Children used to be an asset, not a liability. More hands to help on the farm! Now they’re an expensive luxury.
No matter how much we want to subsidize child care, it’s a huge investment that takes decades to start showing any returns. Would you invest in a company like that? Especially with no ability to meet the founders before hand (they haven’t been born yet)?
When you put it that way it seems crazy. Especially when you take into account how strongly the outcomes are linked to parental education and income.
I’m talking about financial benefits. Emotional benefits like bonding with your children are great. They just don’t pay the bills. And they don’t accrue to society at large in any measurable way.
What society gets out of investing in children is measured purely in economic terms. That calculation is quite messy if we’re talking about government provided full time child care!
And honestly I think paid child care is a red herring of an issue. The real problem is that housing costs have ballooned out of control. This has forced moms back into the workplace in order to pay the mortgage on two incomes. If housing was cheap like it was back in the 50s-70s, we wouldn’t be worrying about child care costs!
> Your last paragraph seems to suggest that only well-off people should be having kids.
The parent's explanation (no pun intended) is descriptive, not prescriptive or with a value judgment attached. They are describing how it is today, not necessarily how it should be.
No matter how much we want to subsidize child care, it’s a huge investment that takes decades to start showing any returns. Would you invest in a company like that? Especially with no ability to meet the founders before hand (they haven’t been born yet)?
When you put it that way it seems crazy. Especially when you take into account how strongly the outcomes are linked to parental education and income.