Hacker News Reader

Comment by Justsignedup | Hacker News Reader

I had a kid at 22, I am now 40 with a kid going to college. I can echo this exact sentiment.

However at 22 I wasn't the experienced person I am today. Nor was I stable, nor could I jump on opportunities like my peers could.

If having a child in your early 20s would mean not losing opportunities in progressing in a career, at least with enough free childcare and food to feed the children, people could be more inclined to have children while they get their life together. Our culture of moving away from home is also a big problem -- having 2 sets of grandparents helping raise a child REALLY helped me at my youth not miss out on youth and still raise my child.

kids between 25-32 is something our society should aim to be as practical and pleasant as possible.

View on HN

Was also a young parent. Empathetic yes to all.

Securing stable health insurance dictated most of my career decisions. I was captive to turrible gigs, had to pass on a lot of opportunities.

Want to revitalize our society?

#1 is Medicare for All. More startups, more risk taking & innovation, higher birth rate, etc.

#2 is childcare. Cheap, plentiful, good quality.

#3 is housing. Again: Cheap, plentiful, good quality. Plus, rentals better suited for young families (eg more 2 & 3 bedroom units).

I think willing to take a cut in one's standard of living so that the mother stays at home and raises the children would revitalize society beyond any of the above-mentioned options.

Or... Raise wages while reducing housing and insurance costs so that a single wage earner home can support their family. What my grandpa and grandma used to call "the middle class".

I agree with you. I don't have all the answers, but I agree with you. Things aren't the same. My political views have evolved so much over the span of 20-years. I don't know what the answer is, but at a spiritual level, you are completely right.

> #2 is childcare. Cheap, plentiful, good quality.

This costs infinite money.

It's impossible to scale, because nobody wants an environment where their child is not getting attention from compassionate, engaged adults throughout the day. To get the same level of care as a stay at home parent, you need as many care workers as there are families with young children. And if you pay those workers comparably to the average wage, you need to tax the entire wages of one parent in each family to cover the care costs.

It's probably much cheaper to write checks to families encouraging them to have one parent care for their own children full time.

Most provinces in Canada have $10/day childcare

So the workers there are paid $10 / day?

$50 if they’re watching 5 kids, $100 for 10, etc.

That’s assuming 0 overhead.

No, it's subsidized. The same way public schools or libraries or universities are.

> write checks to families

Ideally, yes.

But I'm not going to tell someone they can't work.

My wife was stay-at-home, until she couldn't take it any more, and then returned to work. Even though it cost us more overall (childcare, second car, etc).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com