This study was limited to the program in Quebec, but this discovery is alarming
> and also that cohorts with increased child care access subsequently had worse health, lower life satisfaction, and higher crime rates later in life.
CincinnatiMan 7 minutes ago [-]
So is the takeaway that universal child care has a positive impact on GDP of the parents, but a negative impact on the overall life of the child?
zmgsabst 5 minutes ago [-]
Of course it has positive GDP on the parents: if two women each care for each others children rather than their own, GDP goes up even though the impact on both families is negative (due to lost travel time, as the mothers swap roles).
parasxos 8 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
black6 29 minutes ago [-]
This assumes that mothers in the workforce earning (taxable) income is a benefit in and of itself. It doesn't consider the familial impacts of outsourcing the raising of ones own offspring to another party.
cortesoft 25 minutes ago [-]
You have to pick what you want to measure. I think that is a different study; measuring the mental and emotional impact of two working parents.
Both are interesting and useful, but I think they need to be separate studies.
zmgsabst 4 minutes ago [-]
This doesn’t even show the family is better off economically — they only measure their earnings, but not lost labor while at home.
SoftTalker 28 minutes ago [-]
Yes, this was the same thought I had. What about investing in children by making it easier for their own mother to actually care for them, instead of working outside the home and dumping the kid in an institution.
nkrisc 11 minutes ago [-]
Your phrasing betrays your bias.
Having kids in childcare is not the downfall of society, and in some ways is similar to The Way Things Used To Be. My youngest goes to pre-school childcare where he gets to interact with kids and parents from his local community whom we see outside of childcare as well. He sees his “teacher” when he walks with me and his older brother to his school because her daughter goes to the same school as his brother. The people who work there are part of the community as well.
Childcare can be the modern form of the village collectively caring for the children so that not every parent is busy with child-rearing all the time.
It’s also good for kids to spend time interacting with people who aren’t part of their immediate family.
Not every childcare program is created equal, but there is a place and need for good ones.
Not once has it ever felt like “dumping him in an institution”. Your kids do not need you 100% of the time, and usually it’s better they’re not with you 100% of the time.
barbazoo 2 minutes ago [-]
My kids are around so many other kids, interacting, playing, arguing, sometimes fighting (hands to yourself!), they are around so many caring adults that live nearby, we talk to them every time we see them. I know how lucky we are. I bet people that say dumping your kid at an institution have no idea how nice life could be in that regard.
SoftTalker 8 minutes ago [-]
Sure, and epecially when the child is a bit older then introducing a "preschool" situation for a few hours a day is probably valuable. But having an infant in a daycare for 8-10 hours a day is probably not.
estearum 3 minutes ago [-]
I would bet that approximately 100% of people advocating for funded childcare programs++ would want to avoid the "putting infants in daycare for 8-10hrs/day" scenario.
graemep 21 minutes ago [-]
Their own mother or father. This is important for multiple reasons. Some fathers are better parents (I undoubtedly was), if you assume mothers do childcare it limits choices for both men and women. It is a barrier to equal childcare which I feel is ideal.
Even other family member will have a lasting relationship with them and give them more one to one attention.
Kinrany 5 minutes ago [-]
Children being cared for solely by their parents isn't "natural": children used to be raised by entire villages
AndrewDucker 10 minutes ago [-]
Having had two kids go through nursery from an early age, they absolutely had a better time there, with more friends and a higher quality of entertainment, than they would have had at home with either of us.
nemomarx 24 minutes ago [-]
how would that work? replacing her lost wages to be sure it's not an economic disadvantage sounds hard
bluGill 4 minutes ago [-]
There is more to life than economics. Economics should put a floor on what you do in life - that is you need enough food to live, and enough shelter (including clothing)... However once that basics are met you need to ask about trade offs. Rice and beans are a nice meal once in a while, but sometimes I want "steak and caviar". Likewise, all I need to live is a "tiny house" shack with some heat - but I really like having more space. I wouldn't mind having the largest private house in the world complete with staff to maintain it - but the work I would need to afford is not something I'm willing to do (I'm not sure if I could get into the CEO suite if I tried, but I know enough of that CEOs do with their life that I'm not willing for that)
At what point will you decide that something other than economics matter? I can tell you now that I have kids time with the kids is more important than money. However I'm also a staff software engineer and so I'm making more $$ than most. You need to make your own decisions based on your own life.
