4 ms·

I think this is the biggest gap in western governments currently, and huge productivity boosts could be had if they solve this problem. Especially in the US. I

I think this is the biggest gap in western governments currently, and huge productivity boosts could be had if they solve this problem. Especially in the US. It's incomprehensible that a parent should have to pay thousands per month just to be able to have a child and work at the same time. Paid maternal leave is not the big issue! After six months of leave, the problem remains that a child needs to be looked after and cared for while the mother returns to work.

sliverstorm 12y ago
It's incomprehensible that a parent should have to pay thousands per month just to be able to have a child and work at the same time. Why is it incomprehensible? Watching a kid takes time, time costs money. Someone has to pay for it. Maybe you don't think it's right that the parent should be the one to pay for supervision of their kid, but I'm still lost as to how you arrived at "incomprehensible".
- TulliusCicero 12y ago
  It's incomprehensible that it still works this way in a modern economy. The eventual financial benefit of the child goes to society, not the parents, therefore it follows that society should bear the initial financial cost.
  - aianus 12y ago
    There is no eventual financial benefit to having children for society. Our lives would be much better if the population of the Earth was smaller. The oil would last longer, food would be cheaper as we could farm only the most fertile easily-cultivated land, less competition for housing, etc, etc.
tomp 12y ago
> while the mother returns to work But why? I'm young and child-less, so I'm not speaking out of experience, but I really see no reasons why we should be encouraging people to be able to work while having kids. Instead, I think we should enable them to not work and have kids. 50 years ago, it was more than possible to sustain a family with only a single working parent. Nowadays, this doesn't seem even remotely possible (hell, many families barely survive with 2 working parents!). Furthermore, it's not like we're facing a shortage of workforce problems - we're facing unemployment problems. If we could enable e.g. 30% of the workforce (hopefully dads as well - I would love to stay at home instead of working) to stay at home with kids instead, not only would that solve the unemployment issues, but it would also be hugely beneficial for the children's development! Edited to add: I actually come from a country where most adults worked even 50 years ago. However, when I was young, my grandmother was already retired, so she was able to take care of me and my brother until we started school. Still, I wish my parents had been able to spend more time with me when I was little, and I wish I'll have that opportunity with my kids.
- freehunter 12y ago
  I think it's considered healthy these days for children to spend time away from their family in the care of others. It helps to develop a sense of individuality and independence from the parents at a younger age. Plus, from what I've heard, sometimes the parents and the children just need a break from each other. Yes, this can be done by taking the kid to a park or other social activities, but two working parents is a perfectly acceptable option too. Daycare isn't unbeneficial to a child.
  - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
    I have friends and family who work in primary education and they all say it's immediately obvious which children have two working parents. The kids without a full time homemaker have far more developmental problems.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Any credible cites for this?
    - freehunter 12y ago
      Children with working parents is one group. Children with developmental problems is another group. There is surely some overlap, but that is far from saying that children with working parents will always have developmental problems. I can point to some people I know and say "they're an only child" based on the way they behave, but that's ignoring the millions of 'only child's who have no behavioral problems or the millions of people from multi-child households who still have difficulty functioning in normal society. There is certainly more to a child's behavior than whether their parents were working or staying at home. There might be a strong correlation to households with two working parents and households with other developmentally-stunting factors like parental illiteracy or low education levels, low levels of parental involvement, etc, but I'm sure you would have a tough time proving to any level that, with all other factors remaining the same, two working parents cause more damage to a child than having a stay-at-home parent. For what it's worth (as long as your anecdotal experience means something to you), my brother-in-law is a college administrator and my sister is a first grade teacher and they have two children who don't seem to have any developmental issues. But my sister has kids in her class with a stay-at-home parent who certainly do.

sliverstorm 12y ago

It's incomprehensible that a parent should have to pay thousands per month just to be able to have a child and work at the same time. Why is it incomprehensible? Watching a kid takes time, time costs money. Someone has to pay for it. Maybe you don't think it's right that the parent should be the one to pay for supervision of their kid, but I'm still lost as to how you arrived at "incomprehensible".

TulliusCicero 12y ago
It's incomprehensible that it still works this way in a modern economy. The eventual financial benefit of the child goes to society, not the parents, therefore it follows that society should bear the initial financial cost.
- aianus 12y ago
  There is no eventual financial benefit to having children for society. Our lives would be much better if the population of the Earth was smaller. The oil would last longer, food would be cheaper as we could farm only the most fertile easily-cultivated land, less competition for housing, etc, etc.

tomp 12y ago

> while the mother returns to work But why? I'm young and child-less, so I'm not speaking out of experience, but I really see no reasons why we should be encouraging people to be able to work while having kids. Instead, I think we should enable them to not work and have kids. 50 years ago, it was more than possible to sustain a family with only a single working parent. Nowadays, this doesn't seem even remotely possible (hell, many families barely survive with 2 working parents!). Furthermore, it's not like we're facing a shortage of workforce problems - we're facing unemployment problems. If we could enable e.g. 30% of the workforce (hopefully dads as well - I would love to stay at home instead of working) to stay at home with kids instead, not only would that solve the unemployment issues, but it would also be hugely beneficial for the children's development! Edited to add: I actually come from a country where most adults worked even 50 years ago. However, when I was young, my grandmother was already retired, so she was able to take care of me and my brother until we started school. Still, I wish my parents had been able to spend more time with me when I was little, and I wish I'll have that opportunity with my kids.

freehunter 12y ago
I think it's considered healthy these days for children to spend time away from their family in the care of others. It helps to develop a sense of individuality and independence from the parents at a younger age. Plus, from what I've heard, sometimes the parents and the children just need a break from each other. Yes, this can be done by taking the kid to a park or other social activities, but two working parents is a perfectly acceptable option too. Daycare isn't unbeneficial to a child.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  I have friends and family who work in primary education and they all say it's immediately obvious which children have two working parents. The kids without a full time homemaker have far more developmental problems.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Any credible cites for this?
  - freehunter 12y ago
    Children with working parents is one group. Children with developmental problems is another group. There is surely some overlap, but that is far from saying that children with working parents will always have developmental problems. I can point to some people I know and say "they're an only child" based on the way they behave, but that's ignoring the millions of 'only child's who have no behavioral problems or the millions of people from multi-child households who still have difficulty functioning in normal society. There is certainly more to a child's behavior than whether their parents were working or staying at home. There might be a strong correlation to households with two working parents and households with other developmentally-stunting factors like parental illiteracy or low education levels, low levels of parental involvement, etc, but I'm sure you would have a tough time proving to any level that, with all other factors remaining the same, two working parents cause more damage to a child than having a stay-at-home parent. For what it's worth (as long as your anecdotal experience means something to you), my brother-in-law is a college administrator and my sister is a first grade teacher and they have two children who don't seem to have any developmental issues. But my sister has kids in her class with a stay-at-home parent who certainly do.