4 ms·

"what you see is the higher the gender equality, the higher the birthrate" Yeah, I am sure in Bangladesh and Nigeria they have great gender equality. Have mor

by Tichy 13y ago

"what you see is the higher the gender equality, the higher the birthrate" Yeah, I am sure in Bangladesh and Nigeria they have great gender equality. Have more children, we have the childcare also seems like a stupid proposition. So you have the kids but no time to see them? 24h child care - great signal. So I can work round the clock for nothing? I have a different proposal: pay employers for every child that a women employed with them has. So instead of being a liability, employers could earn money by encouraging their employees to have kids.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago
> pay employers for every child that a women employed with them has. I understand the motivation for this policy - to me the all-to-common idea that child-rearing age women are a liability is awful. However, and its a big however, the law-of-unintended-consequences is going to come round to your house and set light to the sofa after nicking your TV.
- Tichy 13y ago
  That's true, but the current pro-women-child-laws also have unintended consequences - mainly that women are a risk for employers. I'm not sure I am even in favor of such policies, but maybe at least certain vocal would get their wish (more women in employment+more kids).
brazzy 13y ago
> Have more children, we have the childcare also seems like a stupid proposition. So you have the kids but no time to see them? 24h child care - great signal. So I can work round the clock for nothing? Bullshit. "24h" child care simply means that you don't have to choose your job to fit the opening hours of your child care provider. > I have a different proposal: pay employers for every child that a women employed with them has. So instead of being a liability, employers could earn money by encouraging their employees to have kids. And of course there's not chance that will be abused...
- Tichy 13y ago
  How - faking child births? If society wants more kids, it should pay up. The point about the childcare thing is: the solution is not providing parents to get rid of their kids so that they can work. The proper solution would be to enable parents to work less and still have time for their kids. You think catering to parents with flexible work schedules will have a significant impact on birth rates? How many people does that concern anyway?
  - VMG 13y ago
    > If society wants more kids, it should pay up. This can only work if those who pay also get the benefits. Then the employer paying the support must get a cut of the adult child's income.
    - Tichy 13y ago
      My suggestion is employers should receive money, not pay money.
  - brazzy 13y ago
    > How - faking child births? No - by faking employment to get the subsidy for mothers who don't want to (or cannot) work. And of course you'd have unintend consequences for wage levels. > The point about the childcare thing is: the solution is not providing parents to get rid of their kids so that they can work. The proper solution would be to enable parents to work less and still have time for their kids. How do you see those as two contradicting (or even different) things? Even if you "work less" you need someone totake care of your kid while you work. > You think catering to parents with flexible work schedules will have a significant impact on birth rates? How many people does that concern anyway? Many more than you think, apparently. Sweden's fertility rate is much better than Germany's (1.94) and they're the inventors of 24h child care.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    The problem is, there are no good incentives to pay for you to have an 18+ year responsibility. Pay to give birth? Wow, what a couple hundred bucks? Maybe a $1000? Pay directly for services that children would use? The problem is, there is no good way to subsidize being a good, responsible parent. You have to want to be. And more people are simply opting not to have children. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2148636,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2148636,00....

by Tichy 13y ago

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

> pay employers for every child that a women employed with them has. I understand the motivation for this policy - to me the all-to-common idea that child-rearing age women are a liability is awful. However, and its a big however, the law-of-unintended-consequences is going to come round to your house and set light to the sofa after nicking your TV.

Tichy 13y ago
That's true, but the current pro-women-child-laws also have unintended consequences - mainly that women are a risk for employers. I'm not sure I am even in favor of such policies, but maybe at least certain vocal would get their wish (more women in employment+more kids).

brazzy 13y ago

> Have more children, we have the childcare also seems like a stupid proposition. So you have the kids but no time to see them? 24h child care - great signal. So I can work round the clock for nothing? Bullshit. "24h" child care simply means that you don't have to choose your job to fit the opening hours of your child care provider. > I have a different proposal: pay employers for every child that a women employed with them has. So instead of being a liability, employers could earn money by encouraging their employees to have kids. And of course there's not chance that will be abused...

Tichy 13y ago
How - faking child births? If society wants more kids, it should pay up. The point about the childcare thing is: the solution is not providing parents to get rid of their kids so that they can work. The proper solution would be to enable parents to work less and still have time for their kids. You think catering to parents with flexible work schedules will have a significant impact on birth rates? How many people does that concern anyway?
- VMG 13y ago
  > If society wants more kids, it should pay up. This can only work if those who pay also get the benefits. Then the employer paying the support must get a cut of the adult child's income.
  - Tichy 13y ago
    My suggestion is employers should receive money, not pay money.
- brazzy 13y ago
  > How - faking child births? No - by faking employment to get the subsidy for mothers who don't want to (or cannot) work. And of course you'd have unintend consequences for wage levels. > The point about the childcare thing is: the solution is not providing parents to get rid of their kids so that they can work. The proper solution would be to enable parents to work less and still have time for their kids. How do you see those as two contradicting (or even different) things? Even if you "work less" you need someone totake care of your kid while you work. > You think catering to parents with flexible work schedules will have a significant impact on birth rates? How many people does that concern anyway? Many more than you think, apparently. Sweden's fertility rate is much better than Germany's (1.94) and they're the inventors of 24h child care.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  The problem is, there are no good incentives to pay for you to have an 18+ year responsibility. Pay to give birth? Wow, what a couple hundred bucks? Maybe a $1000? Pay directly for services that children would use? The problem is, there is no good way to subsidize being a good, responsible parent. You have to want to be. And more people are simply opting not to have children. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2148636,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2148636,00....