyond). To increase birth rates we have to start paying people who DON'T want to have children, to do it. Like wow, how much would you have to pay people who would only do it for money? One million in cash just day one? Just the physical toll for the parent is huge. And statistically rate of happiness goes down during thirties for people who have children. And then on top of that your idea is to have people who don't want children raise them? I'm not betting on this improving quality of life for the child, if the child is just a paycheck. So we really want people who have children no actually want to, too.

modeless 4y ago

> But we pretty much are already. LOL sorry, not even close. But it doesn't matter whether we are or not, not in the slightest. What matters is whether we're subsidizing enough to stabilize the fertility rate. Which we're empirically not.

knorker 4y ago
The reduction isn't because of lack of subsidies, but simply a change in needs and wants. People no longer want to have 4-5 kids, no matter if you 10x the paid time off or double the subsidies. This too empirically. And no, actually. Your "LOL" aside, we actually are. Anyone who takes time off for child raising gets a bump literally forever. So yes, actually. I'm not saying fully compensated, obviously. But people do it or don't do it based on if they want, not the money (given a basic level of comp, which we are waaaay beyond). To increase birth rates we have to start paying people who DON'T want to have children, to do it. Like wow, how much would you have to pay people who would only do it for money? One million in cash just day one? Just the physical toll for the parent is huge. And statistically rate of happiness goes down during thirties for people who have children. And then on top of that your idea is to have people who don't want children raise them? I'm not betting on this improving quality of life for the child, if the child is just a paycheck. So we really want people who have children no actually want to, too.