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
Would make sense IMO to provide an equal value waiver to those who take care of their kid rather than send them to childcare. Stay at home moms do not provide a less valuable service than childcare providers. This policy appears to disincentives children staying with their mother even when it is preferred.

>>mothba+w7
> Would make sense IMO to provide an equal value waiver to those who take care of their kid rather than send them to childcare.

This is a great way to kill a policy.

It would technically be most fair if every parent was given the same amount of money per child, period. Then they could do what they needed or wanted with it.

But doing so would not only increase the costs dramatically (by a multiple) it would give money to many parents who didn’t need it for child care.

That’s great in a hypothetical world where budgets are infinite, but in the real world they’re not. The more broadly you spread the money, the less benefit each person receives. If you extended an equal benefit to parents who were already okay with keeping their children home, it’s likely that the real outcome would be reduced benefits for everyone going to daycare. Now you’re giving checks to parents who were already doing okay at home but also diminished the childcare benefit for those who needed it, which was the goal in the beginning.

>>Aurorn+cc
I guess Youre not a fan of UBI?

>>itake+Hd
I'm not the user you're asking but the same logic holds true for UBI, yes. The societies with the most effective social welfare programs do it via a robust and de-stigmatized social safety net. I think most of the common criticisms of UBI (it will make people lazy, its not fair, it will cause inflation etc) are silly, and I also generally support universal programs over means testing or exemptions. Still, I will be a skeptic until I see a somewhat large scale successful rollout of a UBI program beyond just studies and pilots.

>>mcbobg+0g
Many of the Persian Gulf GCC nations essentially had a form of generous UBI since the early 80s. It has certainly made people far less enterprising and productive. Inflation hasnt happened since they import the vast majority of their requirements. It has led to increased religiosity etc since people are freed up to engage in religious activities all day long and don't necessarily have to develop skills like social competency or engage with others.

>>bongom+7m
Many north African and middle eastern states tried to switch to democracy and that did not go as planned either, would that mean that democracy does not work?

Any policy (UBI or others) must take into account the state and potential of the country. Based on the Gulf state UBI example (if correct, I did not check) it would mean that with their initial conditions UBI will not result in developing skills (although, thinking of it, maybe their purpose of giving UBI was close to the one observed, their ruler don't strike me as very progressive).