Is free childcare for women really a good idea?

There are many on the Left calling for government to provide paid childcare.

Supposedly, the reasoning goes, women need childcare so they can work.

But does this actually make sense? It seems to me, if we actually look at this and think about the situation, it is not actually logical.

Here's the thing: If parents want childcare, they can pay for it.
Now, of course you're going to argue that childcare is very expensive and for some women it's very expensive to afford childcare.
Well, I would argue that it's probably difficult for these women to afford children.
This isn't really about childcare, it's about a deeper issue.

Here is my big question: Why should government pay for women to have someone else care for their child, but not pay for the woman to take care of her own child?

If the society subsidizes women putting their children into childcare, it is going to create a financial incentive for women to put their children into childcare. Probably many women are going to be pressured into putting their children into childcare.
This really does not seem like the best thought out idea.

And here is another issue I have with this. Childcare is very expensive. Proponents of free childcare argue that it would "allow women to work". But I think in many cases, it is less costly or makes more financial sense for the woman to care for the children herself.

And isn't that obviously the case? If the woman is choosing not to put her children in childcare, then she has decided that the expense of putting her children in childcare is not worth being able to work in a full time employment position.
Why then should that expense be offloaded onto the taxpayer?

And there are other arrangements that women could pursue themselves. Women could organize among themselves. Maybe two mothers who have children could get together and take turns caring for the other's children.
I remember in public school there was one class where two women had made a special arrangement with the school, alternating as the teacher for that class so they could each only have to work part-time. The normal full-time teacher's salary was split between them.

Progressives often argue that childcare is especially important for low income women. But if that low income woman has multiple children, the expense of childcare could be even more expensive than the money the woman would be able to earn from low wage job, with the additional available time.

The average cost of childcare per child in the U.S. is $11,582 per year.
Given the median minimum wage in the U.S. ($11 per hour), a full time worker would be expected to earn $22,880 per year.
As you can see, if such a woman had more than one child, it does not create an overall economic benefit to have her work full time rather than take care of her children.

I think ideally, setting the issue of money aside, it is preferrable for mothers to care for their own children, rather than outsourcing the task to some stranger.
Keep in mind that kindergarten is publicly provided for free in the U.S., so it's not like a mother has to spend the entire day caring for each of her children forever.

I'm not totally against the possibility of maybe providing some financial support to mothers who care for their children; but what I am really against is the idea of society paying to have someone else take care of the children who is not the mother.

 

"Is free childcare for women really a good idea?"

Yes, it's good they have the option....

 

Works in Scandinavia.

 

@kazenatsu always good see your concern for women in your many threads about that fair sex.

 

btw, Childcare is not just for the women, men use childcare too

 

Early Childcare can also provide a tremendous developmental buffer and scaffolding for the child's development. $$$ back to the society in the long run

 

Childcare is an equality issue?

 

Free is never good. That means they lose responsibility as parents. I believe this push for free this and free that is much of the problem with inflation

 

I question whether it provides an economic net benefit to society. If women themselves do not feel like the financial trade-off is worth it, then why would we as a society think it was?
I also question whether it really makes sense to pay women not to take care of their own children, which essentially is what this policy proposal is.

 

If a woman were just given that money, would she choose to use it on paying for childcare?

 

so you want toll roads and paid fire departments, police, libraries, the list goes on

 

it would cost more than government run child care

 

That seems like a typical Communist / Socialist mentality.

You seem to think if government runs something, it can offer lower prices than the private sector.

But if we're being honest and realistic, we all know that if the progressive Left succeeded in getting the government to pay for this, most likely it would end up being contracted out to the private sector, with government just paying small daycare businesses.
So I think the real issue, when discussing the policy proposal of free childcare, has nothing to do with what you are bringing up. That's just a red herring.

If you think government can offer childcare for cheaper than the private sector, then why isn't government running childcare operations right now, for a price?
(I mean government run-childcare and free government-paid-for childcare seem like two different separate issues)

If you truly think government can run things more efficiently than a private business, how about you turn your attention to the defense sector, and advocate that government build all the military vehicles and aircraft rather than contracting with private companies?

 

they should be, people can choose private for profit if they can afford it

 

So the question is, would the woman choose private childcare, if she could afford it, or would she choose the money?

I think a lot of women would choose to stay home and take care of their own children, given what the expense of outsourcing childcare to a business run by someone else is.

It's not just an issue of absolute money and time either. Raising one's own children usually is less unpleasant, requires less effort and is more fulfilling, than spending that same amount of time having to work in a job position. (In other words, even if she could theoretically increase her income a little bit by paying for childcare to be able to work full time, it still might not be worth it)

 

if they can afford it, sure, most would

will welfare support their lifestyle choice though if they can't afford it - would the right support them getting the welfare?

 

I don't think this is truly true. You are being unrealistic.

If you offered a low income woman (who cannot afford childcare) a choice between the money (that the childcare costs) or free childcare, probably most of them would just choose the payout of money.

For the same amount of money it costs to outsource the work to someone else, the woman would probably rather do the role herself.

 

I do not think Republicans would support just giving single mothers money to keep their children at home

 

Actually I would be okay with paid libraries. Toll roads I’m also okay with. Fire department and police departments aren’t always free. But I feel they should be for the most part. Child care is no where even close to these necessities. I raised my kids just fine without free childcare.

 

Look, all I'm saying is it makes no sense to pay for a woman to put her children in childcare, but then at the same time not be willing to pay her that money if she just provides the care the children herself.

If we wouldn't pay her money to take care of her own children, then there's no reason it would be a better idea to pay for free childcare.

 

it's cheaper to pay for a building and staff to care for many children then to send money to each person to be a stay at home mom or dad

 

On the economic side, it seems like a wash. You expend a tremendous amount of money and effort to provide childcare, as opposed to the women staying home and raising their own kids. I'm not sure the GDP growth from those cubicle jobs are really worth it.

 

The only reason government should subsidize child care is so that government can raise our Nations children. Remember when a one income family was enough so a parent was there to raise their children? Government has done so much to destroy that. We hear so much about the "greatest generation" that stormed the beaches of Normandy. We must remember that a two parent family was the rule then and a single income was sufficient. Those days are over and now many are calling government to raise our children.

 

exactly, back then when two parents worked it was to get ahead, now it's required to do what one parent could do in the past

 

Free would be bad. Too many parents out there would just send their kids for the day and f*** off. But def some parents need some help. Like 50/50 with a demonstrated need, or something. But not free.