Hacker News Reader

Comment by georgeburdell | Hacker News Reader

Ham-fisted reactionary policy versus attacking the root cause, which is 1) cost of living has now increased to require two working parents 2) The government values housewives at about $2k per year in tax credits. Let women stay at home and raise their children as they know best, and pay them for the cost of the service they provide.

View on HN

You have a point but I live in New Mexico. It's not like many of these moms are suddenly going to become stellar parents with a $2K tax credit. The state has real issues with poverty, education and work ethic and it's often generational.

Giving children some stability, role models and nutrition early in life seems like a pretty good investment from my perspective.

If the state pulls it off without the usual mismanagement and graft remains to be seen but I applaud the effort.

In Canada, you cannot file taxes jointly, so income tax brackets are on an individual basis instead of on a couple basis. It really makes it expensive for a single parent to stay home as one person making 100k pays about 30% more income tax than two people making 50k.

Don’t give me free daycare, just make it so much less punishing to stay at home and take care of my kids.

All of it is kindof dumb, I pay a higher tax because joint filing is not a thing, and my increased tax pays for subsidized daycare…

So, what, pay someone a full time salary for caring for 1 or two children? Pretty sure that doesn't scale

If governments aren’t willing to value women at what their work at home is worth, they’re not serious about tackling the birthrate problem. Show me a country with universal childcare with a TFR above 2.1. It’s a cheap substitute for the love and attention only a mother can provide young children

Outside the home childcare is not 24/7. It's for a portion of the day. Also, it's really weird to be making this argument for mothers and not fathers.

Having childcare available gives the opportunity for both parents to spend more quality time with their children.

> Outside the home childcare is not 24/7.

No, but it is during our most productive, aware, and valuable daylight hours.

> Also, it's really weird to be making this argument for mothers and not fathers.

In the context of human history, it’s not weird at all.

> Having childcare available gives the opportunity for both parents to spend more quality time with their children.

How?

It reduces the time children spend with a parent, and it creates a world in which both parents have to work just to afford having children.

I suppose in the context of human history, you might argue to enslave a population based on racial characteristics in order to provide childcare.

For many families, both parents have to work. Most time spent not working or sleeping is spent doing a task simultaneously with childcare. Cleaning, preparing meals, repairing things, laundry, etc. Even for families where one individual shoulders the bulk of the burden this is largely the case.

Equating racism with the inherent biological sexual dimorphism of childbirth and infant care is certainly a take.

Look, if you want to justify your position by just pointing out that it's the way things have historically been done, expect to have it pointed out how ridiculous you are being. Anyway, Equating child care with the inherent biological sexual dimorphism of childbirth is certainly a take.

You conveniently left off “infant care”. Only one gender lactates, and that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

If you want to talk about “ridiculous”, ignoring reality doesn’t make it any less real, no matter how much you might find it ideologically inconvenient.

You're the one moving the phrase from "child care" to "infant care". And by 6 months the majority of parents are using formula anyway. And there's a percentage of women that for whatever reason can't properly breastfeed. You're really grasping at straws here.

The person most biologically suited to care for an infant is the person who birthed the infant in the first place, and there is a path dependence inherent in ongoing childcare.

Once you have spent six months or a year raising an infant, it is personally psychologically difficult (and developmentally questionable) to cut that tie.

I get that it’s ideologically convenient to pretend that men and women are interchangeable economic cogs, but the sexes are fundamentally different in very pertinent ways.

We all lose under this model, but ultimately the people who lose the most when economic and social policy rejects our inconvenient biological differences are the children themselves.

Family should be able to support themselves on a single earner’s salary. That’s what we should prioritize. They can decide themselves who should stay home, if anyone; gender doesn’t need to factor into our policy if we simply make it our goal for families to not require dual incomes.

The fact he only supports women staying at home should tell you everything you need to know about the caliber person you’re dealing with.

It doesn't have to be mother at home. Roles can be reverse. I think it's very important to point that out.

What if the husband wants to stay home and raise the kids?

Also no, women (or men) who stay home don’t “know best” by default. That knowledge is earned and requires intent.

Exactly. I was raised by two working parents who were very involved in my life, and I wasn't a "latchkey" kid by any means. While the "traditional" spouse at home does work out pretty well if the single wage earner can do well, to be sure. That doesn't mean other situations can't prosper. It's not a magically set up that is the solution for everyone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com