We already have daycare and schools, that take care of kids for 8h. And then there's the thing that usually parents like to spend time with their children.

It would be simply better (probably harder) to improve society so one could have a great work-life balance.

▲

lostmsu 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think parents don't usually like to spend time with their children. I imagine that's the reason why a lot of people are childless these days. If your work and/or hobbies are very exciting, spending time with children is a downgrade.

▲

graemep 4 days ago | parent [-]

Most people do not have such exciting work or hobbies, and most parents love spending time with their children.

I can understand people with really fascinating jobs that they care about deeply making that decision, but very few people have such great jobs or hobbies. Yes, if you are an academic, or a monk/nun, or something else you deeply believe in, but for most people there is very little that is more rewarding than having children.

▲

lostmsu 4 days ago | parent [-]

How would you explain the drop of birthrates in Nordic countries then?

	▲	graemep 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I have no idea as I do not know those cultures. There are many possible explanations. However, there are not going to be factors specific to some countries. As it is so widespread its most likely its a common factor or factors. The underlying reasons are probably not that different from those in South Korea. "By the time a child turns ten, their mother will have seen her earnings fall by an average of 66 percent, considerably higher than the earnings penalty in countries including the US (31 percent), UK (44 percent), and Sweden (32 percent)" So Sweden is not as bad as SK, but slightly worse than the US on that particular economic factor. "But South Korea is even worse. Almost 80 percent of children attend a hagwon, a type of private cram school operating in the evenings and on weekends" I think that sort of thing is a factor too, and, again, in many countries.

▲

koakuma-chan 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> And then there's the thing that usually parents like to spend time with their children.

As another commenter pointed out, I don’t have children, and don’t plan to ever have children, so I may not have the full picture here.

But spending time with their children seems to be just a selfish want of parents, and not something that is beneficial to children themselves. I think people need to think of their children first, and not only of themselves.

▲

eudamoniac 4 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm, but parents spending time with children is very important to the children. For example, it generally leads to better outcomes for a child to remain with their meth addict parents or their occasionally homeless parents or their violent drunk parents, than for the child to enter foster care. Being away from parents is just that bad.

Homeschooled children, also, have higher educational attainments on average, by a lot. I think you'll find that if you come up with your own proxy measurement for this question it will also point towards more parent time being better.

▲

koakuma-chan 4 days ago | parent [-]

For one, meth addict or homeless or violent drunk parents would probably not be able to do homeschooling. Then, homeschooling is probably only better because it is 1 on 1, and not 1 on dozens as it is in public schools. For me, it doesn't make sense that parents are somehow magically better than professional educators, if you assume that the professional educators are actually motivated and care (there are people in this thread who are arguing that generally parents care and professionals don't).

	▲	graemep 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> For one, meth addict or homeless or violent drunk parents would probably not be able to do homeschooling. Two distinct groups of people who for different reasons show kids do better with parents. The point is parents are better at raising kids an people who are trained but not family. > Then, homeschooling is probably only better because it is 1 on 1, and not 1 on dozens as it is in public schools. Its not all one to one though. Even when it is one to one it is almost always far fewer hours than at school. A lot of school kids get one to one attention of top of classes (tuition for teenagers has really taken off here in the UK in recent years). My kids did classes and online courses and taught themselves for some subjects and still did a lot better in those subjects than school kids do. There are advantages to being outside a system individualisation, efficient use or time, learning study skills and self-discipline, etc. > if you assume that the professional educators are actually motivated and care Most do, some do not care (they should not be in the profession, but they exist) or are demotivated by the system them work in. They are also often constrained by the school system. They are pressured to hit metrics which are often not in the best interest of children (especially in the long term). It tends to lead to a lot of studying the exam rather than the subject, for example.
	▲	4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]