6 ms·

The same authors saw some evidence of development problems among the children in the same cohort. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21571 https://www.nber.org/papers

The same authors saw some evidence of development problems among the children in the same cohort. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21571 https://www.nber.org/papers/w21571

CincinnatiMan 8d 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 8d 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).
  - bluGill 8d ago
    The more likely case is one person (most often women, but men do childcare as well) is taking care of the kids of at least 3 couples (6 people), and could be up over 10 couples (which happens though often isn't legal or a good idea). That is per year, the kids grow out of daycare in 12-15 years, but a person typically works for 40 years.
    - kwarcode 8d ago
      daycare at say 14 sounds suboptimal
      - bluGill 8d ago
        Each culture is a little different. What are you going to do with your kids when the parents are working is a problem? At what time do you trust them to stay home by themself?
        brailsafe 8d ago
        8-12 unless they have serious developmental issues. 15 is ridiculous
        bluGill 8d ago
        That is your opinion. Which is fine. However try not to judge others.
        brailsafe 7d ago
        That was my experience and is my opinion, and I do try not to judge others, but 15 year olds are past the point where they can have jobs and are doing the babysitting. If my friend was treating their teenager this way—assuming their kid wasn't significantly mentally or physically handicapped—I'd ask them why they insist on maintaining such an absurd level of control as to infantilize said teenager on their way into secondary school. I wouldn't insult or suggest overall bad parenting—that's rude and not my place—but if they couldn't grapple with that, I'd probably question my relationship with them in much the same way I'd question my relationship with a parent who refused to let their kid learn about sex or evolution. Based on their level of maturity and actual evident danger in the immediate surrounding area, 8 on the low end, 12 or maaybe 13 on the high end, anything higher and I'd say something's gone wrong, perhaps at the societal level.
        deleted 8d ago
        [deleted]
        fpoling 8d ago
        In Soviet Union times in eighties in Belarus it was considered ok that a child could stay alone at home from age of 7 when they started a school. Some parents opted for after-school programs and some relied on grandmothers like it was for me but some of my schoolmates stayed at home alone for few hours until their mothers would be back from work (fathers typically worked longer and further away from home). And from the age of 9 there was no after-school options at least in my school.
        8d ago
    - dmitrygr 8d ago
      12-15? I walked home from school and calmly did homework util my parents arrived from work since age 8. This was the norm in Russia. Y'all's kids need daycare till 15?
      - kbelder 7d ago
        >Y'all's kids need daycare till 15? Just the unlucky kids.
- TheOtherHobbes 8d ago
  No, the takeaway is that Quebec's universal child care provision correlates with life issues, but there's no information about the causes of those correlations - which could be in the details of how care is provided and its quality, or some socioeconomic issues specific to Quebec, or for some other reason.
  - gruez 8d ago
    >which could be in the details of how care is provided and its quality This has "true communism has never been tried" vibes. When enacting a policy, you can't guarantee it will come out optimally, so it makes sense to factor in any potential negative effects, even you think you're not going to make them. After all, I doubt the people campaigning for childcare in quebec were expecting the results to be negative.
