Here’s an interesting article, from the right-wing magazine The Weekly Standard, suggesting that the Republican party needs to do more for working-class Republican voters.
Without a youthful population, the costs of supporting retirees are unsustainable, and the innovation and entrepreneurial zeal that make America the world’s economic leader will slowly wither. Yet the decision to raise children continues to be treated as something akin to the decision to buy an expensive automobile–a perfectly fine thing to do, but don’t expect any sympathy or support when you can’t afford a tune-up or an oil change. I read this going “where have I heard this before?” I mean, this sounded very familiar. And then I remembered – Nancy Folbre, one of the nation’s leading feminist economists, makes virtually the same argument in The Invisible Heart, except that she calls it “children as pets” rather than “children as expensive automobiles.” Compare the above-quoted paragraph to this paragraph by Folbre: It is sometimes popular to argue that the decision to raise a child is nothing more than a discretionary form of consumption, like raising a kelpie. Why then, should taxpayers be asked to support it? “You propagate, you pay!” Perfect market-based reasoning. But most pets do not grow up to become taxpayers, workers or citizens. And market goods are subsidised by mothers and fathers who do the non-market work of raising children. Every time you hire a wage earner, or buy a product that was produced by a wage earner, you are benefiting from the altruistic contributions of the parents, other family members, and poorly paid care workers who developed that worker’s capabilities. Although I’m sure it’s innocent – I doubt the Weekly Standard writers have even heard of Folbre – the similarity is striking, isn’t it? The Standard writers go on to say: The trouble is that the contemporary workplace demands that women follow the male career track, which assumes a seamless transition from school to full-time employment, and a career path that begins in the early twenties and continues in unbroken ascent until retirement. For many women, this is an appealing model–but many more find themselves losing their best childbearing years to the workplace, and then scrambling to squeeze in a child or two before middle-age arrives. A better way to approach the division between work and family life might be what sociologist Neil Gilbert calls a “life-course perspective,” with measures that would allow a mother (or father, for that matter) to provide child care full-time for several years before entering, or reentering, the workforce. For instance, the government could offer subsidies to those who provide child care in the home, and pension credits that reflect the economic value of years spent in household labor. Or again, Republicans might consider offering tuition credits for years spent rearing children, which could be exchanged for post-graduate or vocational education. These would be modeled on veterans’ benefits–and that would be entirely appropriate. Both military service and parenthood are crucial to the country’s long-term survival. It’s about time we recognize that fact. Nothing there that feminist economists like Folbre haven’t been suggesting for years. (The military service analogy is another one Folbre has made, by the way.) If this were standard Republican thinking, there’d be many more Republican feminists. Frankly, I’d love it if the Republicans would co-op more feminist ideas (Bitch PhD has posted another example – creating structures to enable young single parents to combine raising children with going to college). I’m all about policy, not party – if the Republicans want to put some good feminist ideas into action, then good for them.
Major Trump donors who complained of immigrant ‘invasion’ used Mexican workers illegally https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/20/uline-mexican-workers-trump
Very well. Since both left and right endorse the idea, there is no need for the concept to be intermediated by government. We can just make the necessary adaptations through voluntary association. (“Everyone who likes the idea of people having babies and willing to chip in, over on this side of the room.”)
I don’t really think this is surprising. Commitment by (some) rightwingers to “the family” and pro-natalism means they’re in exactly the same camp as (some) feminists with their commitment to the value of the “unpaid work” of child-rearing. I disagree with Amps assessment they’re both right and this meeting of minds is a good thing, I think they’re both wrong.
I want to explain exactly why this argument is wrong. When I hire a wage earner, there has been a subsidy received from the altruistic contributions of the parents, but I am not the one receiving it. The person receiving it is the wage earner that I’ve hired. If we’re going to compensate parents for their contributions, then I’m not the one who should be paying the compensation.
Feminism is the longest and most successful revolution the world’s ever seen – and one aspect of its success is that as radical feminist ideas move into mainstream thinking, it’s forgotten they were ever radical feminist ideas in the first place. It’s a consistent and predictable process, and I don’t think it can just be written up to the usual practice of forgetting women’s contributions and/or attributing them to men: it’s a genuine change in thinking, clearly attributable to the feminist revolution. An idea that was unacceptably radical-feminist 50 years ago will turn into basic common sense and everyone will have forgotten it was even a feminist idea in the first place.
then i assume you are also opposed to public funding of education and health care for poor kids, since they (and not you) receive the benefits of it? by your logic, it would seem that teachers and doctors don’t deserve compensation from you for their work, since it doesn’t benefit you directly to have and educated, healthy workforce.
i suspect the correct logic for employers is precisely the opposite. if a large corporation provided safe, clean housing, child care, educational programs, and reliable preventative medical care to their employees (all in lieu of, say, 50% of their salary; completely voluntary, of course), imagine the benfits they would reap in employee loyalty, decline in absenteeism, and improvement of public image. more financial responsibility for competent employees, not less, seems both the socially and economically beneficial solution.
It doesn’t have to be one or the other. The wage earner has benefited, certainly, as being more educated and better socialized means that they’ll have more access to better paying jobs through the course of their lives. You’ve benefited too, because easy access to a pool of well educated and well socialized applicants means that the person you end up hiring for a given job is much more likely to be prepared to perform the job well, and you’re going to be able to find and hire that person much more quickly than otherwise. Your customers benefit as well, because they’re ending up with a more pleasant and accurate business experience, a higher quality finished good, faster service, or other manifestation of your employee’s benefits. Finally, through the creation of a business climate where competence is expected and employees nead not fear that having children will mean an end to their career, society as a whole benefits.
Wait a minute . . . it’s almost as though I’m saying that everyone benefits from this. Well. My goodness, what a perfect reason for collective funding.
Heh. That’s one problem. The other problem is that the contemporary workplace demands that men follow the male career track. That sucks.
—Myca
On the other hand, Pavel Kohout in The American Conservative (article not available online) suggests that subsidizing child-bearing may actually depress birth rates by increasing the tax burden; which makes it harder for people to reach the level of financial stability that most people desire to have prior to becoming parents. (He gives Mussolini’s attempt to increase the Italian birthrate as an example).
Of course, I suppoe the idea of the Bitch PhD model is that we should encourage people to have babies before they become financially stable or independent.
We can just make the necessary adaptations through voluntary association.
