6 ms·

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 9d 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 9d 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 9d ago
    daycare at say 14 sounds suboptimal
    - bluGill 9d 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 9d ago
        8-12 unless they have serious developmental issues. 15 is ridiculous
        bluGill 9d ago
        That is your opinion. Which is fine. However try not to judge others.
        brailsafe 9d 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 9d ago
        [deleted]
      - fpoling 9d 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.
      - throw0101d 9d ago
        > At what time do you trust them to stay home by themself? As a GenXer, ~12 (?): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latchkey_kid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latchkey_kid
        Sohcahtoa82 9d ago
        Elder millennial here, though my sister was young GenX. I was born in '82, she was born in '79. I'm pretty sure my parents stopped hiring baby sitters once my sister turned 12. But even aside from that, I was allowed to play outside unsupervised at 7 years old. Though we did live on a Navy base at the time, so I wonder if that played a factor.
        throw0101d 8d ago
        > Elder millennial here, though my sister was young GenX. I was born in '82, she was born in '79. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xennials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xennials
      - creaturemachine 9d ago
        Where I live they are dismissed on their own as young as 8, and so long as they have a safe way home then a couple hours alone isn't going to hurt. There are enough electronic distractions at home now that they won't turn to delinquency. 15 is bonkers. There should be no need to keep your teenager on-leash for that long.
        purpleflame1257 9d ago
        If I might ask, where do you live? In America a woman was arrested for letting her child walk in her own neighborhood. https://people.com/va-mom-convicted-for-letting-5-year-old-walk-alone-to-pond-plans-to-appeal-12111373 https://people.com/va-mom-convicted-for-letting-5-year-old-w...
        creaturemachine 9d ago
        Canada. No gated suburb necessary, just a walkable neighbourhood.
        TheCoelacanth 8d ago
        That's extreme and unusual prosecutorial overreach to the point that it's making national news. It's also unlikely that she will be convicted since VA passed a law in 2023 that makes it explicit that parents are allowed to let their children go places alone.
  - dmitrygr 9d 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 9d ago
      >Y'all's kids need daycare till 15? Just the unlucky kids.
TheOtherHobbes 9d 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 9d 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 9d ago
    The more appropriate aphorism would probably be “correlation doesn’t equal causation”.
    - Analemma_ 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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 8d ago

zmgsabst 9d 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 9d 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 9d ago
  daycare at say 14 sounds suboptimal
  - bluGill 9d 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 9d ago
      8-12 unless they have serious developmental issues. 15 is ridiculous
      - bluGill 9d ago
        That is your opinion. Which is fine. However try not to judge others.
        brailsafe 9d 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 9d ago
      [deleted]
    - fpoling 9d 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.
    - throw0101d 9d ago
      > At what time do you trust them to stay home by themself? As a GenXer, ~12 (?): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latchkey_kid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latchkey_kid
      - Sohcahtoa82 9d ago
        Elder millennial here, though my sister was young GenX. I was born in '82, she was born in '79. I'm pretty sure my parents stopped hiring baby sitters once my sister turned 12. But even aside from that, I was allowed to play outside unsupervised at 7 years old. Though we did live on a Navy base at the time, so I wonder if that played a factor.
        throw0101d 8d ago
        > Elder millennial here, though my sister was young GenX. I was born in '82, she was born in '79. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xennials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xennials
    - creaturemachine 9d ago
      Where I live they are dismissed on their own as young as 8, and so long as they have a safe way home then a couple hours alone isn't going to hurt. There are enough electronic distractions at home now that they won't turn to delinquency. 15 is bonkers. There should be no need to keep your teenager on-leash for that long.
      - purpleflame1257 9d ago
        If I might ask, where do you live? In America a woman was arrested for letting her child walk in her own neighborhood. https://people.com/va-mom-convicted-for-letting-5-year-old-walk-alone-to-pond-plans-to-appeal-12111373 https://people.com/va-mom-convicted-for-letting-5-year-old-w...
        creaturemachine 9d ago
        Canada. No gated suburb necessary, just a walkable neighbourhood.
        TheCoelacanth 8d ago
        That's extreme and unusual prosecutorial overreach to the point that it's making national news. It's also unlikely that she will be convicted since VA passed a law in 2023 that makes it explicit that parents are allowed to let their children go places alone.
- dmitrygr 9d 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 9d ago
    >Y'all's kids need daycare till 15? Just the unlucky kids.

TheOtherHobbes 9d 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 9d 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 9d ago
  The more appropriate aphorism would probably be “correlation doesn’t equal causation”.
  - Analemma_ 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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 8d ago