Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone else back up the point flagged by 20:22? We just went from pricey daycare to pre-k, and I've kind of assumed the educational side would be similar-to-worse, because I'm comparing the pricey daycare more to private school. But maybe that's totally offbase?

Time will tell, somewhat, but I'm curious what others' experiences are...

This is EXACTLY why foks get so adversarial on the Preschool thread. Preschool and DayCare are COMPLETELY different. Preschool is a very enriching environment with actual teachers and standards. Daycare is just babysitting, maybe at the nicer ones with some learning thrown in.

I highly suggest that if you have the time to get adversarial about this, you do a little research about child development, the human brain, and what leads to successful outcomes first.

Yes, for children in families (usually very low-income) where parents spend little time with their children, don't have books around the house, can't take kids outside, and resort to television most of the time, early "preschool" with opportunities for exposure to an "enriching environment" is important.

But otherwise, any GOOD preschool teacher will tell you that the most important thing for kids at this age is plenty of opportunity for free, unstructured play. In many parts of the world (including parts of Europe, Japan, and Waldorf schools in our own country), kids aren't exposed to academics until Grade 1. For some reason, the most affluent and educated among us-- the ones who need be least concerned-- seem to feel that if our kids don't master their skills EARLY, they'll fall behind. Unfortunately, skills like letter recognition and reading, following directions to create art projects and play games as told, and such often replace the kind of interactions and play that help kids develop into creative, curious citizens.

"Just babysitting," my friend-- childcare-- is what people have been doing quite well from the dawn of civilization. Kids can learn a LOT in a good daycare environment, and I really find the insistence on labeling something "school" and demanding "standards" quite ridiculous. Yes, I send my kids to something called preschool, but honestly, I want it to look more like daycare: teachers who frequently give hugs and affection to the kids; tons of freedom to play; mixed ages so the kids can learn to be helpful to their younger peers and learn from older kids; LOTS of outdoor time; not so many toys or activities that kids aren't forced to use their imaginations. The teachers tell me this is what they want and believe in, too. Heck, KINDERGARTEN teachers tell me this is what kids need. Too bad they're at the mercy of parents who don't know better and schools systems that are set in their ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone else back up the point flagged by 20:22? We just went from pricey daycare to pre-k, and I've kind of assumed the educational side would be similar-to-worse, because I'm comparing the pricey daycare more to private school. But maybe that's totally offbase?

Time will tell, somewhat, but I'm curious what others' experiences are...

This is EXACTLY why foks get so adversarial on the Preschool thread. Preschool and DayCare are COMPLETELY different. Preschool is a very enriching environment with actual teachers and standards. Daycare is just babysitting, maybe at the nicer ones with some learning thrown in.

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone else back up the point flagged by 20:22? We just went from pricey daycare to pre-k, and I've kind of assumed the educational side would be similar-to-worse, because I'm comparing the pricey daycare more to private school. But maybe that's totally offbase?

Time will tell, somewhat, but I'm curious what others' experiences are...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you all really think that everyone should work? Is there any idea in your mind that maybe, just maybe, it might be better for our society in the long run if some people did not work? And if you disagree, what do you think about the fact that we have more people than jobs? You not only think everyone must work, but they must work for substandard pay, part time, no benefits, etc?

It's easy to say everyone should work when you have a relatively easy job and good life and you see real value from working (whether personal fulfillment or a living wage). There are not enough jobs that pay living wages for everyone. Have you all forgot that helpful McDonalds primer on how a worker could live on its salary (plus a second job?) already?

Think the job market is tight now? Imagine if all the formerly-professional SAHMS were also still working. Half our block are SAHMs with JDs and masters degrees.

Anonymous wrote:Do you all really think that everyone should work? Is there any idea in your mind that maybe, just maybe, it might be better for our society in the long run if some people did not work? And if you disagree, what do you think about the fact that we have more people than jobs? You not only think everyone must work, but they must work for substandard pay, part time, no benefits, etc?

It's easy to say everyone should work when you have a relatively easy job and good life and you see real value from working (whether personal fulfillment or a living wage). There are not enough jobs that pay living wages for everyone. Have you all forgot that helpful McDonalds primer on how a worker could live on its salary (plus a second job?) already?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Even the European countries with the best social systems don't provide stipends to SAHPs (only for the first year, when there is paid maternity leave). But they do provide subsidized daycare, not just pre-school. They prefer lower income parents to stay in the workforce rather than collecting welfare and staying home. My brother pays around $250/month for full-time daycare in Berlin, but if you are really low income, it is free.

Those countries are all massively broke (except Norway, which breaks even due to its oil production), and the high cost of their taxes and other government interventions has made young adult unemployment and underemployment epidemic, with the result that middle income people are not having kids at all. The average birthrate is 1.5 per woman, and if immigrants are taken out of that number, it is close to or below 1 per woman for the native born depending on the county. The very high cost of these social programs is not, on average, helping moms and kids; it is leading to fewer women becoming moms / fewer kids. I do not understand why this is seen as a positive, pro-woman, or pro-kid thing.

It would be lovely if you could spend money on families without also using high tax rates to take money away from families to fund that spending. Unless you are planning to strike a North Sea oil gusher (Norway), no one can do this. The statistics are grim: more spending, means less freedom for individuals' spending decisions, and also means that educated people who get hit by the taxes (since they are the earners) don't have as many kids, and often have no kids. That is a social disaster.

