(I didn’t see any rules against purely text posts to stimulate discussion. But if this is against the rules, please let me know)

Some discussion if you’re unaware.

…conclude that “shifting priorities” about family, careers, and how to allocate one’s time and resources is the most likely explanation for the dramatic reduction in rates of childbearing seen among more recent cohorts of young adults. We have not found compelling data support for more readily observed (and potentially altered) policy or economic factors, like the price of childcare or rent.

So, is this a problem to you at all? If it is, then how would you address it? If it isn’t, is this a problem that can be addressed along with addressing what you believe is the greater problem? How?

  • PeepinGoodArgsOPEnglish
    2·
    9 months ago

    we need to pay a parent from each family that has them to stay home and take care of their kids. And not to the degree we currently do, I mean an entire, living wage income, with no requirement for any other kind of work for that parent (indeed possibly the opposite, since the entire point is to treat raising that person’s family as their adequately compensated full time job)

    Oh man, that is a bold policy solution!

    Basically, I think that to really fix this, the system needs to be set up so that the cost of having and actually raising and being there for a kid is offset entirely, such that the decision to have one has no financial impact on a family at all.

    It’s a well-known fact that having children makes you poorer, and I think that’s what you’re trying to address it. However, I don’t think it’s necessary to reduce the effect of having children to nothing financially. I mean, if a data scientist with an annual salary of $200K has a baby, then it makes less sense to give them their full salary than an Amazon wage slave that has a baby who works for $20/hr.

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      4·
      9 months ago

      I may not have made myself clear- I don’t mean that we should pay people the wage that they were making before they leave to raise their children; a policy like that would give those who least need the help the most money and leave someone struggling to make ends meet before having kids still not having enough after the extra expenses associated with a child are added. What I meant was that we should calculate a reasonably comfortable living wage for a given state or region, add the average additional cost a child would involve for things like food and clothing expenses, and pay a parent from each family that amount. My assumption was that this is probably more than or roughly equivalent to what most people make, and so would if successful mitigate the cost of having children. I suppose it would still make kids a net cost to people who are very well off, but these people less need the help anyway

    • Bizarroland@kbin.social
      3·
      9 months ago

      If you set a per City or per county minimum income and every family that falls under the income level receives the difference as long as at least one person in the family is working a full-time job and there is at least 1 child in the household then that would go a long way to solving the issue.

      Sure it would suck for the people that are making $5 a year more than the annual minimums to know that their neighbor that’s working minimum wage at McDonald’s is making almost as much as they are, but wouldn’t it be nice if we lived in a world that wasn’t littered with abject poverty for no reason other than rich people have no upper limit to how rich they want to be?