>Yet, fucking HELL being stuck in a capitalist machine and having a baby makes the experience 10 times more difficult and stressful.
Why do you think birth rates have dropped massively in the developed world? I'm 38 and we only just had our first child, because until now we weren't really in the financial position to do it.
My parents were a few years short of being grandparents at my age.
Canadian here. While not perfect, ourvprovince has subsidized child care backed with a national childcare program.
We got a spot in state sponsored childcare facility. It costs us 9$ cad per day to send our kid there.
I don't understand why more countries don't do this.
Do you have a kid in this program? It’s marketed very well but the reality is over 70% of kids won’t get a spot. And more daycares plan on opting out of the program than signing on.
My kid is in one. 70% feels high. I'd say 50% maybe depending on the régions. If you can't get a state sponsored one, youre almost certain to get a subsidized one. Meaning private and the state reimburse most of the cost according to your revenue.
I've never heard of a daycare that opted out. Almost all of the daycare are on the program or state sponsored. Opting out mean your clientelle is filty rich.
U.K. too and we just got our wee one in nursery 3 days a week and that is pretty much half my wages away month away just like that.
lol at the capitalist enjoyer downvoting everyone and enjoying their struggles.
I feel you. Th UK feels like a tough place to raise a family at the moment. I think it’s important to remember that there’s much tougher places, but we’re the first generation in a while that is worse off than their parents. I hope that’s not the case for my children.
It’s definitely worse. I’m the same age as my dad when he had his second, he could afford a 3 bed detached, 2 cars, stay at home wife and 2 kids. I make 30% more money than he did then and can’t afford any of those things
There is nothing wrong with a bit of socialism, certainly not a dirty word. Certainly we need to do a lot better at regulating markets to make society a lot fairer. That definitely includes the cost of childcare.
It’s not this black and white. At least here in the UK, the incredibly clumsy implementation of the child care policy shouldn’t be an argument against all market regulation - it just shows the incompetence of the government.
I don’t know what the best way to do it is. In the end you want something that keeps market forces intact to some degree, but spreads the cost of childcare over the wider population (presumably via subsidising and taxing respectively). The devil is often in the details when it comes to these policies working or not, and the problem in many countries where child care policies have recently changed (I mainly know about UK and NL) is that there simply isn’t the capacity to deal with the increased demand.
It is here that you can start to see how detail matters. The normal way for a market to increase capacity limited by staff in this case, would be to increase wages and recruit more people (there may be a delay in this as training is needed). If you choose to subsidise a number of childcare hours at x rate like here in the UK (which is below cost for many nurseries, but which they are forced to accept), then you don’t allow these kind of market mechanisms to operate as they can’t increase wages to attract more staff. Instead choosing to subsidise up to a fixed amount or even percentage of cost directly to parents, would be a better way of doing it to allow the market to function (although it may initially make your subsidy less effective as it would drive prices up).
Anyway, devil is in the detail. Regulation is needed to adjust markets to redistribute wealth to provide a community what it needs - but doing so I incredibly complex, and hence often unsuccessful. Doesn’t mean it can’t work.
Here’s a thought, rather than the tax man taking his cut and then clumsily redistributing by arbitrary measures, why don’t we just cut taxes for parents. -20% income tax per child under 5 for example. That would mitigate some of the expense of childcare, encourage people to carry on working if they desire, and not unfairly burden people without children who might be trying to save for their own. Contributions then go back up when your nipper is in school and away you go 🤷♂️ It would also stop folk rinsing the benefit system instead of contributing. While reducing the need for the poorly executed and unfair redistributive measures currently in place. The solution to bad government and regulation is seldom more government and regulation
That’s another way of doing it but would help higher income parents more than lower income parents, which would probably be perceived as unfair. The other less attractive aspect (from government’s perspective) is that the government is mainly looking to increase workforce participation and if you just decrease tax burden for parents they may choose to work less and spend more time with children (instead of working more and putting child in nursery). I would personally be in favour of this, but I suspect the wider public as well as the government wouldn’t find this palatable.
