[smeeth]

Hate to break it to you, but many kids actually do better away from their parents than with them.

It's extremely sad, but a consistent finding in early childhood education is that the children who thrive most in daycares tend to come from the least advantaged backgrounds.

So a policy of paying parents to stay home would mostly benefit kids who are already well off.

[yardstick]

Kids are social and like playing and learning from other kids. Daycare lets them do just that. It’s a great thing and every toddler I’ve met who wasn’t in daycare was behind in something. Especially verbal skills.

Plus daycare allows women to continue their career progression. It’s soo important. Not every woman wants to end their career as a mother to a young kid. Daycare enables successful women to thrive and still have families.

[declan_roberts]

"Why do you want a thriving career?"

"So I can provide for my family"

"Why do you want to provide for your family?"

"So my children can have happy and fulfilling lives"

"What makes your young children feel happy?"

"Spending time with me"

A strong parent-child relationship is the biggest determination of life-long child happiness even into old age.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4784487/

[yardstick]

You can have a strong parent-child relationship while still using daycare.

Also people work due to other reasons unrelated to providing for their family. Individuals are allowed to have lives outside their kids.

[garciasn]

Your anecdote is just that. All of it is highly dependent on the child, their environment, and the 'educator'. Please don't make assumptions based on your limited exposure; it's not helpful.

[Spivak]

Your "it depends" argument is that some kids aren't social, don't like playing with other kids, are better off not having exposure to social interaction with peers and practice talking.

If this is the criticism then it's a glowing endorsement of daycare and school.

[garciasn]

No; it depends on the 'educator'. A daycare that doesn't have kids interacting in a positive way could be just as detrimental as a parent that doesn't socialize their children externally to the home.

[xp84]

I'm just gonna throw this out here: Well-off kids who barely know their workaholic parents have different but equally bad issues for society, than the poor kids do.

Those poor kids have learning deficits. The "well-off" kids often have morality deficits.

A mom or dad raising them properly might help them more than being Student #642 in a government childcare facility.

This isn't an argument against childcare. My children attended preschool for 3 years before Kindergarten. But I'd rather that people got equal support to have a stay-at-home parent so that people can choose.

[smeeth]

Do you have any evidence for that?

From what I’ve seen, the research leans the other way. For example:

Children from more advantaged families were actually more likely to view unfair distribution as unfair, while poorer children were more likely to accept it. [0]

Mother’s work hours show no link to childhood behavioral problems, it’s schedule flexibility that matters. [1]

For working-class families, more father work hours correlated with fewer behavioral problems.[2]

The idea that “well-off kids” end up with morality deficits because their parents work a lot doesn’t seem to hold up.

[0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/desc.13230

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9119633/

[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7021583/

[nevir]

Like all things: the extremes are never good, and it's all about getting a healthy balance.

- Kids need lots of time with their parents

- Kids need lots of time around other kids

You can do that by sending them to daycare, and ALSO spending lots of time with them when they're home.

You can also do that by taking time off work, and then taking your kid(s) to places with other kids.

Both work; and it depends on your context which works for you.

[ujkhsjkdhf234]

You aren't wrong but calling it being "Student #642 in a government childcare facility" the wrong way of looking at it. Children grow up best when they are allowed to play with other children. Modern society robs kids of that and helicopter parents are bad for society.

[xp84]

I agree with you vigorously on both those points. I am skeptical however that NM will be able to create a lot of healthy, play-based environments for so many kids.

The market already has incentives to create them -- a ton of good places have waiting lists nationwide, showing unmet demand even at the current price. This suggests the price will need to go higher to attract enough people to do this job. It seems their "$12,000 value" estimate is based on an optimistic belief that they will be buying childcare for their citizens at current prices. When they realize there aren't that many slots available at current rates of pay, will they be okay significantly increasing the costs of the program?

So, my expectations for these facilities are very low and that's a big part of my concern.

[ujkhsjkdhf234]

I don't know where you live but where I live, the cost of daycare is extremely high and there is a waitlist on most places.

[HatchedLake721]

> Hate to break it to you, but many kids actually do better away from their parents than with them.

Is this based on something?

There's research left and right shows that children under 36 months at group nurseries are linked to increased aggression, anxiety, lower emotional skills, elevated cortisol (stress hormone), which is associated with long-term health and developmental risks.

Infants and children do better with one-to-one care at home by their parents and familiar faces, rather than strangers in a group setting.

[cvoss]

Perhaps there is something about the environment of an economically disadvantaged household that could be improved by a stipend which allows at least one parent the breathing room to dedicate full time attention to the child instead of a job (or multiple jobs). I don't think the findings you mentioned cut against that idea at all.

I hear you saying the benefit of dedicated caregiving for children mostly helps families with less economic advantage. I'd agree with that, and suggest that OP's proposal capitalizes on exactly that. I'm not convinced of what may be implied in your argument that low-earners make for bad parents and that children should be separated more from their parents for their own good. Let the internal dynamics of a family be solved first, before saying we need to separate parents from children more.

Moreover, those with more economic advantage are unlikely to take a stipend in exchange for staying home. That's not a good deal when keeping the job pays so much that they can afford to pay for childcare.

It is precisely those with less advantage who will take the deal.

So I don't agree with your prediction that such a stipend mostly benefits those who are already well off.

[bko]

> that the children who thrive most in daycares tend to come from the least advantaged backgrounds.

So the children that do well in daycare comes from poor homes? So kids from rich home don't do well in daycare?

Every interaction I've ever had says the opposite. The disruptive bully at school usually comes from a broken home.

[MisterTea]

My daycare was called preschool. It allowed my mother to focus on my infant brother during the day while I was literally two blocks away running around, coloring and learning shapes. Show and tell was my favorite.

[Minor49er]

> Hate to break it to you, but many kids actually do better away from their parents than with them.

How so?

[smeeth]

The most obvious example is the children of addicts. It’s hard to imagine a kid is better off stuck at home with druggie parents than spending the day in daycare.

[declan_roberts]

A good example of bottom quintile policy. Because the bottom quintile has a better outcome with a certain approach, it becomes standard care for everyone else.

Once you see it, you'll see it everywhere.

[smeeth]

…so?

A realistic stay-at-home subsidy would max out around $30k. Your proposal only meaningfully shifts incentives for the bottom income quintile. For everyone else:

- Upper-income families can already afford to choose whatever setup they want.

- Middle-income families couldn’t take it because it’d mean too steep a drop in income.

So the alternative you proposed economically benefits the bottom quintile while leaving their kids worse off. For everyone else, it probably either doesn't matter or gives them cash they don't need as much.

[Minor49er]

Anyone would be better off being away from addicts though