4 ms·

You realize a lot of people actually prefer to give their child their best instead of outsourcing it so they can focus on bettering the economy, right?

by WD-42 1y ago

dzink 1y ago
And with this option they can have that choice. Right now, many don’t.
- WD-42 1y ago
  Yea and I think that’s great. OP makes it sound like every parent is pining to contribute to the churning of capitalism if only they didn’t have to worry about raising a child. It’s not so.
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    > every parent is pining to contribute to the churning of capitalism People don’t want to work because they’re “pining to contribute to the churning of capitalism”. They want to work for income, for career development, or even because they like what they do. This is such a dismissive way to phrase it that doesn’t even acknowledge why people work. Reducing everything to “capitalism” is missing the point.
- Ajedi32 1y ago
  With this option, they are now financially penalized for making that choice in order to subsidize those who don't. I'm not so sure that's a good thing.
  - nerpderp82 1y ago
    Can you spell it out with math?
    - Ajedi32 1y ago
      Tax $100 each from couple A and couple B. Couple A leave their kids at a daycare and work. They get $200 in childcare costs reimbursed by the government. Couple B has one parent stay home to take care of their kids. They get nothing. Couple A: -$100 + $200 = +$100 Couple B: -$100 + $0 = -$100
      - stackskipton 1y ago
        Sure and under income taxes, Couple B probably pays much less since US income tax structure is gives massive benefits to couples with single income. It may not be enough to offset joint income. As with most economic changes, there is massive web of things.
        Ajedi32 1y ago
        > US income tax structure is gives massive benefits to couples with single income It gives massive structural advantages to couples with low income, in the form of a lower marginal tax rate. Does it really discriminate between single and dual income though? I wasn't aware of that.
        WD-42 1y ago
        It does not. Filing jointly just saves some hassle in the case where the partners are in the same tax bracket.
        stackskipton 1y ago
        It does. If you look at the tax brackets, https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brac... Married Filing Jointly is good for anyone where income is vastly different. Let's say you made 150k and partner made zero. If you were filing as single, high tax bracket you would get is 24% at everything past 100k. Married filing jointly, 22% at 94k. Also, you could borrow your spouse standard deduction as well to help reduce the tax requirements.
  - Muromec 1y ago
    This exact mindset of minmaxing everything is how the society stops having kids.
    - Ajedi32 1y ago
      People are going to respond to incentives whether you think they should or not. I think it's less "mindsets" that have changed so much as the incentives themselves. People no longer need to have kids in order to have sex or to have a comfortable retirement, so many simply don't. Though I'd agree there's certainly a mindset shift that has developed along with that.
      - Muromec 1y ago
        There is responding to incentives and there is adopting 10 kids to farm child subsidy/benefits.
  - mcbobgorge 1y ago
    My wife and I have no interest in ever having children, yet we are happy to pay property taxes that go to local public schools. Why? Because an educated society is better able to make educated decisions. We are being "penalized" for making the choice to not have kids in order to "subsidize" those who don't.
    - Ajedi32 1y ago
      Correct. It all comes down to whether you believe parents leaving home to work on their careers instead of staying home to raise their kids is an unambiguous good that needs to be subsidized the same way education is.
      - 9rx 1y ago
        Assuming by education you actually mean schooling, this is the very same thing. The question is really only about at which age subsidized schooling should first start. This moves that age of first subsidized engagement to approximately birth, as opposed to waiting until age ~3-5 (varies by jurisdiction). Historically it was considered a beneficial necessity to gather the children to write down knowledge so that it could be brought back home for the whole family to learn from, but in the age of the internet perhaps separating children and parents is never good at any (young-ish) age?
        Ajedi32 1y ago
        I think the biggest difference isn't age, it's that childcare also happens during the summer, not just during the school year. (And of course the lack of any particular educational curriculum.)
        9rx 1y ago
        Is that a meaningful difference, though? Schools were originally open all year round, but the hot summer classroom eventually was deemed an unsuitable place to occupy, thus schools decided to compromise by closing during the hottest months. Since the advent of air-conditioning, there really isn't any good reason to close schools during the summer. But, like the internet bit before, we've just never bothered to stop and actually think about what we're doing. We carry on with the status quo simply because that's what we did in the past. Not because it makes sense, just because that's what we do. But in establishing subsidized daycare now, we don't have to think about the time before air-conditioning was invented. We only have to worry about the constraints we have today. Hot summers are not a practical problem as of right now.