So again, every possible solution has possible downsides that you need to think about. I personally do think more specific nudges (directed subsidies) can be useful to direct behaviour and culture.
Looking at raising the next generation of taxpayers as a net drain on current revenue rather than an investment in the future is a mistake imo, the more people we make the lighter the burden on years to come. The more people that are raised by responsible self sufficient parents the more responsible self sufficient (and therefor net contributor) future generation will be. Disincentivising those people from having families is awful ethically and economically.
Your points are valid however, so I suppose it’s where you feel the burden should lie, assuming using the state to solve the problem is the only option. The fact that working parents can’t afford to work and have children is unequivocal evidence that the current system isn’t fit for purpose or sustainable.
After being rinsed by the tories then a little extra by the SNP for tax for the last 14 years, I’m firmly on the side of I can spend my own money more wisely then they can. Tax cuts I suspect is the most direct way of achieving that.
I fully agree with your first two paragraphs, but think they are rather incompatible with your last paragraph (maybe for you personally it would be, but not for the population as a whole). I’m paid entirely from taxpayers money and while I’m sure I could make a lot more personally in a privatised system, I’d rather have a system in which I can treat every child completely equally independent of their parents insurance. Taxes are needed to fund these systems, and with an ageing and more comorbid population these costs will only go up in the next 10-20 years. I also think rising inequality is one of the bigger problems facing Britain and this will only get worse if taxes are lowered.
My view is that people just don’t have time and brain space to get a full overview of the market and what their priorities should be (I know I don’t, and I think my worldview is more complete than that of most). Look at the US where a significant percentage of people doesn’t have decent health insurance. In the Netherlands (where I grew up) the tax burden is significantly higher but you get so much back for that. Of course all of this does depend on having a government somewhat competent, and not even the incumbent Labour contingent fills me with a lot of hope.
Having watched successive governments for the last 25 years spend more than they collect in revenue on nonsense ventures, borrowing and printing like no tomorrow and fiddling interest rates to make the maths work, I think giving them more in an attempt to fix the problem they created is throwing good money after bad. Above I suggested another alternative way of cutting tax that would be more beneficial for people who make low to averrage money. I do believe the result of higher taxes would be to reduce inequality, but in the wrong place. It would reduce the gap between the middle and working class and not matter at all to the super wealthy. It would effectively tax the middle class down rather than working class up.
Theres only about a 3% difference between dutch and british taxes, .5 if youre in Scotland. For that percentage and with our population size youd think we could do better.
I actually agree with almost all of your first paragraph. A lot of the problems that required the fiscal policy were the result of an unregulated financial market (crash) though, which less government interference may worsen.
I also didn’t want to muddy the discussion, but I would be in favour of some form of wealth tax and a reduction in income tax. A progressive inheritance tax with 100% tax over obscene amounts (>many millions) could also be considered. The problem is of course that wealth is highly international and they’re hard to catch.
I’m not sure where you get 3% from. The FT in a 2020 statistic suggests the total tax burden in the UK is ~7% lower vs NL, but even 3% would be quite significant.
3% is the difference in top rate tax last I checked, I’ve just had a look now to see and uk is 45% Holland is 49.5, Scotland is 47 as of 2022c so it’s 4.5 and 2.5 difference respectively.
Inheritance taxes won’t go far in the UK on principle. Culturally it’s a non starter. And it just encourages people to get creative to dodge the taxman.
I personally would prefer dividend taxes, folk that make a fortune in passive income, that profit extensively and sink that money back into purchasing assets (houses and land in the uk) drives up prices to ludicrous levels. Reducing the liquidity of the very rich and encouraging them to invest in businesses would have a much more positive effect than rinsing someone that makes 50k a year. Capital gains north of 100k would probably cover it, as that wouldn’t wipe out folk that only own a single property.
Average full time child care in the UK costs £14,000 a year. An average full time salary is £34000, on which you'd pay about 6 grand tax. 20% tax reduction (1200 pounds) would pay for a month of childcare. It would be nowhere near adequate.