    - sonotathrowaway 8d ago
      The more appropriate aphorism would probably be “correlation doesn’t equal causation”.
      - Analemma_ 8d ago
        If you're going to toss out that aphorism for the bad outcomes you have to do it for the good outcomes as well.
    - imissmips 8d ago
      I've not read the article, and I expect it goes into this kind of thing, but... Perhaps it's something like: families that earn enough to have one parent stay at home don't use child care. Therefore children in child care are more likely to be from less affluent families than those who are not in child care. So it's not the child care that causes the difference in outcomes, but just general income scale.
      - gruez 8d ago
        >Perhaps it's something like: families that earn enough to have one parent stay at home don't use child care. Therefore children in child care are more likely to be from less affluent families than those who are not in child care. So it's not the child care that causes the difference in outcomes, but just general income scale. No, the OP speculated a variety of reasons, which includes what you've suggested, but I'm specifically focusing on the "which could be in the details of how care is provided and its quality", which is why I quoted that part specifically.
- tyrabound 8d ago
  It is a rather surprising state of affairs that this is something that is not apparent to you. Why do you think I have to say the following; giving your child over to an absolute stranger to spend more waking/disposable time with that you, the parent, is NOT a good thing... neither in daycare or even school. Yes, it's easy for me to say and the system is very much set up to facilitate extraction of profit from the neo-slave professional class while fostering their procreation to rear the next generation of neo-slave professionals; but we really need to break free of this spell that government (i.e., the ruling class' apparatchiks) do not have your child or even your won best interest in mind. Ironically, if we do get "investment in mothers" and "universal childcare", it will be for the profit and benefit of the ruling class that will want to make sure your child is indoctrinated in the regime's propaganda as early and deeply as possible and the youngest age possible, especially since the telescreen, aka, TV has fragmented so much and kids are seeing things like genocide being committed and by whom and they aren't hardened adults yet that can look the other way in order to keep their neo-slave "job" that gets them shiny stuff.
  - gumby 8d ago
    > Ironically, if we do get "investment in mothers" and "universal childcare", it will be for the profit and benefit of the ruling class that will want to make sure your child is indoctrinated in the regime's propaganda as early and deeply as possible This feels over the top/paranoid to me. But I also acknowledge that East Germany’s universal child care was dismantled after German unification for being exactly what you describe.
    - OkayPhysicist 7d ago
      That's not why East Germany's universal child care was dismantled at all. East Germany's universal child care was dismantled after unification because West Germany didn't want to pay for it, and former East Germany couldn't. It was one of the most popular programs East Germany had, and was a source of quite a bit of consternation when it was taken away.
      - gumby 7d ago
Aurornis 8d ago
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. There are a lot of early childhood studies that can find differences for early school years that later disappear as kids get older. It’s different when the correlations continue to older ages and even start correlating with health outcomes. There could be some major selection bias effects, but that’s just as true for the positive fiscal outcomes noted in the submitted study.