We do that, and then wring our hands when birthrates drop. We (that’s the cultural “we”) managed to keep birth rates high for some time by simply banning women from doing much else. Unfortunately, women aren’t completely stupid, and have noticed that having babies tends to get in the way of making a living; so they do it less. That’s the market for you.
I wish that, instead of pushing for the ability for one parent to stay home and raise children, they’d start pushing for a system in which both parents could work part-time for several years while their children are young, so that they could both play a significant part in raising their children. Of course, there would also need to be a corresponding shift in the division of unpaid “women’s work,” so that it is truly both parents caring for the kids, not her raising the kids and him going “ahh, worktime’s over, I can go golfing or fishing or drinking and come home to dinner on the table, and then watch the game while wifey puts the kids to bed” at lunchtime after four hours of work.
Right, you’d make just as much money if the person you hired had never been taught to read, speak properly, reason, or avoid throwing temper tantrums, let alone perform the tasks the job requires or stay on the job for proper hours rather than leaving whenever he gets bored. Or if he hadn’t even been fed properly, or toilet trained, or anything.
A modest proposal.
Because I generally believe in competitive labor markets, I share nik’s view that the benefits of having a well-reared employee go to the employee, not the employer specifically. The point is not that a well-reared person is no more productive than a poorly-reared person; the point is that an employer has to pay more to hire and retain a highly productive person than a less productive person. The benefit of the higher productivity is consumed by the increased cost of compensation. That’s the theory, anyway.
I start from the perspective that if you can’t afford it, don’t do it. I don’t believe in subsidizing a family farmer to run a farm or to raise a family. But I recognize the need for regulation where “externalities” are involved – that is, where someone makes a decision without having to bear the full consequences of that decision. Child-rearing has externalities. Good child-rearing benefits society and bad child-rearing harms society far beyond the consequences borne by the parents. So I see two rationales for regulation/subsidy:
1) Unjust enrichment: Is it unfair for society to accept benefits for which it has not paid? I’m iffy about government intervening to guard against unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment is everywhere; attempts to capture it result in pretty thoroughgoing subsidization of everything. But in theory, at least, that’s not a bad thing.
2) Efficiency: If good child-rearing benefits society and bad child-rearing burdens society, aren’t we all made better off by promoting good child-rearing and discouraging bad child-rearing? I like this argument better. But what kind of regulation would promote efficiency?
If the goal is to secure an adequate supply of well-reared people, we’d want to consider outsourcing. There’s no efficiency in subsidizing domestic child-rearing if is would be cheaper to import and retrofit people pre-reared in India, etc. We can observe this dynamic in any engineering school.
But what about the threat of poorly-reared children? Fertile people have a gun to our heads: “Pay for good child-rearing, or pay the cost of having poorly-reared people in society!” Arguably government should prohibit this type of extortion by requiring parents to buy a procreation bond, with the price of the bond equal to the (net present value of) the cost of child-rearing. That is, we could eliminate the externality problem if all kids were trust-fund kids. Simple, no?
Yeah, but if we have no practical way to bar people from procreating without a bond, then this remedy won’t work. In that case, society faces a threat from unbridled extorters. If we give them what they want, it will encourage them to engage in more extortion. However, we know that parents bear some of the cost of poorly-reared kids, giving them cause to refrain. Consequently, we might be able to find a subsidy that is less than the social cost of dealing with poorly-reared kids, but not sufficiently great to induce the parents to act have kids just for the benefit of getting the subsidy. The more the subsidy can be targetted to the kid, not the parent, the fewer incentives the system would create for additional procreation.
In other words, no, I don’t have any practical ideas. But thanks for reading!
For instance, the government could offer subsidies to those who provide child care in the home, and pension credits that reflect the economic value of years spent in household labor.
Ah, but the government has no way to earn these subsidies to then pay them out. What this really says is, “The government should take money from people who have earned it and give it to those who …”.
Which may be a good idea; after all, as has been pointed out above, the government takes money from people without kids and uses it to subsidize public education. In fact, given that you can take deductions on your income if you have kids, it takes money from all of us and gives it to people with children to use on an unrestricted basis. While the concept is that they’ll spend it on their child-related expenses, there is in fact no audit of this. Regardless of whether you spend a lot on your kids or abandon them, you get the same deduction.
So to put this forward, we’d first need to show why it’s justifiable to take money from people who’ve earned it and give it to people with kids. Then perhaps there should be some kind of audit process whereby the recepients of this money are required to prove that they spent it on the kids.
Nobody, the procreation bond idea might work if it were tied to training and testing to get a procreation certificate. Sort of like some jobs, where you have to take a certain number of course hours, pass a test, and post a bond to be able to work.
Last time we gave governments a free hand in deciding who got to have babies, it didn’t work out so good.
I start from the perspective that if you can’t afford it, don’t do it.
Which goes right back to Amp’s post. We don’t really want a society where nobody has kids unless they have enough disposable income, and a personal safety net, to be able to rear children without any government support. You may think we do, but that won’t help your tax base any.
All this assumes that we need more children. Do we? I mean, the earth is at or past its carrying capacity (particularly for the lifestyles of anyone reading this, including me).
I do think that the children that are here should get good healthcare and education. I also think adults deserve that too. But I hardly think we need to subsidize the creation of children when we might not have potable water for them when they are adults.
I am a feminist. I am an environmentalist. I am childfree. I don’t see any contradictions between these.
I mean, the earth is at or past its carrying capacity
The earth is not “at or past its carrying capacity”. We’re not actually short on food and oxygen, and my tap still works. Yours probably does as well.
Have you done any research on the amount of potable water available worldwide? (No, turning on your tap doesn’t tell you much unless you’re tapped into an aquifer that’s nearly empty, e.g., the Ogallala in the central US.) Or how much energy is needed to maintain even a poverty-level Western lifestyle? Or did you know that we’re undergoing a mass species extinction on the scale of the one that eliminated the dinosaurs?
And if we’re not at carrying capacity now, when will we? 10 billion humans? 20 billion humans? At some point, we will have to say “enough” and figure out how to have a steady population. Just because you can eat and drink without a worry doesn’t mean your children will.
And it might be helpful to have that “steady population” well reared, well educated and so on. So societal support of children and the people who have them doesn’t contradict enviromentalism.
At some point, we will have to say “enough” and figure out how to have a steady population.
To have a “steady population” you need more children. If you don’t have more children, then you have a declining population. (Or an extinct population, eventually, if nobody has any more children.)
