Government Provided Childcare - Topic

Member

Posts: 12,201

Joined: Feb 13 2010

Gold: 14.88

Apr 7 2021 11:16am

https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-federal-government-should-subsidize-childcare-and-how-to-pay-for-it/

I only post the link to demonstrate people are talking about the idea, the benefits of a policy where the state provides childcare are very obvious to most people. Working people have kids, kids require education and supervision, government can employ people to tend to children while the biological parents work.

To cut to my take quickly, I one hundred percent oppose such a program. I oppose it primarily because it A) encourages single parenthood and B ) shifts the burden of providing for working families from wage payers to the state. First, I'll discuss B since the economics is typically more direct, then A as the societal problems tend to be more vague.

B: Forget a Living Wage, Demand a Prosperous Wage

Ideally, we'd live in a society where a single individual can comfortably provide for a family on a single income. This isn't so much a fantasy as it was a reality for many Americans throughout the 1950s and 1960s. We know this because women entering the workforce was seen as a powerful and empowering social movement in the 1960s and 1970s. As a side note, Women, of course, occupied the workforce at various points in our history, making up a good portion of industrial labor during the onset of the 20th century. (Funny, I never found the domination of women in positions at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory particularly empowering).

Now, I know the likes of Skinned or Ink will come into my thread and say Americans were always underpaid and the single income household is a myth or only enjoyed by white cishet males. Whether that is true or not, for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because as we stand now, corporations should be able to pay employees enough to not only live on a single income, but provide for a family with such.

Wages indexed to inflation have remained painfully stagnant and in many cases have declined since the 1970s. This in spite of record production growth. Production growth is typically a product of capital investment, so it makes sense at first that the benefits should be reaped by capital investors. However, in the past, certain titans of industry saw fit to return the profits to workers wages. This mentality has essentially evaporated. Profits go to shareholders, labor is seen as merely a cost to be reduced to encourage more profitability and attract more capital investment.

If the minimum wage was indexed to overall economic productivity, it would sit somewhere near $20. This was the statistic I vaguely remember from my time in college about 8 years ago, I'm sure the number has only increased. Now, the American government has not only allowed but encouraged the middle class and manufacturing to be gutted through disastrous free trade and tax policies. Inaction on monopolies also doesn't help, the concentration of economic power in so few hands benefits no one but those who hold it.

The goal is simple, we should through government policy and organized labor ensure companies pay enough that Americans can afford to raise a family on a single income. This would be a titanic effort, since the middle class is the smallest of economic classes at the moment. It would require the American government (the head of which is currently illegally occupied by a usurper) to stop being corporate shills. When the GOP drools to serve corporate interests and Joe Biden receives 80% of the campaign donations made by investment bankers, it seems unlikely that either party has the spirit.

Universal Childcare is the compromise. Employers are paying paltry wages and American families cannot support themselves so the State must care for children while mom and dad work two jobs to try to prevent the bank from taking their increasingly shrinking home. Corporations are pleased because wages stay low, and the burden for childcare is now covered by government debt and probably additions to the FICA tax.

Now, if employers paid higher wages, we could have a situation where one parent doesn't have to work. Or, if both parents want to work, high wages would allow for the purchase of childcare with the second income. Economic distress is a large part of failed marriages, so we could see divorce rates diminish. An increase to wages allows for The Best of Both Worlds. Yes, that is a Star Trek reference.

A: The Decline of the Family

Sociological research demonstrates single parent households are not optimal for children. The children often are more likely to experience depression, act out, etc. Partially, Universal Childcare is promoted to alleviate the financial stress of single parents. I don't have much to say on this as this post is already getting too long. To state it plainly, any policy that makes renders a state of being easier is a subsidy of such, and subsequently an encouragement. The relative cost of single parenthood diminished, the hardwork it takes to preserve and save a failing marriage can be more easily dismissed. The consequences for out of wedlock birth, also diminished. I'm not saying the encouragement is outright, just that it makes such scenarios less unappealing.

I could say more but I'm afraid I'm out of practice and worried that I'm rambling.

Kayeto

Member

Posts: 43,761

Joined: Aug 27 2009

Gold: 63,142.89

Apr 7 2021 11:18am

are public schools not already basically 'government childcare'? how much more could it expanded? 24/7/365?