The same authors saw some evidence of development problems among the children in the same cohort. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21571 https://www.nber.org/papers/w21571

CincinnatiMan 8d 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 8d 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).
- bluGill 8d ago
  The more likely case is one person (most often women, but men do childcare as well) is taking care of the kids of at least 3 couples (6 people), and could be up over 10 couples (which happens though often isn't legal or a good idea). That is per year, the kids grow out of daycare in 12-15 years, but a person typically works for 40 years.
  - kwarcode 8d ago
    daycare at say 14 sounds suboptimal
    - bluGill 8d ago
      Each culture is a little different. What are you going to do with your kids when the parents are working is a problem? At what time do you trust them to stay home by themself?
      - brailsafe 8d ago
        8-12 unless they have serious developmental issues. 15 is ridiculous
        bluGill 8d ago
        That is your opinion. Which is fine. However try not to judge others.
        brailsafe 7d ago
        That was my experience and is my opinion, and I do try not to judge others, but 15 year olds are past the point where they can have jobs and are doing the babysitting. If my friend was treating their teenager this way—assuming their kid wasn't significantly mentally or physically handicapped—I'd ask them why they insist on maintaining such an absurd level of control as to infantilize said teenager on their way into secondary school. I wouldn't insult or suggest overall bad parenting—that's rude and not my place—but if they couldn't grapple with that, I'd probably question my relationship with them in much the same way I'd question my relationship with a parent who refused to let their kid learn about sex or evolution. Based on their level of maturity and actual evident danger in the immediate surrounding area, 8 on the low end, 12 or maaybe 13 on the high end, anything higher and I'd say something's gone wrong, perhaps at the societal level.
      - deleted 8d ago
        [deleted]
      - fpoling 8d ago
        In Soviet Union times in eighties in Belarus it was considered ok that a child could stay alone at home from age of 7 when they started a school. Some parents opted for after-school programs and some relied on grandmothers like it was for me but some of my schoolmates stayed at home alone for few hours until their mothers would be back from work (fathers typically worked longer and further away from home). And from the age of 9 there was no after-school options at least in my school.
      - 8d ago
  - dmitrygr 8d ago
    12-15? I walked home from school and calmly did homework util my parents arrived from work since age 8. This was the norm in Russia. Y'all's kids need daycare till 15?
    - kbelder 7d ago
      >Y'all's kids need daycare till 15? Just the unlucky kids.
TheOtherHobbes 8d ago
No, the takeaway is that Quebec's universal child care provision correlates with life issues, but there's no information about the causes of those correlations - which could be in the details of how care is provided and its quality, or some socioeconomic issues specific to Quebec, or for some other reason.
- gruez 8d ago
  >which could be in the details of how care is provided and its quality This has "true communism has never been tried" vibes. When enacting a policy, you can't guarantee it will come out optimally, so it makes sense to factor in any potential negative effects, even you think you're not going to make them. After all, I doubt the people campaigning for childcare in quebec were expecting the results to be negative.
  - sonotathrowaway 8d ago
    The more appropriate aphorism would probably be “correlation doesn’t equal causation”.
    - Analemma_ 8d ago
      If you're going to toss out that aphorism for the bad outcomes you have to do it for the good outcomes as well.
  - imissmips 8d ago
    I've not read the article, and I expect it goes into this kind of thing, but... Perhaps it's something like: families that earn enough to have one parent stay at home don't use child care. Therefore children in child care are more likely to be from less affluent families than those who are not in child care. So it's not the child care that causes the difference in outcomes, but just general income scale.
    - gruez 8d ago
      >Perhaps it's something like: families that earn enough to have one parent stay at home don't use child care. Therefore children in child care are more likely to be from less affluent families than those who are not in child care. So it's not the child care that causes the difference in outcomes, but just general income scale. No, the OP speculated a variety of reasons, which includes what you've suggested, but I'm specifically focusing on the "which could be in the details of how care is provided and its quality", which is why I quoted that part specifically.
tyrabound 8d ago
It is a rather surprising state of affairs that this is something that is not apparent to you. Why do you think I have to say the following; giving your child over to an absolute stranger to spend more waking/disposable time with that you, the parent, is NOT a good thing... neither in daycare or even school. Yes, it's easy for me to say and the system is very much set up to facilitate extraction of profit from the neo-slave professional class while fostering their procreation to rear the next generation of neo-slave professionals; but we really need to break free of this spell that government (i.e., the ruling class' apparatchiks) do not have your child or even your won best interest in mind. Ironically, if we do get "investment in mothers" and "universal childcare", it will be for the profit and benefit of the ruling class that will want to make sure your child is indoctrinated in the regime's propaganda as early and deeply as possible and the youngest age possible, especially since the telescreen, aka, TV has fragmented so much and kids are seeing things like genocide being committed and by whom and they aren't hardened adults yet that can look the other way in order to keep their neo-slave "job" that gets them shiny stuff.
- gumby 8d ago
  > Ironically, if we do get "investment in mothers" and "universal childcare", it will be for the profit and benefit of the ruling class that will want to make sure your child is indoctrinated in the regime's propaganda as early and deeply as possible This feels over the top/paranoid to me. But I also acknowledge that East Germany’s universal child care was dismantled after German unification for being exactly what you describe.
  - OkayPhysicist 7d ago
    That's not why East Germany's universal child care was dismantled at all. East Germany's universal child care was dismantled after unification because West Germany didn't want to pay for it, and former East Germany couldn't. It was one of the most popular programs East Germany had, and was a source of quite a bit of consternation when it was taken away.
    - gumby 7d ago

Aurornis 8d ago

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. There are a lot of early childhood studies that can find differences for early school years that later disappear as kids get older. It’s different when the correlations continue to older ages and even start correlating with health outcomes. There could be some major selection bias effects, but that’s just as true for the positive fiscal outcomes noted in the submitted study.