3 ms·

1) it used to be the case that child allowance for 3 kids was better paid than a supermarket job. So both for women directly this was a win. For a woman: 3 kids

• pjc50 1y ago
  > it used to be the case that child allowance for 3 kids was better paid than a supermarket job. For what time period in what country?
• amy214 1y ago
  >And for families. 3 kids? Stay-at-home wife (and in one of twenty cases, dad-at-home) Women are strong and as good a-, no, better, superior, to men. We will outperform you in the workplace, men need to be shown this because all they want is a barefooted pregnant wife. Women are crushing men in the workplace, not because they don't want kids, but because this is a more vital and greater goal. Once it's estalblished woman superiority, then we can talk repopulation
• bryanlarsen 1y ago
  > it used to be the case that child allowance for 3 kids was better paid than a supermarket job. Which says a lot more about the pay of low-end "female" jobs in the past than it does about child allowance, which has always been pretty niggardly.
  • bryanlarsen 1y ago
    It's always a risk using "niggardly" in a comment given that you're likely to be downvoted by someone who doesn't understand the word. But it's a good word.
• dogma1138 1y ago
  Other than the cost of raising children that’s how it worked until the 90’s. I don’t know what happened I still remember I was in shocked when the school called social services on my sister when they found her 8 year old was alone with her 13 year old in the early to mid 2000’s at home after school. I don’t know what happened but we’ve started treating children like they are made out of glass and it doesn’t feel really like the threat landscape is any different. I used to walk from school and play outside until dark every day and everyone else was exactly the same.
  • spwa4 1y ago
    > I don’t know what happened but we’ve started treating children like they are made out of glass and it doesn’t feel really like the threat landscape is any different. These reactions make perfect sense when you consider youth services is looking out for ... themselves. That means grabbing easy, well raised children, catching cooperative parents in a technicality, who will support their children even when youth services in involved (which means costs can be diverted to those parents). Maximum money, minimum problems. This actually damages those children rather than help them, but it really helps youth services as an institution. It's also what foster parents want. By contrast, if they want to maximize the good they do, they need to work to get children in real problems. In many cases they'd literally have everyone, parents, children, ... fight back (which will result in damage, of course. Fighting back may not even be intentional), and spend big on those children instead of themselves (because the problems are medical costs, insufficient housing, ...) and be unable to let those children go (because the parents don't take care of them). Obviously, any foster parents that see such children will quit basically immediately. The only parts of the system that actually sometimes do this are the judicial parts. (did you know that as a child the "civil" parts of the youth services have the right to deny education to a child, and for example foster parents often do that, but the criminal parts, often called "juvie", do not? To give one very famous example, John Carmack learned advanced math, or at least the most advanced math he learned at school before developing doom, at his original school, while locked up in juvie?)
    • lucyjojo 1y ago
      there are youth services in many other countries than america and it's not like that.