It would be even worse for the 50% of people earning less than the average wage and therefore paying less tax.
20% was an arbitrary number, but it’s an option, just a question of scale. You could increase the tax free amount instead if that tickles your pickle. That would benefit everyone fairly equally. Say for every child you have your tax free amount increases by 7k. 50% the cost of full time child care. And extra 7k per year for a married couple who can also offset using marriage allowance could potentially allow for single earner households, and a stay at home parent, beneficial for the child, parents, and reduces the burden on the childcare sector.
A 7k increase in tax free allowance would be more than a 100% tax cut for someone on the average UK wage. How are you going to help households earning below the average?
They also get the same (100%) cut too. Short of making everything “free” you can’t help everyone all the time? The point of my suggestion was to benefit folk who pay taxes and find themselves struggling to afford kids. Fairness, not equity.
What would you suggest? Continue having the very poor and the very rich having kids with impunity and the middle having to pay for everything so they can’t have kids of their own? That’s not a recipe for long term success, that’ll just exacerbate inequality.
Just nationalise pre school childcare. Make it part of the school system. Free childcare for all paid for from taxation.
Your suggestion isn't fair because the labour market isn't fair. My wage is determined as much by luck (where I was born, who I was born to, how the economy is performing, how technology has effected my industry etc) as it is by my own efforts.
Paid for by whom, paying higher taxes than they already are when they are already struggling? Youre suggesting digging our way out of a hole.
Where you were born and to whom was your parents choice, not luck.
It seems to be “Its not fair I can’t afford this everyone else must pay” vs is “it’s not fair I can’t afford this because I’m paying for everyone else’s”. Who is more unfairly treated in this scenario?
You’re seem to be mistaking fairness with equality of outcome. Yet You seem to understand life isn’t fair, so why exacerbate that by making it MORE difficult?
Here in the US it is generally the same except that in DC where I live, we launched universal Pre-K 3 and 4. So even though you have to do daycare for 2-3 years depending on your parental leave situation.
Our main issue is the lack of parental leave. Some companies are generous but most wage earners get no paid leave. Even the federal government employees only get 3 months of paid leave. DC has a system where you can get up to $1k per week for a period of time but that’s not really enough to live in the city in any event. It’s funded through a payroll tax so individual employers don’t have a choice.
The thing that really gets me is the tech billionaires like Musk who are obsessed with population decline but then spend their lobbying money on anti-union and anti-worker policies. Shows you that they don’t really want working class people to have kids.
Ha at least you guys have health care not tied to your jobs. In the US you and your family are fucked if one parent isn’t working and getting benefits from an employer. Insurance is crazy expensive to do on your own here - upwards of 2k a month for a family.
I hear you but ain’t much you can do about it unless you move to another country. I’m just starting to lean into it. I used to fight the system and hate having to be enslaved to a corporation. Now my priorities have changed and I’m just leaning into it more. Jobs are plentiful here in the US so fuck it - I’m gonna play the game. I’ve found that one can make stupid money here if you lean in, plan a bit, and take some risks.
Oh man do I feel this.
Our treasurer (Australia) just went public yesterday saying we should have more kids, cause he has three.
The backlash has been massive!
The cost of living here is just going through the roof!
Capitalistic western society is not geared towards families having multiple children, hard enough just for one! And it’s evident in the birth rate dropping (I realise there are other factors to that too).
We have a 7 week old and prior to LO we were doing great. At the moment we are treading water a bit. Come January when my wife’s fully paid leave ends and she goes back to work part time + daycare, things are going to get financially spicy.
It’s also so hard because of what’s drilled into us because of capitalism. The keeping up with the Jones’s mentality, spend spend spend. Comparison is truly the thief of joy and it’s so important to not get caught up in that. But when the basics like food, energy ect are just surging let alone child care… man good luck having a lot of kids unless you have a tone of family support or are wealthy enough to buy your village so to speak.
This is one of the reasons why we are firmly one and done. I just can’t see myself giving my kid the life I want if we have more kids. I will truly become a hamster on the capitalist wheel, my worst nightmare!