Have you done any research on the amount of potable water available worldwide?
“Worldwide” is not the appropriate locus for the search.
Nor is “potable” of particular interest to a species with atomic power, unless it is planning a return to the caves. You may feel free to return to the caves; I personally plan on retiring to the moon colony.
At this stage of our technological development, there are simply no material constraints that are of interest, other than to the engineers who will have the fun of smashing them.
Or did you know that we’re undergoing a mass species extinction on the scale of the one that eliminated the dinosaurs?
Which is relevant how, exactly? As the extensive history of life on earth makes quite clear, 90% extinctions are part of the design philosophy.
I personally plan on retiring to the moon colony
That would be in a line marriage with hot 18-to-24 year olds, yes?
Sure, why not?
On the other hand, while I’m not a hebephobe, very few 18 to 24 year olds are sufficiently interesting to be attractive to me; I need a woman with some background. And of course, many people that age have conflated their youth with their beauty; who wants to be around for that rolling disillusionment? Also, my wife would gut me like a fish.
On the gripping hand, I suppose it would be OK to have a line marriage with interesting mature people, and periodically add a likeable young person to the group for a little rejuvenation (and as a source for kidney transplants.)
Have you done any research on the amount of potable water available worldwide?
Yeah, it sucks. Fortunately, we here in the United States have access to lots of potable water, or water that can be made potable. People in arid areas of the world need to either find a way to get more water, find a way to live with less water, or move.
This applies within the United States as well; your point regarding the Ogalla aquifer is well taken. Turning on your tap won’t tell you if the Ogalla aquifer is being destroyed, unless you live in that area, but the price of food will.
Or how much energy is needed to maintain even a poverty-level Western lifestyle?
Lots more energy than lots of people in this world have access to. One reason why I think we need to exploit nuclear power a lot more. Yes, there’s a disposal problem, but that’s an engineering problem that can be solved.
Or did you know that we’re undergoing a mass species extinction on the scale of the one that eliminated the dinosaurs?
What’s that got to do with anything upthread?
And if we’re not at carrying capacity now, when will we? 10 billion humans? 20 billion humans?
We don’t know. We’d have a hard enough time figuring out that question based on current technology, nevermind trying to predict what effects new technology (and new problems we may not even know we have yet) will have. One thing we have to realize is that the distribution of humans on this planet is going to be uneven, at least for quite some time; there are areas of the earth that cannot support population densities as high as others, and trying to insist that they do won’t work.
Then there’s political and cultural issues; some governmental and cultural systems are much less efficient in ensuring the survival of the governed than others.
At some point, we will have to say “enough” and figure out how to have a steady population.
The natural functionings of the earth are taking care of that for us. When populations get to the point that they are unsustainable, famines and disease cut them down. Not that this is a good thing, but it’s how things work. Look what’s happening with AIDS in Africa. Their health care and sanitation systems can’t handle containing the disease, and their cultural and educational systems actually aid it’s spread. Kind of blows a hole in “All cultures are equally valuable”.
Just because you can eat and drink without a worry doesn’t mean your children will.
Yup. Quite true. In many areas of the world, even here in the U.S. (your comment on the Ogalla aquifer again is pertinent), resources are being exploited in a non-renewable manner. And future generations are going to look at how we use oil and say, “With all the things they could have used that oil for, they BURNED IT?!!!”
Robert, you dog. You like Jerry Pournelle too?
Also, my wife would gut me like a fish.
Reminds me of the best line of all from the Clinton sex scandals. I forget which Senator it was, but on the floor of the Senate he said something along the lines of “If I ever did anything like that, the last words on Earth that I’d hear would be from my wife as she stood over me and said, ‘How do I reload this damn thing?'”
We don’t really want a society where nobody has kids unless they have enough disposable income, and a personal safety net, to be able to rear children without any government support.
Hell, we don’t have a society where nobody has kids without government support. People with kids get tax deductions. People with kids have to buy larger houses than people who don’t, and since our mortgage deduction (and residential property tax deduction in Illinois) is unlimited, people who have larger homes get a bigger tax benefit.
Hey, maybe your mortgage tax and residential property tax deductions should be indexed to the size of your family. You only get so much of a deduction based on how many kids you had when you bought the house. Someone who buys a house with no kids only gets to deduct the interest on the first $200,000 of the loan. With one kid, it goes to $300,000, etc. Why should I subsidize someone who decides to go into hock to buy a $2,000,000 home?
What else? Some states exempt clothing from sales tax; others exempt food. Families consume more of both than singles and childless couples. The bottom line is, we already subsidize families. I think that’s a good thing, but let’s not pretend that the middle class and even the wealthy don’t get the benefit of it.
At what point should we create a cut-off and say, “you are not productive enough to deserve a subsidy”? Or do we just say, “This is the amount of the subsidy – if you aren’t productive enough to be able to afford to raise a kid combining it with what you can make yourself, too bad.”
Kyra (#8): I agree with you and I’ll go you one better: reduced work hours as the norm for all (or at least most) workers. And I wouldn’t worry too much about men taking advantage of this to indulge themselves. I suspect that’s as much a stereotype of men as the chestnut about domestic violence spiking propitiously on Super Bowl Sunday. Even if this were less a stereotype than I realize, children could benefit from “men’s ” past-times. Kids love ballgames and fishing. Men will rise to the occasion in this scenario, you mark my words.
RonF: There’s a good reason to take money from people who have putatively “earned” it and give it to those who putatively haven’t (which is way more than simply people with kids). Demand, demand, demand. exacerbate the situation of advanced economies in this regard. Why do you think so many roads lead to a job at Wal-Mart? In part, because we no longer have a need, from the effiency standpoint, for bus conductors, full-service gas stations and tailors. Also, I love your parental bond idea; eugenics by income bracket is just what the world needs, not to mention the logical conclsuion of all these efficiency schemes free-marketers love to spin.
RP: It’s fair and sane to wonder about population pressures on the Earth’s capacity to sustain life. Still, it does leave a slightly sour taste in the ol’ mouth to see population put ahead of 1st world consumption patterns whenever resource depletion comes up.
I don’t think subsidies are a good idea, and I personally don’t consider it a feminist ideal. Why CAN’T women follow the same carrer path as men? We’re equal, aren’t we? Feminists fought for us to be able to prove ourselves, to prove that we can be just as competent as men in the workplace. Why would we want to blow it by asking for special treatment? If men can do it, why can’t we?
