= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mayonesa comments on "NRx" vs. "Prog" Assumptions: Locating the Sources of Disagreement Between Neoreactionaries and Progressives (Part 1) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Comments (340)
The best financial incentives for childrearing are ones that remove the financial deficits caused by having a stay at home mom.
I can only think of two general ways of removing the financial difference between the mother not working and the mother working: a subsidy for the former or laws against the latter. Do you favour either of these, or some other incentive?
Do you mean "between the mother not working and the mother working and hiring a nanny"?
I mean between the mother not working and the mother working and getting the childcare done somehow — or, for that matter, not. Why?
Nevermind, I had misread the thread.
And yet fertility is inversely correlated with income. So it appears that the "people are too poor to raise a family" theory doesn't hold up.
I'd guess by “financial deficits” mayonesa meant opportunity costs, which are higher for a prospective mother in an upper-class career than for one in a welfare trap.
By providing free childcare, or by paying people to be stay at home moms, or both or something else?
By improving working conditions and monetary value so that a home needs only one working parent.
Time was when a home did need only one working parent (that is, working to bring in money). If things are always getting better, and they seem to be (in the developed world, e.g. the Internet, etc.), what changed?
Recently answered in detail on State Star Codex. Basically, two-income families are competing against each other for housing in good areas, driving up prices, and seeing no benefit in disposable income.
Ok, now taboo "good area".
Area with good school.
"Good schools" is a euphemism.
And a good school is the sort of school that those families want to send their children to. I don't know anything about how high school education is organised in the US — why is the market not supplying this need?
The goodness of a school is not a property of the school's organizational structure or teaching methodology so much as it is a property of the students who attend the school ("a ghetto/barrio/alternative name for low-class-hell-hole isn't a physical location, its people"). Discrimination on the basis of anything but money is illegal, so good schools are either public schools in areas in which it is expensive to live, or private schools which cannot be attended without paying expensive tuition.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/jra/innovations_lowhanging_fruits_on_the_demand_or/amd5
SSC is sceptical about whether the effect claimed in the book he's reviewing is big enough to account for the problem.
Part is what TheAncientGeek says, part is that present-day children have higher living standards than children a while ago, and if they were OK with earlier children's living standard (and didn't care about status signalling) they could probably get it with one parent's income (see also).
(Both Mr. and Mrs. Money Moustache and Julia Wise and Jeff Kaufman are raising children on a tight budget.)
Well, that's certainly ambitious...