
Day Care for All - iron0013
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/09/opinion/sunday/child-care-daycare-democrats-progressive.html
======
gedy
We work enough already, if taking a break from work for 3-5 years destroys
career opportunities then let's fix that problem, not less family care.

Anyone I've seen who had the choice favors "staying home" and raising their
children.

~~~
iron0013
A lot of people don't--and never would be able to--have that choice.

~~~
gedy
Yes, and it's very sad. I just would rather see the power of the government
fix root issues instead of more "WORK SHALL MAKE YOU FREE" fetish.

------
fipple
Great, Google gets 5 more years from its technical women while the kids are
raised by government mouth breathers. No thanks

~~~
topkai22
Google pays enough technical women enough they are probably already getting
that. This is more like the 27 year old associate property manager gets to
stay on the path to promotion, or the $15/h hairdresser not having to have a
near zero income for the 3 years her two kids are young.

------
petermcneeley
Totally relevant different nyt article:
[https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/17/archives/in-soviet-
union-...](https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/17/archives/in-soviet-union-day-
care-is-the-norm.html)

------
angmarsbane
I would love this.

Even parents who want to have their children home with them for the majority
of the time would benefit if they could drop their child off at daycare so
they can step out to a dr apt without the baby in tow.

Or a parent who needs a day, to sleep, to have the opportunity to drop their
child off for a few hours.

It’d also be a built in easy way to socialize your kid or to meet other
kids/parents who work or live nearby.

For other parents who are struggling financially or got pregnant too early,
accessible day care could be what enables them to go to a job interview or to
work an extra shift in order to put their family in a better financial
situation.

------
jmpman
An incentive for everyone to have children doesn’t make sense. An incentive
for hard working, intelligent people to have children makes more sense. Make
it a tax deduction, so those making six digits are encouraged to have more
than two children, while those barely able to survive aren’t perversely
incentivized to spread their unsuccessful genes.

~~~
K9DRDOh
This type of comment always surprises me, it is very short sighted.

so the criteria for success is 'making six digits' which you correlate to hard
work and intelligence.

That ignores the following cases:

\- Intelligent, hard working but not high income ( Academics)

\- circumstances, today you make 'six digits' but due to thousands of
variables ( Market, industry, health) you lose the ability to generate that
income after having kids

\- being hard working, intelligent does not make you any better parent, in
fact there is a case for the opposite where you cannot dedicated time to the
raising of children.

\- Anecdotally I personally know many people who are making six digits, who
would probably make terrible parents

~~~
jmpman
This plan is being primarily supported by those making over $100k, as those
are the primary tax payers. People who make over $100k are more likely to have
children who make over $100k.

Simulate a scenario where people living on welfare are incentivized to have 2
extra children. Those 2 extra children are unlikely to increase the wealth of
the population, resulting in a spiral of poverty within a few generations.

I know many people who make more than six digits who are excellent parents and
would be happy to have more children. I also know many people who make more
than six digits who have happily removed themselves from the breeding stock
and live a gluttonous child free existence. People who make more than six
digits are unlikely to have children unless they want them

------
forinti
Many comments seem to come from the idea that day care is just a place to dump
kids. It is, in fact, quite important to a child's education if done properly.
Therefore, it shouldn't be viewed as an expense or a benefit for the parents,
but as an institution valuable for society as a whole.

~~~
burgerzzz
> if done properly

I'd think that would probably be the main concern for critics.

------
mac01021
Daycare just costs money, and not everyone needs daycare. So why not "money
for all"?

~~~
topkai22
Because having children is rather important to the continuation of society,
and (while largely wonderful) a massive financial investment by the parents.

~~~
mac01021
Maybe...

Given the impact on the world's ecosystems of the current population, it
doesn't seem so far fetched that having _fewer_ children might be critical to
the continuation of society.

------
bussierem
[https://outline.com/VMPhuC](https://outline.com/VMPhuC)

------
doggydogs94
I didn’t see how they proposed to pay for day care for all.

~~~
zaroth
I mean there’s only two answers and after that really only one. Deficit and
taxes. And then even more taxes for the current expenses and all the interest
too.

And if we simply print the money to pay for it, then increased inflation to
boot.

~~~
speedplane
> And if we simply print the money to pay for it, then increased inflation to
> boot.

This logically makes sense, but it doesn't really follow the evidence. We've
been running a budget deficit for many years, growing larger and larger, yet
interest rates are historically low.

------
kyleperik
The progressive to-do list could add a whole slew of other things. How about
free housing, electricity, internet, food, clothes, phones for all? But at
what cost?

The thing I don't get about the socialist movement in America is where does it
stop? Aren't we supposed to make our own living?

I think if you know someone who is in need, then _help_ them. I can't take
this idea that it's the government's job to take care of everyone.

~~~
point88883
government is us. should "we" not take of each other?