Okay, I make an exception for six weeks of maternity leave for health reasons. But government subsidies for child-rearing? That goes too far. It shames me to have to agree with the right-wingers who post here. ;-)
I am at least interested in reading Folbre’s ideas, though, especially since there are so few economists who identify as feminists. At first I thought I owned that book, but now that I pull it out I see it is “The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance” by Russell Roberts. WTF? Some college book I never read.
Oh duh, the invisible hand/heart… there are probably more econ books with that title.
I’m on the fence on this one, but I would like to see a lowering of the average hours worked for salaried employees. Hourly workers, such as myself, tend to have our hours limited for us by employers. After all overtime is expensive.
But my husband, who is salaried and earns half what I do, has to work 50 plus hours a week. He is an involved father both to the girls, his step-children and to our son. What he most wants is more time with the kids. In part I think this is due to the year he spent at home after losing his previous employment. I’ve digressed, my point was that all parents would benefit from being able to have a more balanced work/family life.
It’s to the point that we’ve almost decided to have him give up his managment job, take the pay cut and the cut in hours so he can spend more time at home. And added benefit of that is that it will take less time to finish my degree. Yes, I have a very supportive and understanding mate.
my point was that all parents would benefit from being able to have a more balanced work/family life.
How about, “all citizens would benefit,” period. No offense, but as a happily childless adult, I wouldn’t want parents all looking at me like I should gratefully pick up the slack in the office while they’re off bonding with their kids. :/
Why would we want to blow it by asking for special treatment?
What special treatment? Men would get family leave and subsidies for raising children, too.
I guess I don’t buy into the “Don’t ask for too much, you’ll get Massa angry!” mentality, though.
DP_in_SF writes:
“RonF: There’s a good reason to take money from people who have putatively “earned” it and give it to those who putatively haven’t (which is way more than simply people with kids).”
Why do you use the term “putuatively ‘earned'”? Is it your opinion that people don’t have to earn their money? Don’t you have to work for your money? I do. Everyone I know does. Seems to me that the vast majority of people have earned the money they have; relatively few have inherited it. And if someone pays it to them, even multi-million dollar salaried CEO’s, then they’ve earned it. Nobody is putting a gun to a company’s head to pay these out. Hell, I’ll bet more entertainers are earning $1,000,000/year than CEO’s.
What do you mean by “Demand, demand, demand.”? The fact that someone is demanding such subsidies justifies taking the money?
“excaberate the the situation of advanced economies in this regard.”
I can’t even speculate what you mean here.
“Also, I love your parental bond idea; eugenics by income bracket is just what the world needs, not to mention the logical conclsuion of all these efficiency schemes free-marketers love to spin.”
What parental bond idea? Where did I mention that? What ARE you talking about?
I don’t think subsidies are a good idea, and I personally don’t consider it a feminist ideal. Why CAN’T women follow the same carrer path as men?
Why would subsidies prevent that? If childrearing was subsidized by the state, the man could stay home and the woman go out and work.
We’re equal, aren’t we?
Does equal mean identical?
Alisis39
I apologize because my post didn’t state what I meant. Of course I mean that everyone would benefit from a shorter work week.
Ah, Thanks, Mendy. Just checking. :)
I see the points people are making. I was referring to this part in the article.
They are using women’s supposed ineptness to justify these government subsidies. This would come back on women. The attitude of, “See! We never should have let those damn females into the workforce!”
If this isn’t about women, then why call it a “feminist” idea? These government subsidies would never be suggested had women not entered the workforce.
Women are following the same carrer track as men, because men created the model. Men can have children and not have it affect thier carreer track, because under the “traditional” model they have a wife that will rear those children.
I don’t advocate creating a policy that strictly focuses on women, but that one that creates an environment that is better for everyone. That is why I advocate flex-time, job sharing, and a shorter work week. And it isn’t only parents, but those that are responsible for elder care as well that buisness penalizes.
I don’t agree that acknowleging that people have children and carreer paths should accomidate that, is calling women “inept.”
What the article quoted calls the assumption of “the male career track” is what I’d call the assumption that all serious career workers have a wife at home. Maybe that made sense in the 1950s, but nowadays a more likely assumption is that very few workers – male 0r female – have a wife at home full-time to handle all the childrearing and housekeeping tasks. But workplaces haven’t changed to accomidate the new reality.
Saying “every worker should have to act like a career man in the 1950s” isn’t a feminist solution, in my view. Career men in the 50s were only able to act that way because they depended on the very sexist men-work-women-stay-home setup (what I call “the father knows best economy”).
A better (and more feminist) choice is to change the workplace so that raising children and having a career are not contrary, and to try and create a society in which both women and men have more ways to find a better work-family balance.
Amp;
Aren’t you just advocating changing the assumption from one which advantages workers who have a wife at home to one which advantages workers who have dependent children?
Isn’t the effect going to be just the same: discrimination against people who don’t meet the model? In fact, under the proposals above I think the situation will be worse that the current one, as discrimination against those without dependent children will be state sanctioned. There’s the poisonous assumption behind it all that being a women means having children, and that it’s legitimate to disadvantage those who don’t make that choice in the name of those who do. Talk about biology being destiny. That’s why the rightwing pro-natalist are all for this – they want women to stay at home with kids. I’m not sure I would want to sign up to the sort of feminism that agrees with them.
I would ask, “Wouldn’t most families rather have the tax break?” But that would make me sound like such a Republican tool that no one here would ever speak to me again!
But seriously, I think the intentions behind this are good. I just don’t think it would work. In addition to what I said above, where would we get the money? Tax and spend (the Democrat way) or borrow and spend (the Republican way)? Government spending is out of control as it is.
I do support flex-time, job-sharing, etc. Just not when it’s government-mandated/funded. Believe it or not, a lot of employers offer this stuff on their own.
There’s the poisonous assumption behind it all that being a women means having children, and that it’s legitimate to disadvantage those who don’t make that choice in the name of those who do.
Being an adult means having children. Some adults don’t, through choice or circumstance, and that’s OK. But the default setting for the species is to drop some rug puppies. You may find this assumption poisonous, but it is an assumption because it is generally true.
And it is absolutely legitimate to disadvantage those who don’t have children, within the framework of the civil rights we all share. It’s not OK to (say) take away the vote from the childless, but it’s OK to tax the childless to pay for schools.