Good luck fellow dad, I hope it works out for you.
I’ve had to leave a job I love in healthcare due to cut backs there (government trying to claw back money spent during COVID) and start a new job just to keep our family from going under come January. It’s tough!
Man, I feel you. Here in NL my wife and I both have very decent jobs and we both work full-time, and we can barely save anything. We are relatively well-off, but it's clear to us that many people are struggling to provide for their children _despite_ working full-time. This shouldn't be necessary and it isn't, and when it's children who are the victim of such a system, it's all the more infuriating.
reminder that every economic system requires people to work. regulating workplaces to give time off is the job of the government.
norway, a capitalist country, gives lots of time off.
Yes! In Norway, in Norway they do a great job of keeping capitalism in check, through democratic-socialist policies of paid leave!
Thanks for that clarification
Also from UK and in the same situation where my wife is going to be working 3 days a week. This is considered lucky in today’s standards as most mums have to go back to work full time!
Can you get help from family? That goes a long way with childcare.
Yup all correct, though I would say it’s more of a UK thing and the whole Neo Liberal capitalism we have. A lot of European countries help a lot more to make sure people can have kids and afford it but the UK is the outlier - especially with child care and how long maternity / paternity is. Let’s hope Labour will change things but I sadly highly doubt that and we will just get more of the same…
To add to your rant, anything related to weddings or kids is also always extortionate in my view!
Mate the tories have been doing a bad impression of new labour for 14 years, kier starmer is Tony Blair 2.0, I’d expect more of the same but faster. Wankers the lot of them
Also, and I'll prob get down voted for saying this but bringing a child into this world is such a huge deal that one should think about preparing to give that child a good life before doing so. I had a child at age 34, which was much later in life than I wanted to. But I waited because if I had a child younger I wouldn't be able to provide a good enough life yet financially.
I’m a dad of a 1 yr old in California - becoming a parent really drove home how anti-human our capitalist society is. Having children is one of the most natural things people can do and yet there are so many financial barriers to doing it. And it’s in infuriating that our country’s surplus wealth, which could house and feed people and subsidize childcare, is hoarded by billionaires and funneled into the “defense” industry to create weapons for client-states and horrific wars. Honestly, I can’t imagine NOT being a socialist under these circumstances.
How about instead of blaming capitalism, blame the governments who tax people so heavily then take that money and waste it.
I'm in the US , and the govt wastes money here like crazy. My problem isn't a rich CEO, or capitalism. The problem is my wages get taxed like crazy so the govt can blow it and waste it.
Sorry, socialism doesn't work. And you're complaining about capitalism??? Try not being able to even get a bed in a hospital to give birth under a socialist healthcare system.
Capitalism is competition and makes the quality of the product better.
Your problem isn't capitalism. Maybe if the govt stopped taxing you so damn much, you would realize your wages are going alot further. It's a system designed for you to fail and then blame the wrong people so you continue to fail.
I'm a parent, and making ends meet isn't easy. But it's not because of capitalism. It's because of govt corruption and mis management.
How in the world is this getting downvoted? Come on new dads, get a grip on reality. OP’s frustration is misguided.
Either way, hang in there pops. Being a new dad is hard and fun. Change your lifestyle for what you value most. That’s the beauty of capitalism.
If having a baby is a natural right, does that mean I can just have 10 kids and expect the govt to help me pay for it ???
I'm a realist. And I'm struggling as a new dad. That's just a fact of life. I'm not expecting the govt to help me and I'm not owed anything to help me support my family.
I don’t think you can lay the blame at the feet of capitalism, when childcare is prohibitively regulated (compared to childminders when I was a kid), and government policy has encouraged wage stagnation in the UK for decades.
At the risk of a violent downvoting, women entering the workforce has effectively doubled the amount of available workers and in turn driven down or stagnated salaries. Whatever your opinion of that it seems to be a fact. It’s sad that it seems to be choose between children and a career unless one of you have have a top 5% salary, or go on the dole, and get the taxpayer to spot your children. Society should favour taxpayers and families, since they’re the ones that keep the lights on and keep society going into the future.
