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
You aren't wrong but calling it being "Student #642 in a government childcare facility" the wrong way of looking at it. Children grow up best when they are allowed to play with other children. Modern society robs kids of that and helicopter parents are bad for society.