Government subsidies for people who have children are a good thing. After all, someone has to pay for all those (government) services I’m going to start demanding when I retire and become a cranky old man. If it’s not my (possible future) kids as adults doing that, then it has to be someone elses. Basically it’s like putting money in the bank. (OT, but I also support public education and health care).
But of course, you Americans do what you think is best :) .
Robert,
I support public education. So did Adam Smith. But am I understanding correctly that you agree with these proposed government subsidies? If so, are you suggesting we pay for them with a tax increase? I personally think the subsidies go too far.
nik wrote:
It’s possible that the sort of reforms Mendy was talking about above could end up pitting non-parents against parents, but that’s not inevitable. It all depends on the motivation and interests of bosses, the ability of workers to negotiate with bosses without suffering retaliation, and the nuts and bolts of how the programs in question are implemented.
Leaving aside for one moment the ridiculous idea that everyone has absolute choice over what family situation they end up living in, I find it rather sad that the merely being a woman is enough to have the whole idea poo-poohed as mere “subsidies.” Weren’t there all sorts of “special interests” receiving all sorts of “subsidies” throughout U.S. History ? Uhhh, the GI Bill, anyone ? The WPA ? The (original) NRA ? Various and sundry Homesteaders Acts ? I’m sure I’m just scratching the surface here.
I have all the maternal instinct of a lug wrench, but even I know that it’s not motherhood and parenting that creates the sort of “infirmity” that drumgrrl is talking about. It’s the present POV that Amp describes that virtually demands that any woman who wants to rear children accept a form of infirmity pushed on her by the outmoded way our workforce functions.
I’m wondering what the experience is of the posters here regarding the purported model that industry expects men to ignore the fact that they have kids. I work in a white-collar environment. Every guy I know here takes time off or changes his work hours to accomodate having kids. It’s not the same as working part time, etc., but the model of “you come in when we want, go home when we want, and your wife has to deal with 100% of dealing with the kids” isn’t what I’m seeing.
Mind you, none of us are trying to make partner in a law firm or something. And none of us expect to be CEO, either. But still, I’d like to know what the experiences are.
Mind you, none of us are trying to make partner in a law firm or something. And none of us expect to be CEO, either.
I wonder what the experience of your female co-workers is.
If by “the industry” you mean IT, then yes, my experience is that men are expected to adjust their schedules and time off no more than occasionally to accomodate their families. A man who is primary caregiver, or makes it clear that his family is something other than a periodic distracting from spending his life in his cubicle, is Not A Team Player.
Aren’t you just advocating changing the assumption from one which advantages workers who have a wife at home to one which advantages workers who have dependent children?
No. You’re assuming that there are two kinds of workers: those with dependent children, and those with nothing better to do than spend time in the office. Don’t childfree people have elderly parents, siblings, life partners, spouses? Do you think that if we give a childfree person flexibility to handle caring for a disabled spouse, that we’re disadvantaging single persons?
But am I understanding correctly that you agree with these proposed government subsidies?
No. But I don’t think they’re the devil’s handiwork, either.
Men have always had to sacrifice family time in order to get ahead in their careers. That wouldn’t change even if we did have the subsidies. If most women aren’t willing to sacrifice, is it any wonder there are fewer women at the top?
At my job, there is a lot of flex-time. But the ones who work less hours are not the first to be promoted. I also work with all men, if that makes a difference.
Haha, I don’t think they’re the devil’s handiwork either!
I don’t know that there is an answer to this question that is going to appease everyone.
Where I live no employer offers flex-time that isn’t actually part time employment. Very few have the option of telecommuting and I have no options except fit into the excepted “track” for my employment.
Men have always had to sacrifice family time in order to get ahead in their careers
And this doesn’t strike you as a problem? Why don’t you see anything wrong with a system that sees the standard for employees as “healthy, single young man with no life outside of work” and any deviation from that standard as a demerit?
If most women aren’t willing to sacrifice
Women are, increasingly, willing to sacrifice. And then we get the moaning and gnashing of teeth about daycare, dropping birth rates, nobody being at home to cook meals like in the good old days, latchkey children, etcetera.
Myth, you’re clearly not keeping up with the debate.
As you haven’t yet noticed, people are proposing: “subsidies to those who provide child care in the home, and pension credits that reflect the economic value of years spent in household labor… tuition credits for years spent rearing children, which could be exchanged for post-graduate or vocational education. This would pretty clearly disadvantage people without children. It’d also clearly disadvantage people who choose to look after their children in particular ways, such having children but also working full time. All in the name of being a woman = having babies and staying at home with them.
I’m not advocating a subsidy. I am advocating a work structure that doesn’t require that we work ourselves to death or be penalized for having responsibilities beyond working.
Mythago points out that our population is aging and our parents are aging, and employers are not anymore sympathetic to elder care than they are to dependent children. And I am a woman that has children, a full time job, and goes to school. I’m just lucky that I have a mother in law that is willing to provide the added child care out of love of her Grandchildren.
nik, this isn’t a single-issue discussion, speaking of people not keeping up…
This would pretty clearly disadvantage people without children
Er, don’t those people already have the advantage of not having had to provide for children in the home? After all, instead of a pension some years in the future and some meager subsidy now, you’ve been able to spend that non-at-home-with-kids time building up your pension, advance in your career, and saving money. A government subsidy is not going to be attractive to anyone other than working parents for whom childcare is already unaffordable.
Do you really think that a full-time childfree worker is going to say “Gosh, I would make more money overall if I quit my job and popped out babies on the government’s dime”? Do you think that such a worker is going to be disadvantaged in terms of opportunity costs (which you damn well know won’t be considered in the ‘subsidy’)? Do you believe that bosses will frown on the workers who are in full-time rather than those who drop out and stay at home getting a government check?
The real pressure on women to stay at home with kids comes from the workplace’s demand that work is really all or nothing, and if you’re not willing to give it your all, why, you should get the fuck out of the way of the people who really deserve their jobs.
Mythago;
Why are you making up these bonkers scenarios? It’s clearly nuts to say that childfree workers are going to have babies in return for government money. It’s clearly nuts to say that bosses will frown on fulltime workers as oppose to those who leave the workforce.
But that’s all beside the point.
The policies will disadvantage people without children, and people with children who have particular lifestyles – relative to a situation where these policies weren’t implemented. I’d love to here what Amp and the other pro-natalists have to say on this. For lots of women a full-time career track is appealing, to others it isn’t because childbearing is a priority. It seems strange to me that feminists should wish to advocate redistributing from those who choose the former to those who choose the later because the later lifestyle is more deserving and is a ‘female’ option.