Actually, Germany (which is what I was thinking of in my post) is doing pretty well economically, in many ways better than the US in recent years.

Holland is also doing pretty well and they do this as well.

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, that Europe as a whole is economically ailing due to their social programs is a favorite Republican straw man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Even the European countries with the best social systems don't provide stipends to SAHPs (only for the first year, when there is paid maternity leave). But they do provide subsidized daycare, not just pre-school. They prefer lower income parents to stay in the workforce rather than collecting welfare and staying home. My brother pays around $250/month for full-time daycare in Berlin, but if you are really low income, it is free.

Those countries are all massively broke (except Norway, which breaks even due to its oil production), and the high cost of their taxes and other government interventions has made young adult unemployment and underemployment epidemic, with the result that middle income people are not having kids at all. The average birthrate is 1.5 per woman, and if immigrants are taken out of that number, it is close to or below 1 per woman for the native born depending on the county. The very high cost of these social programs is not, on average, helping moms and kids; it is leading to fewer women becoming moms / fewer kids. I do not understand why this is seen as a positive, pro-woman, or pro-kid thing.

It would be lovely if you could spend money on families without also using high tax rates to take money away from families to fund that spending. Unless you are planning to strike a North Sea oil gusher (Norway), no one can do this. The statistics are grim: more spending, means less freedom for individuals' spending decisions, and also means that educated people who get hit by the taxes (since they are the earners) don't have as many kids, and often have no kids. That is a social disaster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Even the European countries with the best social systems don't provide stipends to SAHPs (only for the first year, when there is paid maternity leave). But they do provide subsidized daycare, not just pre-school. They prefer lower income parents to stay in the workforce rather than collecting welfare and staying home. My brother pays around $250/month for full-time daycare in Berlin, but if you are really low income, it is free.

Those countries are all massively broke (except Norway, which breaks even due to its oil production), and the high cost of their taxes and other government interventions has made young adult unemployment and underemployment epidemic, with the result that middle income people are not having kids at all. The average birthrate is 1.5 per woman, and if immigrants are taken out of that number, it is close to or below 1 per woman for the native born depending on the county. The very high cost of these social programs is not, on average, helping moms and kids; it is leading to fewer women becoming moms / fewer kids. I do not understand why this is seen as a positive, pro-woman, or pro-kid thing.

It would be lovely if you could spend money on families without also using high tax rates to take money away from families to fund that spending. Unless you are planning to strike a North Sea oil gusher (Norway), no one can do this. The statistics are grim: more spending, means less freedom for individuals' spending decisions, and also means that educated people who get hit by the taxes (since they are the earners) don't have as many kids, and often have no kids. That is a social disaster.

Actually, Germany (which is what I was thinking of in my post) is doing pretty well economically, in many ways better than the US in recent years.

Holland is also doing pretty well and they do this as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Even the European countries with the best social systems don't provide stipends to SAHPs (only for the first year, when there is paid maternity leave). But they do provide subsidized daycare, not just pre-school. They prefer lower income parents to stay in the workforce rather than collecting welfare and staying home. My brother pays around $250/month for full-time daycare in Berlin, but if you are really low income, it is free.

Those countries are all massively broke (except Norway, which breaks even due to its oil production), and the high cost of their taxes and other government interventions has made young adult unemployment and underemployment epidemic, with the result that middle income people are not having kids at all. The average birthrate is 1.5 per woman, and if immigrants are taken out of that number, it is close to or below 1 per woman for the native born depending on the county. The very high cost of these social programs is not, on average, helping moms and kids; it is leading to fewer women becoming moms / fewer kids. I do not understand why this is seen as a positive, pro-woman, or pro-kid thing.

It would be lovely if you could spend money on families without also using high tax rates to take money away from families to fund that spending. Unless you are planning to strike a North Sea oil gusher (Norway), no one can do this. The statistics are grim: more spending, means less freedom for individuals' spending decisions, and also means that educated people who get hit by the taxes (since they are the earners) don't have as many kids, and often have no kids. That is a social disaster.

Actually, Germany (which is what I was thinking of in my post) is doing pretty well economically, in many ways better than the US in recent years.

Anonymous wrote:My main problem is that it is all or nothing. My DS would have had to start PK3 at 2 years old and attend the full day program 5 days a week. There is no option for part time or half days. I don't want a 24k tax break- how about just giving me a break for the 350$ a month co-op preschool he attends 3 mornings a week if DC wants to promote early childhood education.

Anonymous wrote:Those countries are all massively broke (except Norway, which breaks even due to its oil production), and the high cost of their taxes and other government interventions has made young adult unemployment and underemployment epidemic, with the result that middle income people are not having kids at all. The average birthrate is 1.5 per woman, and if immigrants are taken out of that number, it is close to or below 1 per woman for the native born depending on the county. The very high cost of these social programs is not, on average, helping moms and kids; it is leading to fewer women becoming moms / fewer kids. I do not understand why this is seen as a positive, pro-woman, or pro-kid thing.

It would be lovely if you could spend money on families without also using high tax rates to take money away from families to fund that spending. Unless you are planning to strike a North Sea oil gusher (Norway), no one can do this. The statistics are grim: more spending, means less freedom for individuals' spending decisions, and also means that educated people who get hit by the taxes (since they are the earners) don't have as many kids, and often have no kids. That is a social disaster.