2 ms·
There's an argument that I think is basically correct that governments are largely free-riding on people's inherent desire for children. This is to say that the
by AbrahamParangi 3y ago
There's an argument that I think is basically correct that governments are largely free-riding on people's inherent desire for children. This is to say that the value to a government of an additional child is substantially above the incentive they offer the parents of that child.
And I think this is because we sort of have this assumption that society having more kids is a thing we don't have to incentivize, and so we haven't really thought about what is the actual cost/value of that incentivization.
- ethbr0 3y agoI'd point to the biggest change being the destruction of extended family living in developed countries, and consequently shifting child care costs directly onto working age parents. Historically, countries got it both ways: - Working age parents contributed the bulk of their time to the economy (historically: male, more recently: both) - Older family members, especially grandparents, contributed free child care Now, geographic mobility and preference have decreased the rate at which grandparents are co-located and available. And, critically, having children later in life has decreased the number of years grandparents are able to help. If governments provided a net-zero cost, high-quality option for childcare, I feel like it'd substantially change potential family decisions. But that's one of the substantially-more-expensive-than-current-benefits options you're talking about.
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoYeah. When my son was born I realized the geographic separation of the extended family in space is clearly unnatural. I don’t mean that in a moralizing way, just that it’s like walking on your hands rather than on your feet. Doable! You could get used to it! But it’s a hell of a lot harder than the alternative.