SoftTalker 10 minutes ago [-]
You are either paying the mother (or father) to stay home, or paying for child care so they can work.
I don't think it has to be a completely level trade on an economic basis. A lot of parents would prefer to be able to stay home even if it's not a purely economic optimum. And staying at home doesn't necessarily preclude earning any income. A parent could still do part time work from home, or even outside the home, when the other parent is there etc.
Forgeties79 12 minutes ago [-]
We managed to have a society with a significant number of families living on one income for quite some time. 2 incomes shouldn’t be a requirement to keep a roof over a family’s head. The goal shouldn’t be “2 incomes,” it should be “1 income is sustainable and families can actually be a family.”
LanceH 14 minutes ago [-]
> This assumes that mothers in the workforce earning (taxable) income is a benefit in and of itself.
I think it's more about whether the investment pays back and defrays the costs.
add-sub-mul-div 6 minutes ago [-]
The rich were so successful in manipulating people with culture wars like "women shouldn't work" that the people who fell for it still don't realize the real war was them losing the economic standing in which it was viable for the typical family to have one working parent.
estearum 1 minutes ago [-]
This is just rent. Land Value Tax fixes this.
23 minutes ago [-]
colechristensen 14 minutes ago [-]
Women entering the workforce eroded the ability to maintain a household on one income because of depressed wages and housing competition. There's no absolute cost to housing, people will pay what they afford and making more money means the housing cost rises, it doesn't make people "richer" just everything else more expensive.
This isn't an argument that women shouldn't be allowed to work or anything ridiculous like that. We ALL should work less.
And just about everything ends up being an unintentional subsidy to the ever growing real estate price.
You want to invest in mothers and do a million other societal benefit things? Do everything you can to damage the ability of people to profit from owning residential real estate.
thinkingtoilet 25 minutes ago [-]
It also assumes having fathers in the work force earning taxable income is a benefit, but you seem totally fine with that assumption.
graemep 19 minutes ago [-]
I made the same point in a less snarky way in my previous comment in this thread.
It is a very deeply embedded assumption that women are primary parents. Any man who has been an equal or primary carer for their kids will tell you that.
binary0010 13 minutes ago [-]
Agreed, the mother and father should take off from the work force for 18 years to raise their kids and not have to earn a taxable income.
Rendered at 16:10:09 GMT+0000 (UTC) with Wasmer Edge.
> and also that cohorts with increased child care access subsequently had worse health, lower life satisfaction, and higher crime rates later in life.
Both are interesting and useful, but I think they need to be separate studies.
Having kids in childcare is not the downfall of society, and in some ways is similar to The Way Things Used To Be. My youngest goes to pre-school childcare where he gets to interact with kids and parents from his local community whom we see outside of childcare as well. He sees his “teacher” when he walks with me and his older brother to his school because her daughter goes to the same school as his brother. The people who work there are part of the community as well.
Childcare can be the modern form of the village collectively caring for the children so that not every parent is busy with child-rearing all the time.
It’s also good for kids to spend time interacting with people who aren’t part of their immediate family.
Not every childcare program is created equal, but there is a place and need for good ones.
Not once has it ever felt like “dumping him in an institution”. Your kids do not need you 100% of the time, and usually it’s better they’re not with you 100% of the time.
Even other family member will have a lasting relationship with them and give them more one to one attention.
At what point will you decide that something other than economics matter? I can tell you now that I have kids time with the kids is more important than money. However I'm also a staff software engineer and so I'm making more $$ than most. You need to make your own decisions based on your own life.
I don't think it has to be a completely level trade on an economic basis. A lot of parents would prefer to be able to stay home even if it's not a purely economic optimum. And staying at home doesn't necessarily preclude earning any income. A parent could still do part time work from home, or even outside the home, when the other parent is there etc.
I think it's more about whether the investment pays back and defrays the costs.
This isn't an argument that women shouldn't be allowed to work or anything ridiculous like that. We ALL should work less.
And just about everything ends up being an unintentional subsidy to the ever growing real estate price.
You want to invest in mothers and do a million other societal benefit things? Do everything you can to damage the ability of people to profit from owning residential real estate.
It is a very deeply embedded assumption that women are primary parents. Any man who has been an equal or primary carer for their kids will tell you that.