unethical_ban 1y ago
What an insulting way to phrase that. For a single parent, providing the needed money to survive and eat requires working, and child care can be impossibly expensive.
- KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
  They should give money that can be used on anything instead of specifically for healthcare. That way you can choose to take care of your kids yourself and put that money towards food than having to work and then outsource childcare.
micromacrofoot 1y ago
Yes and we should make that easier as well. Many people don't make enough money to have that choice.
mrkeen 1y ago
It's an interesting way to divide up a country's labour. 50% do child rearing, and the other 50% do literally all other professions. If you did have such a large cohort engaged in that activity, there should probably be some kind of education where one could learn 'the best'. Of course people with kids would be too busy to attend. And the ones who did attend wouldn't have any kids to look after.
- WD-42 1y ago
  I work part time nights/weekends so I can raise my child during the day. Which 50% does that put me in?
- kbelder 1y ago
  >50% do child rearing, and the other 50% do literally all other professions. That's not that revolutionary; it's kind of traditional.
  - Windchaser 1y ago
    I don't think it's quite accurate. Historically, lower-class mothers and a fair chunk of middle class mothers also did some work outside the home: as maids, nannies, teachers, gardeners, etc. The 1950s USA "golden era" where lower-class mothers could afford to stay home was a statistical anomaly, gifted to this country by virtue of our unique position as the major economic superpower untouched by WWII.
Aurornis 1y ago
> You realize a lot of people actually prefer to give their child their best instead of outsourcing it My wife and I staggered our work schedules to minimize the time spent at daycare. The one thing we didn’t expect: The kids absolutely loved daycare. It was a great place with excellent caretakers. Most of all, it was socialization with their friends. From reading sneering interment comments (like the one above) I was led to believe that daycare would be an awful experience and I should feel guilty for sending our kids away. Instead, it turned out to be a very fun thing they looked forward to that was also great for their development. Our kids still hang out with friends they made early in daycare days.
- hnlmorg 1y ago
  Exactly this. There are so many benefits to day care for the children. It’s hardly the prison camp people make it out to be. I don’t know if these negative comments are because HN in general dislikes the wider educational system, or if it’s because they dislike governments handing out “charity” to help less affluent families. Maybe a touch of both? But daycare can actually be a really rewarding experience for children. So much so, that I have parent friends who one of them is a stay-at-home parent and they still send their child to day care at least one day a week to help the child’s independence, social skills and comfort when away from home. And they’ve found their child has been better for the experience Edit: and the fact that I’ve been downvoted within seconds of posting this shows how ridiculous people are on here when it comes this topic.
  - titanomachy 1y ago
    There probably are some pretty bad daycares out there, with overworked and burnt-out caretakers. But yeah my friends with kids mostly say the same thing, their kids love it.
  - programjames 1y ago
    For me at least, it's a general dislike of the wider educational system. My parents taught me to read, play chess, multiply, and write in cursive before elementary school. I didn't really learn anything at preschool or kindergarten, and I imagine daycare would be worse for my educational development. Maybe it's useful for social development? but at least for me I was always pretty independent (even in kindergarten) from the other kids. Not in an isolated way, I just preferred doing my own thing.
darth_avocado 1y ago
Even if you’re stay at home unemployed person, a daycare will do more for your child’s development than you would be able to. Kids need socialization, they learn from their peers as much as they learn from adults.
- throwway120385 1y ago
  You can also take them to events at the public libraries and other places, at least in my area. They're often called "Library Story Times" and they're free where we live. That's what my spouse does. There's a very wide spectrum of social activities available even for kids of stay-at-home parents. She will often get together with other parents and let our son socialize with their children too.
  - darth_avocado 1y ago
    That’s fair and I’m sure your spouse covers the need for socialization, however these options aren’t available everywhere and not all parents are going to take their kids for these events every day. Having a venue that you don’t need to plan for 5x times a week is always going to be a great default.
fph 1y ago
A lot of parents think they are better at educating their kids than a trained professional. But are they right?