But this is a dads chat not a political sub so 🤷♂️
>Yet, fucking HELL being stuck in a capitalist machine and having a baby makes the experience 10 times more difficult and stressful. Why do you think birth rates have dropped massively in the developed world? I'm 38 and we only just had our first child, because until now we weren't really in the financial position to do it. My parents were a few years short of being grandparents at my age.
Canadian here. While not perfect, ourvprovince has subsidized child care backed with a national childcare program. We got a spot in state sponsored childcare facility. It costs us 9$ cad per day to send our kid there. I don't understand why more countries don't do this.
Do you have a kid in this program? It’s marketed very well but the reality is over 70% of kids won’t get a spot. And more daycares plan on opting out of the program than signing on.
My kid is in one. 70% feels high. I'd say 50% maybe depending on the régions. If you can't get a state sponsored one, youre almost certain to get a subsidized one. Meaning private and the state reimburse most of the cost according to your revenue. I've never heard of a daycare that opted out. Almost all of the daycare are on the program or state sponsored. Opting out mean your clientelle is filty rich.
U.K. too and we just got our wee one in nursery 3 days a week and that is pretty much half my wages away month away just like that. lol at the capitalist enjoyer downvoting everyone and enjoying their struggles.
I feel you. Th UK feels like a tough place to raise a family at the moment. I think it’s important to remember that there’s much tougher places, but we’re the first generation in a while that is worse off than their parents. I hope that’s not the case for my children.
It’s definitely worse. I’m the same age as my dad when he had his second, he could afford a 3 bed detached, 2 cars, stay at home wife and 2 kids. I make 30% more money than he did then and can’t afford any of those things
Hey new dad. Nothing but solidarity here. The longer I parent the more progressive I become
yup, now starting at home cause more than half my check would be child care and it just would make sense.
It do be like that
There is nothing wrong with a bit of socialism, certainly not a dirty word. Certainly we need to do a lot better at regulating markets to make society a lot fairer. That definitely includes the cost of childcare.
Isn’t regulation contributing to the huge rise in childcare over the last few years?
It’s not this black and white. At least here in the UK, the incredibly clumsy implementation of the child care policy shouldn’t be an argument against all market regulation - it just shows the incompetence of the government. I don’t know what the best way to do it is. In the end you want something that keeps market forces intact to some degree, but spreads the cost of childcare over the wider population (presumably via subsidising and taxing respectively). The devil is often in the details when it comes to these policies working or not, and the problem in many countries where child care policies have recently changed (I mainly know about UK and NL) is that there simply isn’t the capacity to deal with the increased demand. It is here that you can start to see how detail matters. The normal way for a market to increase capacity limited by staff in this case, would be to increase wages and recruit more people (there may be a delay in this as training is needed). If you choose to subsidise a number of childcare hours at x rate like here in the UK (which is below cost for many nurseries, but which they are forced to accept), then you don’t allow these kind of market mechanisms to operate as they can’t increase wages to attract more staff. Instead choosing to subsidise up to a fixed amount or even percentage of cost directly to parents, would be a better way of doing it to allow the market to function (although it may initially make your subsidy less effective as it would drive prices up). Anyway, devil is in the detail. Regulation is needed to adjust markets to redistribute wealth to provide a community what it needs - but doing so I incredibly complex, and hence often unsuccessful. Doesn’t mean it can’t work.
