Unfortunately due to child/caretaker ratio requirements and a host of other childcare regulations (most of which make perfect sense imho) its not cheap.
For example, I think you need one caretaker for every three infants uner the age of 12 months. That means you have to carry the cost of one third of a person’s salary plus overhead and perhaps some profit margin for your child under 12 months. For a lot of people this means its better to stay home and raise your own child.
I think the ratio goes to 4 children/caretaker between 12 and 24 months. After 24 months I think the ratio goes up dramatically but you end up needing more facilities, etc.
Yeah like you said creativity, and good luck with keeping drama out.
Well we have the $5000 Dependent Care Flexible Spending Account which provides you a subsidy equal to your tax rate times $5000 if it is necessary to allow you to work. We could extend it to $5000/child (or even $10,000/child) rather than $5000/household. We could limit it to licensed child care facilities.
I presume you mean taht the increased productivity would offset SOME of the cost of the program right? because it is doubtful taht the program wold pay for itself.
By tax rate do you mean a number from 0 to 1? Wouldn’t it make sense for this to be 1 - tax rate? I use Medical FSAs, but have never run into dependent care ones, though I know they exist since they are on the same forms as the Medical FSA.
We’d have to measure second order effects, some of which I mentioned, but I wouldn’t claim that all the cost would be made up. But more might be societywide than we might think.
OK so then what is your answer to the problems of unwed mothers?
Voyager assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that your answer would be “don’t be an unwed mother” If this is indeed your answer then Voayagers comments were spot on, if its something else, then please let us in on the secret.
I assume you mean single parenthood, which is what we were discussing. An unwed but committed couple can raise a child just as well as a married couple, and better than a married couple with serious problems.
And here we have it. I was not questioning your belief that single motherhood is bad. (I’m not sure it is in some cases, but it certainly is in certain other cases.) I was questioning your solution, or lack of one. Whether single parenthood is a little bad or a lot bad, telling women to stop having babies is not going to work. Do you think it will? Has it for the past 4,000 years or so? And what is your solution for the cases where women stubbornly refuse to listen to your advice? Take the baby away from them? Let them starve if they are poor?
Women are going to have babies, men are going to abandon them, criminals will commit crimes, and people will screw others to maximize their own wealth and position. Like it or not, that’s the way we’re built, and we have to deal with the consequences and not think we can make human nature change.
I looked up single parenthood rates, and found that at the same time teen parenthood rates are declining single parenthood rates are increasing. Since the average age at marriage is also increasing, this can’t be coming from teens getting married faster. It sure seems that more single parents are relatively older and more mature than before. I don’t know if the single parenthood rates include those in committed relationships, but not married. That could skew the figures a lot.
No the subsidy is the lower taxes you pay because you were able to deduct the $5K pre-tax. So if your tax rate is 25% the government is paying $1250 of your dependent care costs for you.
The sliver of people for whom the subsidy would alter behaviour while paying benefits for a much larger group of people for whom it would be a windfall makes it difficult to see see how the second order effects would be significant enough to pay for the subsidy.
Giving someone a subsidy of $5000 for child care means that we need to collect an extra $5000 in taxes from someone who would not have worked before but will work now because of teh subsisdy.
We’ve already established that the attitude “there is just nothing we can do about it” is false. The unwed pregnancy rates were much different for some groups and in some eras. Therefore, your notion that the current rate of unwed pregnancy is unchangeable human nature is wrong.
Depends on the state, but yeah. The child/caregiver ratio for young kids is often pretty low. In most states, daycare is pretty heavily regulated, adding costs. Even licensed home based daycare can be pretty regulated. Insurance costs are pretty high.
Let’s say you live around me and are a single Mom. A living wage here for one adult and one child is around $18.00 an hour - load that with health care, unemployment tax, employers share of FICA, etc., you are looking at around $27 an hour. Divide that out by the 4 infants per adult that my state uses as its ratio (or did when my kids were babies) and you have $6.75 in labor costs alone. Assume you have the kids for a 40 hour work week, plus 10 hours of commute - errand running time - $337 a week in labor. $1,350 for the month - and we don’t have a facility, insurance, we haven’t feed the kids, we don’t have toys or playdoh or crayons - at that point you’ve just covered labor at a living wage.
Granted, few daycare workers make a living wage. But lets not solve the problem for single moms and make the problem for daycare workers worse.
And once again you put your “other words” in someone else’s mouth. Voyager says that human nature is what it is, but says absolutely nothing about the rate of any of the events listed being unchangeable.