PlasmaSnake101

Member

Posts: 12,201

Joined: Feb 13 2010

Gold: 14.88

Apr 7 2021 11:55am

Quote (Kayeto @ Apr 7 2021 09:18am)

are public schools not already basically 'government childcare'? how much more could it expanded? 24/7/365?

While there is truth to this, the abhorrent situation our schools are in, the pitiable standards and what not, this is probably too much of its own topic. Kids who received schooling a century ago could read Latin. Now they can't read cursive.

This post was edited by PlasmaSnake101 on Apr 7 2021 11:55am

thesnipa

Member

Posts: 92,995

Joined: Dec 31 2007

Gold: 2,299.94

Apr 7 2021 12:01pm

i dont trust the govt enough to have them handle child care. i know the publicly funded childcare system well, its shit, and would need a ground up overhaul that it isnt going to get to be worth sending my child there.

i'll pay 200$/wk to not send my kid to a tax funded childcare facility if they were funded.

excellence

Member

Posts: 53,368

Joined: Sep 2 2004

Gold: 57.00

Apr 7 2021 12:03pm

Quote (thesnipa @ 7 Apr 2021 14:01)

i dont trust the govt enough to have them handle child care. i know the publicly funded childcare system well, its shit, and would need a ground up overhaul that it isnt going to get to be worth sending my child there.

i'll pay 200$/wk to not send my kid to a tax funded childcare facility if they were funded.

this in a nutshell

more investment is needed into childcare but unfortunately the administrators of this (the govt) will always muck it up

InsaneBobb

Member

Posts: 21,486

Joined: Jul 21 2005

Gold: 438.40

Apr 7 2021 12:07pm

Quote (Kayeto @ 7 Apr 2021 10:18)

are public schools not already basically 'government childcare'? how much more could it expanded? 24/7/365?

Quote (thesnipa @ 7 Apr 2021 11:01)

Indeed. And that $200/week that you pay for is more likely to insure your child is doing their homework, socially interacting, and not just sitting there texting on their phone all day, while claiming they need "more money because heroes!"

duffman316

Member

Posts: 78,723

Joined: Nov 30 2008

Gold: 493.00

Apr 7 2021 12:13pm

Quote (thesnipa @ Apr 7 2021 02:01pm)

Can we get it that cheaply? 200/wk sounds like a steal

thesnipa

Member

Posts: 92,995

Joined: Dec 31 2007

Gold: 2,299.94

Apr 7 2021 12:18pm

Quote (duffman316 @ Apr 7 2021 01:13pm)

Can we get it that cheaply? 200/wk sounds like a steal

in the land of Beer and Cheese Wisconsin 205$/wk that I pay for a single child, an infant no less, is considered expensive.

At home daycares are around 100-125$/wk, or even less for the "drop them off at a trailer" type places.

ofthevoid

Member

Posts: 28,884

Joined: Aug 11 2013

Gold: 10,712.00

Apr 7 2021 12:21pm

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Apr 7 2021 02:07pm)

Kids get suspended and even expelled for basic name calling, "fights" that don't even leave bruises, "talking too much" or eating their poptart the wrong way (OMG IT'S A GUN!).

To expect that "government funded childcare" would be any less idiotic seems like it'd be a tad naive.

Indeed. And that $200/week that you pay for is more likely to insure your child is doing their homework, socially interacting, and not just sitting there texting on their phone all day, while claiming they need "more money because heroes!"

lmao

Maybe in some places teachers are underpaid but around where I live state teacher pay starts out making in the high 50s. You won't get rich on such a salary but to make 55-60 grand starting while working like 9/12 months (having the best months off, as well as having like all of the sweet holidays off, Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc) is pretty boss.

I can't think of too many other jobs in this world where the work-life balance is so 'friendly' towards life. Only behind Greek bankers that work a 9-3 with like a 1-2 hour lunch break.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Apr 7 2021 12:24pm

cambovenzi

Member

Posts: 53,552

Joined: Mar 6 2008

Gold: 1,908.33

#10

Apr 7 2021 12:26pm

This serves a dual purpose of indoctrinating kids into becoming beta cucks so plasma can snake their wives and it also gets the kids out of the house while he does it, without having to worry about finding and paying a babysitter.

Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List