Why are you making up these bonkers scenarios?
They’re the logical result of your bonkers arguments. If the subsidy gives at-home mommies an advantage, then any woman with half a brain is going to choose the advantageous path–having kids and staying at home on the government subsidy.
What seems strange is that you’re seeing childbearing and feminism as anathema.
Mythago, you’re misunderstanding me. I’m saying the policies will disadvantage people without children – relative to a world without these policies (i.e. money will be taken from them and given to the other group that would otherwise not have been). I’m not saying there will be any absolute financial disadvantage to people without children (i.e. they will be worse off than people without children).
I don’t see childbearing and feminism as anathema, though I do fail to see why feminists should support taking money from women who choose not to have children and giving it to women who choose to have them. When they advocate doing this to support people who choose the ‘female’ career path, I think things are getting weird.
i.e. money will be taken from them and given to the other group that would otherwise not have been
So by “disadvantage” you mean that childfree persons will have higher taxes imposed on them, and the benefit of those taxes will then be given to at-home mothers?
Yes (though I’m not claiming this is a profound insight, it’s simply bloody obvious). I’m concerned about how this is justified. Particularly with the implication that women who follow a full-time career path are doing something ‘male,’ and that money should be redistributed from them to women who do something ‘female’. As having children is voluntary, and feminism is traditionally opposed to seeing people forced into gender roles, I have trouble seeing this as a just scenario.
I don’t think a lack of children, or desire for fame makes me more “male” or, whatever. If there’s really such a thing as “feminine instincts,” mine are just chanelled in a different direction than having and raising kids. Not that I personally find the concept of “feminine instincts” anything but claptrap, personally.
And incidentally, if I deep down just plain don’t see myself as a mother, no amount of money –not a wheelbarrow’s worth nor a triple-trailer’s worth nor anything in between– is going to make me magically change my mind. What rubbish. Women who are moved by the promise of financial aid to have a child will be women who wanted to have one all along, but felt discouraged by the economic penalties.
I don’t think of paying taxes to support families as being a “disadvantage,” because paying those taxes has real benefit to all society, not just parents. In a debate over what support entails, it’s being compelled to invest more TIME in the workforce that would be a potential deal-breaker for me, not the investment of money.
I agree with Nik. It would be the government’s way of saying, “Get back in the home, woman!” (Or ‘girlie-man’ in the case of househusbands.)
To me, the proposed subsidies imply that a woman can’t make it in a man’s world. She needs the government to come to the rescue. Because a woman supposedly must be dependent on either a man or the government. This capitalism stuff is too hard for the ladies!
Do I see something wrong with this man’s world? Sometimes. But mostly because I feel women are all lumped into one category and not seen as individuals. I don’t see anything wrong with promoting people who put in longer hours over people who don’t. Or with promoting people who choose to stay in the workforce over those who take a few years off. And that’s the way it will be, with or without the subsidies.
The biggest reasons I oppose these subsidies are because 1) I don’t see how we could pay for them and 2) it’s too much government intrusion into private life.
Nik wrote:
Show me, with a direct quote, where anyone on this thread has actually said that the latter lifestyle is more deserving and a ‘female’ option.
It would be the government’s way of saying, “Get back in the home, woman!
And again, the goverment would have to be offering such great subsidies that only a woman with the IQ of a snail would say “No to your free money, government pig-dogs, I’m keeping my job even though it’s an economically inferior decisions!”
(Time for the difference between infer and imply: the subsidies aren’t a personal insult to you, especially given that they’re not offered only to women.)
The point of subsidies is that it’s an economically irrational decision to give up paid work for the unpaid work of having children. The government doesn’t want everyone to say “Screw having kids, I want that promotion”. The goverment freaks out when the birth rate drops far below replacement and it sees a teeny tax base in its future. Oh, and it sees a tax burden in the form of indigent ‘displaced homemakers’ and people who didn’t have enough for retirement.
The subsidies, therefore, are supposed to offset the actual and opportunity costs of swapping time in the paid workforce for time caring for family. I’m still waiting to hear how this “disadvantages” the childfree. (On the contrary, I’d say it helps them. Your less-than-fanatic pronatalist co-workers will leave your company, freeing up job slots for the fit.)
I don’t see anything wrong with promoting people who put in longer hours over people who don’t.
Out of this short-sighted management attitude are hosts of ways to fake “face time” born.
I can’t, as I was laying out for rhetorical purposes what I believe to be the basis of the opposing argument.
(1) It is commonplace in these discussions to talk about how the “male career track” is inappropriate for women, that “women’s work” should be recognised, and that support is needed for those who want to pursue other options. What is the alternative if not a ‘female’ career track? That’s the clear implication made by this talk.
(2) If one lifestyle is not more deserving than the other, then on what basis do you justify taking money from people who choose one and giving it so people who choose the other? If the lifestyle of people who care for children and don’t work isn’t ‘deserving’, then why should the government reward people who follow it? Support for any particular lifestyle by the government is going to carry normative implications about its worth.
As long as the policies are sex-neutral, I don’t think the messages you’re imagining are there.
It would be the government’s way of acknowledging that no society can survive without a next generation, and those who sacrifice to help bring up the next generation deserves some support. It would be an acknowledgment of the reality that future generations are necessary to the entire society, not just to individual parents.
You know that when you’re older, you’re going to depend on younger generations to support you, by providing you with doctors, with social security, with retirement homes, with maintained roads and water and other such things, and just generally with a functional, continuing civilization. And all that will be true even if you never have children.
Why should the childless (like me) get to be “free riders,” benefiting from the existence of future generations but not paying a fair share to help those generations come into existence?
1) With taxes.
2) Our current system has too much corporate intrusion into private life. Libertarians, for idealogical reasons, are fine with that, but to most folks being punished for having children is bad regardless of if it’s the government or the marketplace doing the punishing. I’d like to see a better balance, so that both fathers and mothers are better able to combine a career with a family life.
By the way, Drumgurl, belated congratulatios on your job! :-D
That’s a very long way of saying “I was lying.” Bottom line is, you attributed opinions to other people here that they hadn’t actually said. I think that’s not a very good way to act.
How about a “human” career track? It’s not as if women are the only ones to have children. The kind of thing you’re talking about – where we have separate spheres, one for mommies, one for daddies – is the kind of thing we’re trying to fight against. A better economy would acknowlege that all adults – not just parents – can have family responsibilities, and work should be structured to accomidate that reality.
