zlacker

>>toomuc+(OP)
I'm going to take the reverse position. I don't like this policy.

I think it would be much better to provide a one year paid stipend so that a parent can be home with the children during their tender years.

This entire structure is set up to keep the boss happy while a stranger raises your child during their most formative and vulnerable years.

>>declan+df
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.

>>smeeth+9j
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.

>>xp84+Ul
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.