The most obvious example is the children of addicts. It’s hard to imagine a kid is better off stuck at home with druggie parents than spending the day in daycare.

▲

declan_roberts 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

A good example of bottom quintile policy. Because the bottom quintile has a better outcome with a certain approach, it becomes standard care for everyone else.

Once you see it, you'll see it everywhere.

	▲	smeeth 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		…so? A realistic stay-at-home subsidy would max out around $30k. Your proposal only meaningfully shifts incentives for the bottom income quintile. For everyone else: - Upper-income families can already afford to choose whatever setup they want. - Middle-income families couldn’t take it because it’d mean too steep a drop in income. So the alternative you proposed economically benefits the bottom quintile while leaving their kids worse off. For everyone else, it probably either doesn't matter or gives them cash they don't need as much.
	▲	cindyllm 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

Minor49er 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Anyone would be better off being away from addicts though