zlacker

You don't subsidize the rich, yet you subsidize rich child care corporations (or high-level bureaucrats in the event it is public) at the expense of not subsidizing stay at home moms.

You don't want people paid for taking care of their children, but it's OK if other people are paid for taking care of their chidlren.

None of this makes sense. Especially not this false dichotomy that either you send your kids to daycare or they don't learn to interact with others early.

>>mothba+(OP)
We live in different societies, yours is extremely on the individualism spectrum and ours is on the "common good" spectrum. We don't subsidize the childcare corporations here, we do what's best for society.

>>lillec+t2
I might be wrong, but I believe in Sweden salaries are able to be publicly found. Find some high level people in the public or private childcares in your nation who are beneficiaries of these subsidies and then tell me how rich they are compared to the average stay at home mom.

>>mothba+w4
There are barely any stay at home moms because it's socially detrimental, the ones who are are either social outcasts by lack of capability or religious oppression.

We should not subsidize stay at home moms or dad's because it's bad for society, if they can afford to do it or stretch their economy to do it for other reasons it's their bad choice, and we allow free choice even if it's bad, that's why cigarettes are still allowed.

I don't know who to look up, but if you have some suggestions I could look it up through ratsit.se

>>lillec+Yq
I appreciate your honesty, there are not many willing to admit it's really about viewing stay-at-home parents as morally deficient. I have no interest in refuting the argument, it might be true, merely to point out I think why we're having so much trouble getting straight answers is that the underlying motivation is going unspoken.