You realize a lot of people actually prefer to give their child their best instead of outsourcing it so they can focus on bettering the economy, right?

by WD-42 1y ago

You realize a lot of people actually prefer to give their child their best instead of outsourcing it so they can focus on bettering the economy, right?

dzink 1y ago

And with this option they can have that choice. Right now, many don’t.

WD-42 1y ago
Yea and I think that’s great. OP makes it sound like every parent is pining to contribute to the churning of capitalism if only they didn’t have to worry about raising a child. It’s not so.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  > every parent is pining to contribute to the churning of capitalism People don’t want to work because they’re “pining to contribute to the churning of capitalism”. They want to work for income, for career development, or even because they like what they do. This is such a dismissive way to phrase it that doesn’t even acknowledge why people work. Reducing everything to “capitalism” is missing the point.
Ajedi32 1y ago
With this option, they are now financially penalized for making that choice in order to subsidize those who don't. I'm not so sure that's a good thing.
- nerpderp82 1y ago
  Can you spell it out with math?
  - Ajedi32 1y ago
    Tax $100 each from couple A and couple B. Couple A leave their kids at a daycare and work. They get $200 in childcare costs reimbursed by the government. Couple B has one parent stay home to take care of their kids. They get nothing. Couple A: -$100 + $200 = +$100 Couple B: -$100 + $0 = -$100
    - stackskipton 1y ago
      Sure and under income taxes, Couple B probably pays much less since US income tax structure is gives massive benefits to couples with single income. It may not be enough to offset joint income. As with most economic changes, there is massive web of things.
      - Ajedi32 1y ago
        > US income tax structure is gives massive benefits to couples with single income It gives massive structural advantages to couples with low income, in the form of a lower marginal tax rate. Does it really discriminate between single and dual income though? I wasn't aware of that.
        WD-42 1y ago
        It does not. Filing jointly just saves some hassle in the case where the partners are in the same tax bracket.
        stackskipton 1y ago
        It does. If you look at the tax brackets, https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brac... Married Filing Jointly is good for anyone where income is vastly different. Let's say you made 150k and partner made zero. If you were filing as single, high tax bracket you would get is 24% at everything past 100k. Married filing jointly, 22% at 94k. Also, you could borrow your spouse standard deduction as well to help reduce the tax requirements.
- Muromec 1y ago
  This exact mindset of minmaxing everything is how the society stops having kids.
  - Ajedi32 1y ago
    People are going to respond to incentives whether you think they should or not. I think it's less "mindsets" that have changed so much as the incentives themselves. People no longer need to have kids in order to have sex or to have a comfortable retirement, so many simply don't. Though I'd agree there's certainly a mindset shift that has developed along with that.
    - Muromec 1y ago
      There is responding to incentives and there is adopting 10 kids to farm child subsidy/benefits.
- mcbobgorge 1y ago
  My wife and I have no interest in ever having children, yet we are happy to pay property taxes that go to local public schools. Why? Because an educated society is better able to make educated decisions. We are being "penalized" for making the choice to not have kids in order to "subsidize" those who don't.
  - Ajedi32 1y ago
    Correct. It all comes down to whether you believe parents leaving home to work on their careers instead of staying home to raise their kids is an unambiguous good that needs to be subsidized the same way education is.
    - 9rx 1y ago
      Assuming by education you actually mean schooling, this is the very same thing. The question is really only about at which age subsidized schooling should first start. This moves that age of first subsidized engagement to approximately birth, as opposed to waiting until age ~3-5 (varies by jurisdiction). Historically it was considered a beneficial necessity to gather the children to write down knowledge so that it could be brought back home for the whole family to learn from, but in the age of the internet perhaps separating children and parents is never good at any (young-ish) age?
      - Ajedi32 1y ago
        I think the biggest difference isn't age, it's that childcare also happens during the summer, not just during the school year. (And of course the lack of any particular educational curriculum.)
        9rx 1y ago
        Is that a meaningful difference, though? Schools were originally open all year round, but the hot summer classroom eventually was deemed an unsuitable place to occupy, thus schools decided to compromise by closing during the hottest months. Since the advent of air-conditioning, there really isn't any good reason to close schools during the summer. But, like the internet bit before, we've just never bothered to stop and actually think about what we're doing. We carry on with the status quo simply because that's what we did in the past. Not because it makes sense, just because that's what we do. But in establishing subsidized daycare now, we don't have to think about the time before air-conditioning was invented. We only have to worry about the constraints we have today. Hot summers are not a practical problem as of right now.

unethical_ban 1y ago

What an insulting way to phrase that. For a single parent, providing the needed money to survive and eat requires working, and child care can be impossibly expensive.

