zlacker

>>toomuc+(OP)
This is fantastic! I hope they succeed and there is no abuse or other issues, because it will show how much an economy can grow when women are allowed to work to their full potential. Families who were previously in poverty because the mom would struggle to pay for childcare to work can now have assurance kids are ok while the mom can pursue jobs, start her own small business (huge chunk of businesses are small businesses ran by women) and prosper. If you pose your child’s safety vs another dollar, most parents would vote for their children. But if the children are taken care of, parents can give the economy their best and the taxes paid and GDP gained will pay back for the expense manyfold.

>>dzink+Y6
You realize a lot of people actually prefer to give their child their best instead of outsourcing it so they can focus on bettering the economy, right?

>>WD-42+59
It's an interesting way to divide up a country's labour.

50% do child rearing, and the other 50% do literally all other professions.

If you did have such a large cohort engaged in that activity, there should probably be some kind of education where one could learn 'the best'.

Of course people with kids would be too busy to attend.

And the ones who did attend wouldn't have any kids to look after.

>>mrkeen+fc
>50% do child rearing, and the other 50% do literally all other professions.

That's not that revolutionary; it's kind of traditional.

>>kbelde+Af
I don't think it's quite accurate. Historically, lower-class mothers and a fair chunk of middle class mothers also did some work outside the home: as maids, nannies, teachers, gardeners, etc.

The 1950s USA "golden era" where lower-class mothers could afford to stay home was a statistical anomaly, gifted to this country by virtue of our unique position as the major economic superpower untouched by WWII.