Why? Because it’s fair. And because if the people who rear children are better off, then society as a whole – all of which depends on a well-raised next generation – is better off.
You know, even if that’s true – and I’m not convinced it is (“normative implications” seems to me to be an argument of desparation) – then so what? I’d rather treat people fairly – which includes trying to keep people who raise children from being screwed over – even if that means we risk sending a false normative implication.
There are plenty of things the government does to reward career-seeking – tax deductions for business expenses, tuition grants for graduate school training, subsidized small business loans, etc.. Do these things send a “normative implication” that people who work are more worthwhile than non-working stay at home parents are? I don’t think they do, really; I think you’re vastly exaggerating how attuned normal citizens are to the normative implications of particular government programs. But even if they did, these programs would still be worth doing because they benefit society.
Similarly, I don’t think the dubious negative normative message sent by supporting parenting – even if they exist – outweigh the benefits of supporting parenting.
Show me, with a direct quote, which of the people here I attributed those opinions to.
More seriously, it’s clear from the article that the opinion I gave is pretty much that of the Weekly Standard. People here (“feminists”) are supporting the proposals, it think it’s fair to point out that this may be inconsistant with some of their other beliefs. You may be interested in a “human” career track – but the explicit language of the article is of a male career track and of, well, a “not-male” career track – and how this “not-male” career track is of great intrinsic merit.
It’s possible to say support for a particular lifestyle is not going to carry normative implications about its worth. But I do have trouble taking this seriously when you say this immediately after spending a post waxing lyrical about how we should acknowledge how no society can survive without a next generation, the nobility of those who sacrifice to help bring up the next generation, and so on. One of the reasons people support policies like this is exactly because they have normative implications.
I think your main argument is that we should support parents because it is ‘fair’. You haven’t spelt this out in detail, and I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I think parents have children mostly for the intangible benefits that they gain from doing this. Benefits which the childfree don’t want and can’t share in. If parents think these intangible benefits are “worth” their investment, then I can’t see why those without children need to compensate them for it.
Lastly, you’ve slipped into generically talking about supporting parents. The proposals simply don’t benefit all parents, they benefit those who choose a specific lifestyle. Not those who work full-time, or with one parent at work or the other staying at home for good. They’re supporting particular models of parenthood, rather than others. You don’t like the men-work-women-stay-home setup, you like the coparenting-mixed-with-work model. You can’t justify proposals that benefit particular choices based upon general statements about the value of parenthood in general.
Nik is 100% correct. But I think she/he fails to articulate the problems with ‘subsidy’ economics:
1) The cost of whatever is being subsidized skyrockets.
2) Most of the benefits for the subsidy flow to the service/product providers. Education subsidies flow to teachers, real estate subsidies flow to realtors and homebuilders, and so on.
3) Everyone else picks up the tab (directly via taxes or indirectly via inflation).
Sweden is a country that has implemented just about every ‘feminist’ idea ever dreamed of. Their tax burden is 67%. And its birth rate is plummeting.
If one lifestyle is not more deserving than the other, then on what basis do you justify taking money from people who choose one and giving it so people who choose the other?
On what basis do you assume that the government providing a subsidy is automatically classifying those receiving the subsidy as more “deserving” than those not receiving it? My government gives a tax break to the blind–does that mean that blind people are more “deserving” than sighted people? Do you think the government is saying the blind “lifestyle” is better than that of sighted people?
but the explicit language of the article is of a male career track and of, well, a “not-male” career track
A division which you cheerfully accepted, treating sex-neutral subsidies as something aimed at pushing women back into the home–“pro-natalist” women* being so stupid, apparently, that they would take a government subsidy instead of staying in the lucrative paid workforce. As an effective tool for the sinister plan of turning women into housewives, it’s about as clever as saying “Free Snickers bar if you agree to let a man get promoted over you!”
The proposals simply don’t benefit all parents, they benefit those who choose a specific lifestyle.
It’s funny how “lifestyle” became political-ese for “a choice I find appalling,” isn’t it?
The proposals are meant to alleviate the financial hit from reducing or eliminating one’s presence in the paid workforce in order to provide unpaid care for a family. Parents who make other “choices”, and the childfree, do not take this hit. It’s as though you were complaining that people who paid for college with trust funds, or who chose not to go to college, are “disadvantaged” and unfairly favored by the existence of subsidized student loans.
*C’mon, go ahead and say “breeders”. It’s okay.
I think what’s more directly effective is that rather than subsidying or financially compensating/crediting parents, is to directly fund two things:
1) Early childhood resources, social supports, health and education (for both parents and children).
2) The social support (affordable, available, safe child care, for example) to enable both parents to continue to contribute directly to the economy by working.
At least, this is how things are proceeding in Canada. Ontario has a fabulous Early Years program that I know has helped me greatly in my kids infant-preschool years. Compared to the affordable child care issue, it’s a cheap program, and very much focuses on parental support and education.
Kids that have developmental delays are identified early and treated, often well before school age (where the wait-lists for treatment are longer and the treatment needed to correct takes longer). Parents are taught and modeled to, which makes them more effective parents, which in turn helps their kids to be more productive. Productive, healthy kids become productive, healthy tax-payers.
Will the program pan out in the long run? I think it will. But we’re going to be waiting another 10-15 years to really see the benefits.
nik wrote:
Tuomas already explained quite succinctly several posts ago why the childfree benefit when families with children aren’t left to the mercies of a capitalism strictly modeled on the social mores of fifty-odd years ago. Of course, none of that matters to those who follow the libertarian/each-man-is-an-island model.
mythago wrote:
I remain dismayed that this thread is turning into yet another round of the childfree pitted against the parents. I already had my fill of that on about a thousand other boards in the past. Think I’ll bow out of here now.
Ya know, when the regulars start behaving troll-like, it’s time for everyone to get a perspective check. It’s not just this thread, several others have degenerated into circular arguments, trolling, troll-feeding and name-calling.
wolfangel:
Pulling facts out of your ass will not impress anyone. In defense of my hated (well, not really…) neighbors, tax burden in Sweden is actually actually 50.7% (in year 2004)
http://www.oecd.org/document/15/0,2340,en_2649_201185_35472591_1_1_1_1,00.html
and if you look at the birth rate charts,
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=sw&v=25
birth rate has increased slightly lately (and it is stable) 10.36births/per 1000 people, and add to that an extremely low infant mortality rate:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/25/34970222.pdf
3.1 per 1000 live births at 2003.
