3 ms·

>This social labor goes unpaid but it’s extremely valuable for society It's valuable to you as a person who has kids. You will note the majority of people in

>This social labor goes unpaid but it’s extremely valuable for society It's valuable to you as a person who has kids. You will note the majority of people in the US will not have kids. Why should I pay for your kid? You have to put yourself in the shoes of the person who doesn't have kids. Or the business owner who actually has to hand out the money. I support the payment because I have kids, but at the same time I'm able to play the devils advocate and see the other side of the equation rather then blindly support something in my own self interest.

twobitshifter 3y ago
I don’t have kids. It’s valuable for the greater good of society not just a child. You have to live with the eventual adults that develop under a system that supports caregivers or one that does not. If we don’t look beyond the first effect we can miss that. To further the point, the decision whether to have a kid can be influenced by how that affects someone’s own finances. These programs put a finger on the scale to encourage having children, something that financially to the individual doesn’t make sense with modern jobs. Many countries have negative pop growth today and that *will* be a national financial problem
- corethree 3y ago
  More people means more pollution and greater resource consumption. Not everything is beneficial. Human society is well on it's way to the worst case scenario of global warming and accelerating population growth only exacerbates this issue. Why make me pay for that? Negative population growth has benefits. Japan doesn't have a housing crisis like the US. Like I said two sides to every story. I'd rather have flat population growth not positive growth and helping me pay for child care in a cause I don't believe in is not fair.
  - twobitshifter 3y ago
    Even if you are for depopulation, I think you would still like for the smaller population to be well fed, educated, and socialized. Those people would need to support the older and larger population both economically and in other ways. The fairness argument is just a general argument against all redistribution of wealth, if you are against all redistribution then many popular programs and policies are already failing your moral test.
    - corethree 3y ago
      Yeah this can be possible with public schools. Which I already pay for. Why give more handouts to women because they're entitled to it? What do men not take care of kids? Don't we already give benefits to people who are married?

twobitshifter 3y ago

I don’t have kids. It’s valuable for the greater good of society not just a child. You have to live with the eventual adults that develop under a system that supports caregivers or one that does not. If we don’t look beyond the first effect we can miss that. To further the point, the decision whether to have a kid can be influenced by how that affects someone’s own finances. These programs put a finger on the scale to encourage having children, something that financially to the individual doesn’t make sense with modern jobs. Many countries have negative pop growth today and that *will* be a national financial problem

corethree 3y ago
More people means more pollution and greater resource consumption. Not everything is beneficial. Human society is well on it's way to the worst case scenario of global warming and accelerating population growth only exacerbates this issue. Why make me pay for that? Negative population growth has benefits. Japan doesn't have a housing crisis like the US. Like I said two sides to every story. I'd rather have flat population growth not positive growth and helping me pay for child care in a cause I don't believe in is not fair.
- twobitshifter 3y ago
  Even if you are for depopulation, I think you would still like for the smaller population to be well fed, educated, and socialized. Those people would need to support the older and larger population both economically and in other ways. The fairness argument is just a general argument against all redistribution of wealth, if you are against all redistribution then many popular programs and policies are already failing your moral test.
  - corethree 3y ago
    Yeah this can be possible with public schools. Which I already pay for. Why give more handouts to women because they're entitled to it? What do men not take care of kids? Don't we already give benefits to people who are married?