Yeah, you might not be able to afford a nice house or car as quickly, but you get absolute control over how much love, attention, and correction your developing kids receive.
Yeah, you might not be able to afford a nice house or car as quickly, but you get absolute control over how much love, attention, and correction your developing kids receive.
I've met hundreds, and it always strikes me as a more ideal life, because it's steeped in strong community.
Of course there are the isolation exceptions that make headlines in news media.
A lot of parents who chose to stay at home described having multiple young kids as chaos and "just trying to survive." I also get, "It's just so nice to talk to adults." Higher end communities offer a lot of options for temporary childcare; daycare programs that are 2-3 hours, gyms, and groceries offering childcare while you're there that seem specifically focused on stay at home parents. Those aren't options for most people.
Just an hour or two break can really help recharge, or just plan appointments or outings. If you're lucky enough that they sleep through the night or nap, you're still tethered to the house. I really think doing things outside of a relationship helps make parenting more fruitful, but since being a parent is 24/7 you just don't have options unless you have a strong network and are willing to ask/pay for help.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/measuring-the-long-term-effects-o...
It's weird to me the goal would be "make sure everyone has daycare" instead of "make sure people can raise their children".
What would taking the same amount of money and using it as a direct cash transfer subsidy look like?
The solutions in the article are "Medicaid, but for Parents, not doctors."
What we need is "a culture with jobs that will pay enough to support two adults and their children, so that care of children, family, and the community is an expected part of every adult relationship."
I say this as a parent with 6 kids and a wife who has cared for all of them.