Google is amazing, really.
Alsis: Thanks.
Huh. Double actually. I suppose I’m being really serious. (And keep missing things even with the “preview” -function.)
and it’s wolgang, not wolfangel. Damn.
Okay, let me quote the Weekly Standard again.
Notice where it says MALE career path? I didn’t accuse any of you of saying it. I am taking issue with the person who wrote the article (and those who agree with him/her on that point).
Also, I never said that women will choose to have kids just to get the government’s money. In fact, I didn’t even say that the subsidies would disadvantage the childless. But now I’ll come out and admit I think the subsidies would disadvantage pretty much everyone in the long-run (for predictable reasons we’ll never agree on).
There are worse things we could use tax dollars for. But I would not support a tax increase for this.
I mean wolfgang… No more spam, honest to God. Coffee.
But… the debt!
I would, too. That’s why I support flex-time. It is in a company’s best interest to offer it. I do actually believe in all that positive work environment stuff. Where we differ is that I don’t think the subsidies would have that affect. Those who opt-out will still be “punished” because scabs like me won’t take time off. If I work more, my peer has to work more if he wants to compete with me.
Thank you!
I am taking issue with the person who wrote the article
I think we all take issue with somebody using “male career path” to mean “the sort of career properly reserved for men,” instead of “the career path that has been traditionally expected of, and reserved for, men”.
But now I’ll come out and admit I think the subsidies would disadvantage pretty much everyone in the long-run (for predictable reasons we’ll never agree on).
What predictable reasons? You keep saying ‘disadvantage’ without really explaining what that means, except maybe a tax increase (which would be rather hard to apply only to nonparents).
Think I’ll bow out of here now
Aw, don’t be so darn sensitive. I was just deeply amused at the euphemistic “pro-natalist”.
Well, “alleviate” is a bit of a euphemism. We’re not eliminating the costs of providing care; we’re proposing to transfer the costs (at least in part) from the parent to taxpayers at large.
But do people agree that the proposed policies would not actually cause people to change their behavior? That is, the subsidies would merely offset some of the costs people incur for engaging in existing behavior? Back at Message # 9 I suggested two rationales supporting the subsidies: 1) unjust enrichment (or “fairness”) and 2) efficiency. If we assume that the subsidies will not induce people to change behavior, then we eliminate the efficiency rationale and are left to rely solely on the fairness rationale.
As a factual matter, I don’t know how anyone could actually know the degree to which a subsidy would alter people’s behavior. For example, for a person who is on the verge of quitting his job, a small subsidy may be all that is required to encourage him to become a full-time homemaker. (Conceptually, yes, even the offer of a Snickers bar could tip the balance.)
But assuming that nobody would change his or her behavior on the basis of the subsidy, can the subsidy be justified? I see this question a lot.
– It costs more to provide a kWh of electricity at 5pm on August 1 than at 5am on May 1, but most utilities charge the same for either kWh. If we set electric rates to reflect cost, people would pay more to use electricity at 5pm than at 5am, and in August than in May. But research suggests that the new price scheme would not cause people to change their electric consumption very much. The new rates would be “fairer” (each consumer would bear a cost more closely related to his or her consumption patterns), but society as a whole would bear the same costs. Is that a good enough reason to change rates?
– If your government discovers that it overcharged you, arguably it should pay you back with interest. Similarly, if they undercharged you, you should pay the government back with interest. But why interest? people ask. Yes, it compensates a party for the lost time-value of money, which is arguably “fair.” But charging interest for a past period cannot induce prompt payment in the past because in the past no one knew the payment was due. So the retroactive interest charge is arguably “fair” even though it cannot induce any retroactive change in behavior. Is that good public policy?
– Some people pay taxes that support public schools, and then attend private schools. A school voucher system is promoted as a way to grant more “choice” to people to attend private schools. But studies suggest that many programs would not induce many people to change schools; they would merely transfer funds from public schools to private schools, subsidizing educational choices that people have already made. Is this good public policy?
Similarly, would it make sense to subsidize child-rearing even if it does not cause anyone to behave differently than they would have in the absence of the subsidy?
Actually, post #77 was the first time I used the word disadvantage. And even then I only mentioned it due to the false accusation. It was a can of worms I didn’t want to open. Why? Because we aren’t going to agree on economics. It would be like someone trying to convince me women shouldn’t have the right to vote. It’s not going to happen.
I think most families would rather have a tax break. I don’t think money given to the government and then given back is very efficient. And I don’t have enough trust in the government to think they could do this right. I don’t expect anyone to agree even a little bit with that, so I feel I am wasting everyone’s time by even saying it.
Oh duh, in post #79, I meant to say deficit rather than debt. I can’t believe I said that. What I was trying to say is that I prefer balanced budgets, and our spending is out of control. But thanks, Amp, for not pointing out my error!
Ampersand said: A better (and more feminist) choice is to change the workplace so that raising children and having a career are not contrary, and to try and create a society in which both women and men have more ways to find a better work-family balance
I think this is absolutely the way to go, although I would prefer to say “a better work-personal balance” or “work-nonwork” or something.
It maybe impossible to stop employers from giving privileges (pay, promotions, etc.) to people who put work ahead of their own physical, psychological, and ethical well-being, not to mention the well-being of their community, but I think an effort should be made. There will always be those who care little for a healthy, balanced life, but North American culture seems to actually prefer those people, and force those who aren’t that way to become that way.
Which would be relevant if I suggested unfunded spending, which is what causes deficits. But I suggested paying for the new spending with taxes, which would not cause deficits.
Which would be relevant if I suggested unfunded spending, which is what causes deficits. But I suggested paying for the new spending with taxes, which would not cause deficits.
Yes, you’re right. But to get out of the current budget deficit, taxes would have to be extremely high. Notice how Bush started with a surplus? That’s one reason I’m not a Republican, even though I sound like it sometimes. Heck, if we still had a surplus, I probably wouldn’t even oppose the subsidies.
It was a can of worms I didn’t want to open. Why? Because we aren’t going to agree on economics.
You’re not making sense. You’re using a word and now refusing to tell me what you meant by it.
I think most families would rather have a tax break.
I think most families wouldn’t, because a tax break is only great if you make enough money to benefit from it. When your income is taking a hit because you step out of the paid workforce, the tax break isn’t such a great thing.