I'd think that in a lot of cases the schools could be the infrastructure. The providers come to the schools after classes and during the summer. Convenient for kids and parents, reduces costs for providers. When I was a kid, the schools were open in the summer with the Parks & Rec Department providing arts and crafts, music, supervised sports and play. It was awesome.
Actually, the cost would probably end up lower than that estimate, especially when you consider the taxes paid by these workers, the ability of parents to get and hold jobs, etc. And, if course, the long-term benefits of more stable environments, both for the parents and children. Just thinking about the workers providing day care, after school, etc - generally low pay positions. The government tell us that each welfare dollar creates two in the economy. Here you have the added benefit of creating jobs for workers, as well as general economic stimulation.
Totally true! But those type of economic returns aren't considered in the cost of legislation, any legislation, so I've tried to keep that parallel here.
Absolutely untrue, the idea that welfare spending essentially pays for itself has never born out in practice, the countries with the largest welfare states have to fund them with broad high taxes, and/or crippling debt. And programs like this always wind up costing more due to administrative and regulatory costs.
What is totally true is 1) the cost of this type of investment as I stated in the piece does not take into account any economic returns from that investment 2) those economic returns include what he mentioned, like job and income stability of parents, better educational performance of kids. His point that one dollar of welfare spending creates two in the economy depends on the specific investment. Reductions in child poverty and policies that increase labor force attachment of parents can have returns in the 4:1 - 10:1 range. Supplemental income programs, like food stamps, tend to be lower but still a boost.
The idea of 'paying for itself' is distracting, because it's nearly impossible to calculate accurately as the economy, population, and investments aren't a fixed point but growing and evolving. But he didn't say that.
Fantastic idea! The problem is that the wealthy do not need it. So, Republican leaders will shout, "Socialism! Debt buster!" and Democrat leadership will, as usual, stay quiet to ensure they don't rock the boat. I hope that the young democrat leaders will praise and run with this.
This is visionary policy built on common sense and compassion. You reframed child care not as a crisis of parenting, but as a design flaw in our economy, and then offered a functional blueprint to fix it. Thank you for naming the scarcity conditioning so many of us carry. We can have nice things if we decide children are worth it.
Great piece. We just allocated $40+ billion to build detention centers. How many childcare centers could've been built instead?
I work in K-12 and bristled at the notion that we'll never change (though history supports this claim!). I've always argued that K-12 is an arbitrary boundary and we should be expanding it to 0-16. Or maybe 6 months - age 22.
Not even progressive politicians would go for an idea like this that requires taking apart so many existing programs. And the compensation for home school families are so paltry I don't imagine this ever having any broad support. But I suppose this is a nice piece of utopian fantasy writing.
Love this! We need it and we’d be better if we had it! I’d enjoy hearing your views on the politics required to make this happen. What role do our current governmental agencies play? What’s needed from the unions? Where do the local/state/federal rules fall across this all? What’s needed from parents and their allies?
I'd think that in a lot of cases the schools could be the infrastructure. The providers come to the schools after classes and during the summer. Convenient for kids and parents, reduces costs for providers. When I was a kid, the schools were open in the summer with the Parks & Rec Department providing arts and crafts, music, supervised sports and play. It was awesome.
Fantastic idea, and it's something the Child Development System would support and foster.
Actually, the cost would probably end up lower than that estimate, especially when you consider the taxes paid by these workers, the ability of parents to get and hold jobs, etc. And, if course, the long-term benefits of more stable environments, both for the parents and children. Just thinking about the workers providing day care, after school, etc - generally low pay positions. The government tell us that each welfare dollar creates two in the economy. Here you have the added benefit of creating jobs for workers, as well as general economic stimulation.
Totally true! But those type of economic returns aren't considered in the cost of legislation, any legislation, so I've tried to keep that parallel here.
Absolutely untrue, the idea that welfare spending essentially pays for itself has never born out in practice, the countries with the largest welfare states have to fund them with broad high taxes, and/or crippling debt. And programs like this always wind up costing more due to administrative and regulatory costs.
What is totally true is 1) the cost of this type of investment as I stated in the piece does not take into account any economic returns from that investment 2) those economic returns include what he mentioned, like job and income stability of parents, better educational performance of kids. His point that one dollar of welfare spending creates two in the economy depends on the specific investment. Reductions in child poverty and policies that increase labor force attachment of parents can have returns in the 4:1 - 10:1 range. Supplemental income programs, like food stamps, tend to be lower but still a boost.
The idea of 'paying for itself' is distracting, because it's nearly impossible to calculate accurately as the economy, population, and investments aren't a fixed point but growing and evolving. But he didn't say that.
You can read more here:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00027162241272309
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/july/quantifying-the-impact-of-snap-benefits-on-the-u-s-economy-and-jobs
I've got my own issues with this but I think the framework they set up is helpful.
https://policyimpacts.org/mvpf-explained/what-is-the-mvpf/
I am protesting and creating signage. I am getting burnt out on polls. I get a lift from them occasionally, but think them meaningless in the end result. We need meat behind our platform. https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/lot-of-polls-no-platform?r=3m1bs
Fantastic idea! The problem is that the wealthy do not need it. So, Republican leaders will shout, "Socialism! Debt buster!" and Democrat leadership will, as usual, stay quiet to ensure they don't rock the boat. I hope that the young democrat leaders will praise and run with this.
But even upper class families are burning through cash for child care, after school, and camp. And that securing those things are very stressful.
This is visionary policy built on common sense and compassion. You reframed child care not as a crisis of parenting, but as a design flaw in our economy, and then offered a functional blueprint to fix it. Thank you for naming the scarcity conditioning so many of us carry. We can have nice things if we decide children are worth it.
I wrote a piece related to your ideas here: https://twvme.substack.com/p/lets-build-the-future-our-children . I hope you don't mind.
Great piece. We just allocated $40+ billion to build detention centers. How many childcare centers could've been built instead?
I work in K-12 and bristled at the notion that we'll never change (though history supports this claim!). I've always argued that K-12 is an arbitrary boundary and we should be expanding it to 0-16. Or maybe 6 months - age 22.
We need visionaries. 🥳
Not even progressive politicians would go for an idea like this that requires taking apart so many existing programs. And the compensation for home school families are so paltry I don't imagine this ever having any broad support. But I suppose this is a nice piece of utopian fantasy writing.
The idea of having this all available to me as a parent has me choked up. I'm thankful to you for dreaming big and caring about families
Military installations have the makings of a system like yours and it seem to work wekk.
wekk = well
And they have child care.
Love this! We need it and we’d be better if we had it! I’d enjoy hearing your views on the politics required to make this happen. What role do our current governmental agencies play? What’s needed from the unions? Where do the local/state/federal rules fall across this all? What’s needed from parents and their allies?
I think parents' needs are easily ignored via divide-and-conquer tactics like talking about the role of women. Just need to stay focused on the ask.
I second
Thank you!
I wish to live in an America where the people would support something like the Child Development System.
I'm optimistic!
Yes, to this!!!
Thank. you!