I am perfectly happy to argue about that, though I suspect, as always, that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. My objection was you characterization of parents who prioritize financial security as inherently “selfish”. There are plenty of people living today who remember a time when a parent couldn’t feel confident of being able to feed a child from one week to the next, and when you are raised with that mindset, stockpiling security seems like the single most important thing you can do for your child(ren). You may have a different opinion–I may have a different opinion–but I don’t think it’s right to dismiss the work of those people as mere selfishness.
If anything, it’s only because my parents worked so hard all my life that we can afford to take the leap and have my husband quit his job when our baby is born. I don’t know that we’d be willing to take the risk if I didn’t know that in a real, epic emergency, I can always turn to my folks for help: short of total societal collapse, we will never be homeless or hungry. That’s a hell of a legacy to leave your kids, and not one I think should be minimized.
The only thing I disputed is that telling women that being pregnant while single is evil and bad and nasty isn’t going to change anything. Providing access to cheap birth control will. Giving them jobs will probably help. In general, people with more money have fewer kids. And whatever you think of abortion, it does cut down on the single parent rate.
So, have a solution besides telling women they are sinful if they do it?
Thanks - it works just like the Medical FSA. Which isn’t a great solution, I agree. The Medical FSA is a lot more useful for someone in a high tax bracket like me than for someone who is not going to get as much of a benefit from reduced taxes, and who is also less likely to be able to gamble - though the dependent care FSA is probably a lot easier to predict than the medical one.
I also agree that we would need to structure the benefit so that it would not be a windfall for those not really needing it. For certain jobs, the incremental benefit after child care, transportation costs, clothing costs, more eating out costs etc. is not all that great. This plan won’t work if it just generates some additional tax revenue, but if it gets a bunch of people off welfare it might come a lot closer to breaking even.
That’s a good way of putting it. I like the idea of single parents helping each other, rather than just defaulting to more government programmes (which are paid for by taxpayer money, which means the money that you and I make and give to the government).
This would normally be true, but when you’re talking about parenting, “rational” seems to go right out the window. I’ve never experienced it, but according to other women, they get completely driven to have babies.
That’s an interesting point; I think (and maybe someone has a cite to back this up) that the Baby Boomer generation has really increased the frequency of casual divorce and casual parenthood.
Those are really good ideas - if you take the after-school daycare needs/babysitting out of the equation, single parents and their support system might have more resources available for crisis childcare which could possibly put them on a better footing at work. We have some schools here that run year-round, and my feeling is that it is going to go more that way - as you say, we aren’t an agricultural society any longer, and kids can be in school year-round.
The “Freakonomics” guys linked decreases in crime to increases in abortion availability.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, I have a kid in my class whose mother beats him. Is this society’s responsibility? Certainly society hasn’t let the kid down, it’s the parent who’s let him down. But society takes responsibility anyway when the mother is unable to.
Same thing if the kid isn’t getting breakfast at home: we feed the kid a hot breakfast every morning, and a hot lunch to boot.
It seems to me that we have a tiered social contract. Even if we remove all services for poor adults, we tend to think that kids deserve a certain level of care, whether or not their parents are able or willing to provide it for them. As a society we take responsibility for all kids, even when it’s because the parents have let the kids down.
So if we stipulate a conservative position that single parents are letting their kids down when they “had a kid they couldn’t or wouldn’t take care of properly,” why shouldn’t we as a society step in? Don’t we make an effort not to punish children for the shortcomings of their parents? Don’t we take responsibility for kids?
Lock up single moms, refuse to let them buy alcohol or tobacco, send them to mandatory sex ed classes, whatever repugnant disincentive you can think of for being a single mom, sure. But let’s tier our program, and at the same time give support to those kids. Let’s not wash our hands of them because we think their parents have let them down.
That doesn’t make it irrational. If you genuinely believe that having a child, even in difficult circumstances, will make your life better, then it is perfectly rational to act on that. It would be irrational to decide to ignore your strongest urge and devote your life to accounting or whatever. “Rational” doesn’t mean “only stuff I understand or agree with.” It means that people are generally making what they consider the right choice given the circumstances and the information they have.
Since wanting children seems to be pretty heavily ingrained in our instincts, you are not going to suppress this any time soon.
But “making your life better” doesn’t enter into it; it sounds (from the descriptions I’ve heard) that the only sense that it makes the mother’s life better is that her biological itch is scratched. I guess you could argue that your life is better if your biological itch is scratched, but I still think “rational” isn’t part of the argument when people have kids simply because they want them. ETA: I should say, having kids simply because you want them when rationally you can’t really afford them or have enough support in place for them.
By that rationale, shooting up heroin is a rational choice if it satisfies your strongest urge and makes you think you’ll feel better. People can feel good about their choices but still make objectively bad decisions.