KaoruAoiShiho 1y ago
They should give money that can be used on anything instead of specifically for healthcare. That way you can choose to take care of your kids yourself and put that money towards food than having to work and then outsource childcare.

micromacrofoot 1y ago

Yes and we should make that easier as well. Many people don't make enough money to have that choice.

mrkeen 1y ago

It's an interesting way to divide up a country's labour. 50% do child rearing, and the other 50% do literally all other professions. If you did have such a large cohort engaged in that activity, there should probably be some kind of education where one could learn 'the best'. Of course people with kids would be too busy to attend. And the ones who did attend wouldn't have any kids to look after.

WD-42 1y ago
I work part time nights/weekends so I can raise my child during the day. Which 50% does that put me in?
kbelder 1y ago
>50% do child rearing, and the other 50% do literally all other professions. That's not that revolutionary; it's kind of traditional.
- Windchaser 1y ago
  I don't think it's quite accurate. Historically, lower-class mothers and a fair chunk of middle class mothers also did some work outside the home: as maids, nannies, teachers, gardeners, etc. The 1950s USA "golden era" where lower-class mothers could afford to stay home was a statistical anomaly, gifted to this country by virtue of our unique position as the major economic superpower untouched by WWII.

Aurornis 1y ago

> You realize a lot of people actually prefer to give their child their best instead of outsourcing it My wife and I staggered our work schedules to minimize the time spent at daycare. The one thing we didn’t expect: The kids absolutely loved daycare. It was a great place with excellent caretakers. Most of all, it was socialization with their friends. From reading sneering interment comments (like the one above) I was led to believe that daycare would be an awful experience and I should feel guilty for sending our kids away. Instead, it turned out to be a very fun thing they looked forward to that was also great for their development. Our kids still hang out with friends they made early in daycare days.

hnlmorg 1y ago
Exactly this. There are so many benefits to day care for the children. It’s hardly the prison camp people make it out to be. I don’t know if these negative comments are because HN in general dislikes the wider educational system, or if it’s because they dislike governments handing out “charity” to help less affluent families. Maybe a touch of both? But daycare can actually be a really rewarding experience for children. So much so, that I have parent friends who one of them is a stay-at-home parent and they still send their child to day care at least one day a week to help the child’s independence, social skills and comfort when away from home. And they’ve found their child has been better for the experience Edit: and the fact that I’ve been downvoted within seconds of posting this shows how ridiculous people are on here when it comes this topic.
- titanomachy 1y ago
  There probably are some pretty bad daycares out there, with overworked and burnt-out caretakers. But yeah my friends with kids mostly say the same thing, their kids love it.
- programjames 1y ago
  For me at least, it's a general dislike of the wider educational system. My parents taught me to read, play chess, multiply, and write in cursive before elementary school. I didn't really learn anything at preschool or kindergarten, and I imagine daycare would be worse for my educational development. Maybe it's useful for social development? but at least for me I was always pretty independent (even in kindergarten) from the other kids. Not in an isolated way, I just preferred doing my own thing.

darth_avocado 1y ago

Even if you’re stay at home unemployed person, a daycare will do more for your child’s development than you would be able to. Kids need socialization, they learn from their peers as much as they learn from adults.

throwway120385 1y ago
You can also take them to events at the public libraries and other places, at least in my area. They're often called "Library Story Times" and they're free where we live. That's what my spouse does. There's a very wide spectrum of social activities available even for kids of stay-at-home parents. She will often get together with other parents and let our son socialize with their children too.
- darth_avocado 1y ago
  That’s fair and I’m sure your spouse covers the need for socialization, however these options aren’t available everywhere and not all parents are going to take their kids for these events every day. Having a venue that you don’t need to plan for 5x times a week is always going to be a great default.

fph 1y ago

A lot of parents think they are better at educating their kids than a trained professional. But are they right?