> This is one of those cultural ideas embedded in XXI Century logic which only does harm and transmits the wrong message: people’s life is as valuable as the money the work or the “job” they have, and of course, caring for the family is not a proper job.
First off, what if someone doesn't want to be a stay at home parent? Why force traditional values on them?
But, in terms of pure economics, let's put it at an extreme.
Child-care is too expensive, a woman who would otherwise go on to make breakthroughs in medical science stays at home.
The lost value to society is in the literal millions.
This scenario only has to be repeated a few times before it becomes economically irresponsible to not offer subsidized child care.
And, given how large the population is, this situation will happen.
The ideal of capitalism is that people are rewarded for their contributions to society overall, by providing value for others (ideally increasing net happiness!) people are reimbursed.
Now I'm not going to even try and say that is what always happens, obviously things have gotten a bit off kilter, but by and large I'd say that for many jobs out there, that is still true.
And the thing is, some people have an outsized impact, potential is on a curve, and if a single person on the far end of the "can help out humanity' curve is not enabled to do all that they can do to help out, then we all lose out.
The problem is there is no easy way to know in large swaths what jobs are BS or unnecessary.
And of course someone could have a BS job and then later move on to a job that does have an impact!
Trying to evaluate the worth of people is pretty much futile, and whenever it has been attempted there have been huge negative outcomes.
And even during less extreme historical circumstances, it is just expensive to do, the recent example being drug testing for welfare recipients. The cost to do the drug testing far exceeded the money the government saved denying benefits.
In the end being non-judgemental and treating people equally turns out to be a rather economically efficient solution.
> (1)are all cooks and restaurant that necessary ?
The idea seems pretty ubiquitous, as soon as a society gets any amount of wealth you'll find people being paid to cook food at scale.
And cooking is one of those things that scales up very well, it doesn't have to mean fancy sit down restaurants. There are still a few places I can grab food for cheaper than what I'd be able to prepare it myself at that quality level, though sadly those types of venues have seemingly been on a decline for decades.
>But, in terms of pure economics, let's put it at an extreme.
>Child-care is too expensive, a woman who would otherwise go on to make breakthroughs in medical science stays at home.
This sounds like a fun game.
Child-care is subsidized. A child who would otherwise have been raised by a loving parent is raised by minimum wage daycare workers who don't care about the child.
The child consequently develops antisocial behavior disorders and shoots up a classroom full of children, one of which would otherwise have gone on to make breakthroughs in medical science.
> Child-care is subsidized. A child who would otherwise have been raised by a loving parent is raised by minimum wage daycare workers who don't care about the child.
You are assuming massive incompetence on the part of child care workers with no prior evidence. At scale of course saving lives will result in the life of a future criminal being saved, but on the whole the # of good people outweighs the number of bad people, thus why society continues to, however slowly, lurch forwards.
In comparison to unknown potential future murders, there are known numbers for how many woman leave the workforce after having kids, 30% of women with bachelors degrees, and 19% with a Masters or PhD. [1]
19% of women with a post graduate degree is huge. How many millions of dollars of investment in education is that? If someone wants to leave work then of course they should be allowed, but if they don't and feel they are forced to? That sucks, and it is a net loss for society.
>You are assuming massive incompetence on the part of child care workers with no prior evidence.
The fact that they earn minimum wage is evidence of their collective incompetence. The fact that they would not be emotionally destroyed by never seeing the child again when either they leave their job or the child moves on is evidence of their indifference.
>19% of women with a post graduate degree is huge. How many millions of dollars of investment in education is that? If someone wants to leave work then of course they should be allowed, but if they don't and feel they are forced to? That sucks, and it is a net loss for society.
Should we not first ask why they thought it was a good idea to get an advanced degree?
>So, because society undervalues value their work, they are incompetent losers?
Because society pays less for that sort of work, the sort of people that end up doing that work will tend to be less competent than the people that do more highly paid work.
I'm not sure how you've concluded that society undervalues their work, though. That seems to me to be a matter of opinion.
> The child consequently develops antisocial behavior disorders and shoots up a classroom full of children
School-shootings are such a big problem in Quebec and Scandinavian countries where childcare is subsidized. They must be caused by the evils of subsidized childcare.
That wouldn't support my claim very much at all, really, because there are too many confounding variables and too few countries to support any kind of causitive claim. I don't know if countries with subsidized childcare have more antisocial behavior, and I don't think it would shed any light on the situation. The subsidization is only relevant insofar as it increases utilization of childcare.
The only thing that can shed light on the question of whether childcare is harmful to children is scientific research with large sample sizes that carefully control for confounding variables.
First off, what if someone doesn't want to be a stay at home parent? Why force traditional values on them?
But, in terms of pure economics, let's put it at an extreme.
Child-care is too expensive, a woman who would otherwise go on to make breakthroughs in medical science stays at home.
The lost value to society is in the literal millions.
This scenario only has to be repeated a few times before it becomes economically irresponsible to not offer subsidized child care.
And, given how large the population is, this situation will happen.
The ideal of capitalism is that people are rewarded for their contributions to society overall, by providing value for others (ideally increasing net happiness!) people are reimbursed.
Now I'm not going to even try and say that is what always happens, obviously things have gotten a bit off kilter, but by and large I'd say that for many jobs out there, that is still true.
And the thing is, some people have an outsized impact, potential is on a curve, and if a single person on the far end of the "can help out humanity' curve is not enabled to do all that they can do to help out, then we all lose out.