6 ms·
Look, I'm a DINK, don't have kids, never plan to have kids, don't even like kids. But child care is important to both the parents and society. Not subsidizing c
by malfist 2y ago
Look, I'm a DINK, don't have kids, never plan to have kids, don't even like kids. But child care is important to both the parents and society. Not subsidizing child care often means one parent has to leave the workforce, and that's almost always worse off for everyone than if they were able to afford child care and can contribute
- from-nibly 2y agoRight, because raising kids isn't contributing to society.
- 39896880 2y agoContributing to the household income. It takes 2 incomes to live anywhere but BFE in the US.
- QuarterReptile 2y ago[flagged]
- bombcar 2y agoIt usually takes two incomes to afford childcare! I know single-income families at various levels of income across the country; it is certainly possible almost anywhere - if you want it.
- refurb 2y agoYeah but a big part of that is because both parents work. You can buy double the house with 2 incomes instead of 1.
- throwaway7ahgb 2y agoBFE? I'm guessing this is some slur for rural areas. You know the ones that typically have large families?
- defrost 2y agoThat's exactly why child care workers who look after packs of 15 to 20 kids at a time should be highly valued and paid a decent wage. It's how villages worked in the past, most adults did non child related work much of the time, some adults and some older children kept an eye on what the pooled group of kids were up to .. watching, sometimes educating, sometimes leading them in "work" building things, cooking, hunting, clearing fields etc. in small ways. It's a better use of labour than splitting every pair of adults into one for this type of work, the other always does child care.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jampekka 2y agoI'd guess they referred to the non-working parents contributing to the society by raising their children. All contributions don't get paid, and all that get paid don't contribute.
- taskforcegemini 2y agoraising wages doesn't equal better quality
- Libcat99 2y agoAll teachers should be well paid and well vetted. Teaching shouldn't be a self sacrifial social justice position, it should be an honored and well rewarded position.
- 2y ago
- malfist 2y agoSorry if I wasn't clear, but that wasn't my intention with the statement I made, I focused way too much on the "contributing to GDP" aspect of it. Raising kids is absolutely contributing to society.
- coldtea 2y agoNot being able to have kids because you can't afford one parent to quit, isn't.
- yellow_postit 2y agoThis is such a regressive view — a household that can only function on 2 incomes is more stressful than one that can operate on 1. Not saying earning potential needs to be the same — but claiming 1 is worse than 2 doesn’t hold water and is a pathological case. In the US it’s a shame we so under/de value child rearing as somehow “less than”
- RoyalHenOil 2y agoIt's not that we as a society devalue childcare. We just don't live in an economy where it is safe for families to put all their eggs in one basket like that. In post-WWII US, it was generally easy for fathers to find stable, lifelong careers with a low risk of layoffs and a low risk of an untimely death, which allowed families to thrive on single incomes. But that was an outlier, not the norm. In most places and in most periods of history, mothers have had to work (sewing, gardening, spinning, knitting, brewing, laundering, midwifery, etc., etc.) because fathers have not had widespread access steady, well-paying, low-risk work. Unless she was independently wealthy, a mother who did not bring in income was playing a very risky game with her children's lives. The biggest difference is that, today, most work must be done outside the home, which is very difficult for mothers. Childcare helps close the gender pay gap and is necessary for a fairer, less sexist society — at least until/unless our economy returns to primarily home-based work.
- ako 2y agoIn the past extended family would usually live close by, so they could assist the mother inside the home. Today, both parents need to work outside the home, and family is usually too far away to assist.
- RoyalHenOil 2y agoThat is very true. And even in cases where it was not true, families tended to have more children, so older siblings could help look after younger siblings while the family worked.
- ako 2y ago
- GLGirty 2y agoFor single parents, this is the choice between working or not working.