5 ms·

Title should really clarify: “In the US”. Childcare is much cheaper in other countries, even relative to the lower earning potentials. Canada for example is w

• ETH_start 8mo ago
  The cost is distributed across the people through taxation.
  • dagmx 8mo ago
    Okay, and? Being cheaper in total, cheaper to the individual and generally amortized aren’t mutually exclusive.
    • ETH_start 8mo ago
      No reason why it would be cheaper in total, given the government workforce would inevitably unionize, leaving the taxpayer with very little bargaining power.
  • timcambrant 8mo ago
    Yes, which is great. Everybody pays so no one pays much. No one is poor from paying for other people's daycare.
    • ETH_start 8mo ago
      You can replicate that individually by just saving.
  • theshrike79 8mo ago
    That's how a welfare state operates. It's long term second-order thinking that people on the right side of the political spectrum tend to lack in my experience. I pay taxes so other people can afford to have kids, they can stay home and give the kids a stable childhood. Then the kids will go to subsidised childcare (0-250€/month depending on income) and later to school where they have free school lunches and well-paid teachers. Why? Because I'm getting old and when I retire we need people working and paying taxes so there's money to pay for MY healthcare and pension.
    • ETH_start 8mo ago
      I was not trying to start an ideological battle — just pointing out that childcare is not cheaper, it's just paid out of taxes instead of consumer spending. But if you want to discuss second order effects, what basic economic theory and empirical evidence both show is that the second order effect is less incentive for people to work, and higher rates of children born out of wedlock. The implications of that is higher incarceration rates and other socioeconomic problems as a consequence of the negative effects of being raised in a single parent household. This is the kind of multi-generational impact that I've found social democracy advocates rarely weigh in their analysis. In terms of the economic impact, the higher taxes dampens growth, which is exactly why median income is so much lower in the EU than the U.S: EU Europe average ≈ $30,500 United States ≈ $68,000 A 2018 study shows tax increases significantly reduce innovation. A 1% increase in the top marginal income tax rate leads to a 2% reduction in patents and inventors, while a similar increase in corporate taxes causes even larger declines: https://www.nber.org/papers/w24982 https://www.nber.org/papers/w24982 This shows up in company creation. The United States has vastly more large young companies than the European Union. Looking only at companies started from scratch, and now worth at least $10 billion on the stock market, the EU has about 14 companies worth a combined ~$430 billion, while the US has dozens whose total value is close to $30 trillion — roughly 70 times larger. In fact, the entire EU total is less than half the value of Tesla alone. You might point to the Nordic countries as examples of welfare success stories, but the Nordics are only proof that a rich, high-trust society can stay rich while paying high taxes. Not proof that high taxes made them rich, or that the model doesn’t slow growth or scale badly elsewhere. Keep in mind that it was during the Nordics' 100 year free-market era that they got rich. That's when they experienced the massive gains per capita income and average qualify life. On the eve of their experiment with social democratic authoritarianism in the mid 1960s, they were at the very top of global rankings in per capita income and quality life metrics. It wad the preceding 100 years of free market economics that got them there, not social democracy. Not only has their rate of economic growth slowed since they raised their taxes, there is evidence that they’re losing the high-trust culture that made this model possible in the first place. They’re also losing the work ethic that was built over hundreds of years of hard labor in a cold climate. More and more people are comfortable lying about being on sick leave, for example. That’s a measurable decline in work ethic. And you simply cannot sustain a high-tax welfare state without an unusually strong work ethic and high trust.
  • toomuchtodo 8mo ago
    The society you exist in, and are enabled to generate income from, is paid for via taxation.
    • ETH_start 8mo ago
      Society can also be enabled by consumer spending.
• palmotea 8mo ago
  > Childcare is much cheaper in other countries, even relative to the lower earning potentials. Cheaper, or more heavily subsidized? It's an important difference. For the record: I'm not opposed to subsidies, and think the US need them in a lot more areas (and a lot more government involvement in the economy, in general).
  • lawn 8mo ago
    With respect to healthcare it's both cheaper and subsidized.
  • timcambrant 8mo ago
    It is both subsidized and cheaper but that word sort of implies parents (and especially non-parents) may be worse off in the end, which I think is an unfortunate way of thinking about these subsidies. Given the cost of health and life insurance, unemployment insurance, paid vacation (4-6 weeks generally), healthcare (I once paid $32 for 5 weeks hospital care), paid parental leave, childcare, school and university, I am confident this more than makes up for the higher taxes. I believe people are calmer when the risk of living is low. No broken leg or depression will set us back financially, and if we have a few too many kids they can all go to college even if we don't earn much. And both parents can work (70% at least) while their kids go to daycare. This is at least an extra 5 years of salary compared to supporting a stay-at-home parent. It might not be charming to brag about all our advantages, but as a European I really want e.g. Americans to know that there is another way. Life doesn't have to be about chasing money until you can afford to live.
    • derektank 8mo ago
      The word subsidy does not carry the connotation you suggest it does. One is supposed to subsidize good things
  • bdangubic 8mo ago
    US collects your taxes and then spends it for Dept of War, Corporate Subsidies, Farming Subsidies etc etc.... The rest of the world collects taxes and spends it on their future, education, health, child care...
• bot403 8mo ago
  In the Czech Republic women get a legally protected 3 year maternity leave. Enough time to get a child into preschool. And you get a small monthly stipend per child during this time. It's small but it's something.
  • apparent 8mo ago
    What does "legally protected maternity leave" mean? From your stipend comment it sounds like it's not fully-paid. Does it just mean your company has to offer you your job back when you want to return? What happens if the company has eliminated the roll/laid people off in the meantime? Can they not get rid of your position if you are on maternity at the time?
    • em-bee 8mo ago
      correct. in general, when letting people go you need to consider the impact on their lives. and you need to let go those who are less impacted. you can't just pick the weakest performers or the most expensive (although the higher paid ones are less likely to be impacted)
      • apparent 8mo ago
        This sounds like the old-fashioned way of running companies that would result in a married woman being laid off instead of a married man, on the theory that he's the breadwinner and his family relies on him. Or am I misunderstanding?
        • em-bee 8mo ago
          only if the husband actually is earning enough in any particular case. each persons situation needs to be looked at individually. given that in most cases a single salary is no longer enough the male breadwinner theory is no longer reality. on the other hand men are more likely to find a new job so they are less impacted, which should make it more likely that they are chosen. what the actual results are needs a look at statistics
• goalieca 8mo ago
  The 10$ a day program is double to triple that price and childcare spaces have become even more rare since that program launched and it’s because capacity has reduced and not usage. One of the issues with that is the increased control and administration to the point of local governments approving line items for these businesses.
• tmaly 8mo ago
  If you cleaned up all the wasteful spending in the US, the government could make childcare affordable.