4 ms·

It is a great tragedy that there is the need for such 24h daycare services. - Both for children and parents. Speaking about parents: I really wonder how they g

by fwn 12y ago

It is a great tragedy that there is the need for such 24h daycare services. - Both for children and parents. Speaking about parents: I really wonder how they got to this point. Clearly creating two children while in need of two low paid jobs seems like the opposite of a risk averse strategy.

alkonaut 12y ago
> Clearly creating two children while in need of two low paid jobs seems like the opposite of a risk averse strategy. Conversely, not making sure that every family feels comfortable creating >= 2.0 children surely isn't a good strategy for the society as a whole either. This means calculating a decent minimum wage is simple: it's what a single parent needs to support two kids (including healthcare, holidays, ...) with some margin, while working just one single full time job.
- fwn 12y ago
  Prohibiting low income jobs for those in need seems like a very cynical idea to fight low income poverty.
  - alkonaut 12y ago
    What's cynical is a system where having a job doesn't provide a living wage. That just needs to be fixed. There is no point trying to scare with the fact that this would take people from a job that doesn't pay enough, to welfare that pays even less. Higher minimum wages could mean higher unemployment of course, but it isn't a right to employ people without paying them a living wage. Raised minium wages would need to be coupled with increased spending on social benefits/welfare.
    - ciupicri 12y ago
      What is a "living wage"?
      - lkbm 12y ago
        A wage that is sufficient to cover basic needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
    - lkbm 12y ago
      Increased unemployment coverage, but possibly decreases in other welfare. Quite a few people on food stamps have jobs--they're just low-paying jobs (or too few hours).
      - alkonaut 12y ago
        Exactly. And better social security can often show up As a net positive for the economy as a whole. Especially when starting from the very low level we are talking about here. If people aren't fearing for their economic future (the U.S. default mode) they can do what society prefers them to do (have kids, start businesses) rather than saving up for that day you get an illness or get fired.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    In the same way that its cynical to cut taxes on the wealthy in hopes it'll "trickle down" or "create jobs".
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
pilsetnieks 12y ago
They may not have been in need when the children were conceived. There are many things that can turn someone's life around for the worse.
- fwn 12y ago
  Fair enough. This said I won't belive all of this to be rooted in reasons beyond control.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    > This said I won't belive all of this to be rooted in reasons beyond control. Most definitely. If America had a proper social safety net and income equality, this would've never happened. But heh! Bootstraps!
RobAley 12y ago
I used to feel this way before I had kids, I'm now of the opposite mind. Having kids is a fairly fundamental part of being a human being (imho, ymmv), just below keeping yourself alive. If everyone had to wait until they could afford kids before having them, many people would be too old to reproduce by the time they could (if ever). This is a function of the wealth inequalities in our society, not the fault of those parents specifically. While it's easy to blame some of them, we get need get societies house in order first.
- RobAley 12y ago
  Just to underline the fundemental-ness of having kids I mentioned above, in the EU we have enshrined in law the right to "start a family" [1] as a recognised human right. [1] Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights
- zo1 12y ago
  Individuals not having a support-structure in place to help them take care of kids (i.e. family) is both a symptom and a cause of individuals having children that they can not take care of. If they struggle to take care of their children, then they'll probably struggle to help their children take care of their own children. I'd posit that this is endemic to our "credit/loan" society, where everyone feels the need to have things that they can't (yet) afford. If they just hold off on their self-indulgence for one generation (or x-amount of years) until they can afford to have that item, then they will improve the lifestyle of their following generations by an unmeasurable amount.
  - RobAley 12y ago
    For most people who struggle to afford their kids, its not other indulgences that cause it. There is a whole section of society who work hard but can't get by.

by fwn 12y ago

alkonaut 12y ago

> Clearly creating two children while in need of two low paid jobs seems like the opposite of a risk averse strategy. Conversely, not making sure that every family feels comfortable creating >= 2.0 children surely isn't a good strategy for the society as a whole either. This means calculating a decent minimum wage is simple: it's what a single parent needs to support two kids (including healthcare, holidays, ...) with some margin, while working just one single full time job.

fwn 12y ago
Prohibiting low income jobs for those in need seems like a very cynical idea to fight low income poverty.
- alkonaut 12y ago
  What's cynical is a system where having a job doesn't provide a living wage. That just needs to be fixed. There is no point trying to scare with the fact that this would take people from a job that doesn't pay enough, to welfare that pays even less. Higher minimum wages could mean higher unemployment of course, but it isn't a right to employ people without paying them a living wage. Raised minium wages would need to be coupled with increased spending on social benefits/welfare.
  - ciupicri 12y ago
    What is a "living wage"?
    - lkbm 12y ago
      A wage that is sufficient to cover basic needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
  - lkbm 12y ago
    Increased unemployment coverage, but possibly decreases in other welfare. Quite a few people on food stamps have jobs--they're just low-paying jobs (or too few hours).
    - alkonaut 12y ago
      Exactly. And better social security can often show up As a net positive for the economy as a whole. Especially when starting from the very low level we are talking about here. If people aren't fearing for their economic future (the U.S. default mode) they can do what society prefers them to do (have kids, start businesses) rather than saving up for that day you get an illness or get fired.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  In the same way that its cynical to cut taxes on the wealthy in hopes it'll "trickle down" or "create jobs".
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

pilsetnieks 12y ago

They may not have been in need when the children were conceived. There are many things that can turn someone's life around for the worse.

fwn 12y ago
Fair enough. This said I won't belive all of this to be rooted in reasons beyond control.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  > This said I won't belive all of this to be rooted in reasons beyond control. Most definitely. If America had a proper social safety net and income equality, this would've never happened. But heh! Bootstraps!

RobAley 12y ago

I used to feel this way before I had kids, I'm now of the opposite mind. Having kids is a fairly fundamental part of being a human being (imho, ymmv), just below keeping yourself alive. If everyone had to wait until they could afford kids before having them, many people would be too old to reproduce by the time they could (if ever). This is a function of the wealth inequalities in our society, not the fault of those parents specifically. While it's easy to blame some of them, we get need get societies house in order first.

RobAley 12y ago
Just to underline the fundemental-ness of having kids I mentioned above, in the EU we have enshrined in law the right to "start a family" [1] as a recognised human right. [1] Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights
zo1 12y ago
Individuals not having a support-structure in place to help them take care of kids (i.e. family) is both a symptom and a cause of individuals having children that they can not take care of. If they struggle to take care of their children, then they'll probably struggle to help their children take care of their own children. I'd posit that this is endemic to our "credit/loan" society, where everyone feels the need to have things that they can't (yet) afford. If they just hold off on their self-indulgence for one generation (or x-amount of years) until they can afford to have that item, then they will improve the lifestyle of their following generations by an unmeasurable amount.
- RobAley 12y ago
  For most people who struggle to afford their kids, its not other indulgences that cause it. There is a whole section of society who work hard but can't get by.