▲ | bryanlarsen 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 greedy job + 1 non-greedy job + daycare is surely better for the economy than 1 greedy job + no job, isn't it? If the economy is what you're trying to optimize for. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | chlodwig 2 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don't want to optimize for the economy... but if I did ... Instead of having the second parents work the non-greedy job painting a house or what-not, and then third-parties working in the child care industry ... just have the second parent take care of their own children and the third-parties painting the houses or what not. Your equation leaves out that the parent taking care of their own kid frees up the workers from the daycare industry to do something else. So their is no net loss in output. It only is a net loss if daycare is so much more efficient at taking care of kids that one day-care worker can free up multiple parents to work non-greedy jobs, but when you look at the all-in costs of daycare including administration and facilities and floaters that is not really the case. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|