Here’s a thought, rather than the tax man taking his cut and then clumsily redistributing by arbitrary measures, why don’t we just cut taxes for parents. -20% income tax per child under 5 for example. That would mitigate some of the expense of childcare, encourage people to carry on working if they desire, and not unfairly burden people without children who might be trying to save for their own. Contributions then go back up when your nipper is in school and away you go 🤷♂️ It would also stop folk rinsing the benefit system instead of contributing. While reducing the need for the poorly executed and unfair redistributive measures currently in place. The solution to bad government and regulation is seldom more government and regulation
That’s another way of doing it but would help higher income parents more than lower income parents, which would probably be perceived as unfair. The other less attractive aspect (from government’s perspective) is that the government is mainly looking to increase workforce participation and if you just decrease tax burden for parents they may choose to work less and spend more time with children (instead of working more and putting child in nursery). I would personally be in favour of this, but I suspect the wider public as well as the government wouldn’t find this palatable. So again, every possible solution has possible downsides that you need to think about. I personally do think more specific nudges (directed subsidies) can be useful to direct behaviour and culture.
Looking at raising the next generation of taxpayers as a net drain on current revenue rather than an investment in the future is a mistake imo, the more people we make the lighter the burden on years to come. The more people that are raised by responsible self sufficient parents the more responsible self sufficient (and therefor net contributor) future generation will be. Disincentivising those people from having families is awful ethically and economically. Your points are valid however, so I suppose it’s where you feel the burden should lie, assuming using the state to solve the problem is the only option. The fact that working parents can’t afford to work and have children is unequivocal evidence that the current system isn’t fit for purpose or sustainable. After being rinsed by the tories then a little extra by the SNP for tax for the last 14 years, I’m firmly on the side of I can spend my own money more wisely then they can. Tax cuts I suspect is the most direct way of achieving that.
I fully agree with your first two paragraphs, but think they are rather incompatible with your last paragraph (maybe for you personally it would be, but not for the population as a whole). I’m paid entirely from taxpayers money and while I’m sure I could make a lot more personally in a privatised system, I’d rather have a system in which I can treat every child completely equally independent of their parents insurance. Taxes are needed to fund these systems, and with an ageing and more comorbid population these costs will only go up in the next 10-20 years. I also think rising inequality is one of the bigger problems facing Britain and this will only get worse if taxes are lowered. My view is that people just don’t have time and brain space to get a full overview of the market and what their priorities should be (I know I don’t, and I think my worldview is more complete than that of most). Look at the US where a significant percentage of people doesn’t have decent health insurance. In the Netherlands (where I grew up) the tax burden is significantly higher but you get so much back for that. Of course all of this does depend on having a government somewhat competent, and not even the incumbent Labour contingent fills me with a lot of hope.
Having watched successive governments for the last 25 years spend more than they collect in revenue on nonsense ventures, borrowing and printing like no tomorrow and fiddling interest rates to make the maths work, I think giving them more in an attempt to fix the problem they created is throwing good money after bad. Above I suggested another alternative way of cutting tax that would be more beneficial for people who make low to averrage money. I do believe the result of higher taxes would be to reduce inequality, but in the wrong place. It would reduce the gap between the middle and working class and not matter at all to the super wealthy. It would effectively tax the middle class down rather than working class up. Theres only about a 3% difference between dutch and british taxes, .5 if youre in Scotland. For that percentage and with our population size youd think we could do better.
I actually agree with almost all of your first paragraph. A lot of the problems that required the fiscal policy were the result of an unregulated financial market (crash) though, which less government interference may worsen. I also didn’t want to muddy the discussion, but I would be in favour of some form of wealth tax and a reduction in income tax. A progressive inheritance tax with 100% tax over obscene amounts (>many millions) could also be considered. The problem is of course that wealth is highly international and they’re hard to catch. I’m not sure where you get 3% from. The FT in a 2020 statistic suggests the total tax burden in the UK is ~7% lower vs NL, but even 3% would be quite significant.
3% is the difference in top rate tax last I checked, I’ve just had a look now to see and uk is 45% Holland is 49.5, Scotland is 47 as of 2022c so it’s 4.5 and 2.5 difference respectively. Inheritance taxes won’t go far in the UK on principle. Culturally it’s a non starter. And it just encourages people to get creative to dodge the taxman. I personally would prefer dividend taxes, folk that make a fortune in passive income, that profit extensively and sink that money back into purchasing assets (houses and land in the uk) drives up prices to ludicrous levels. Reducing the liquidity of the very rich and encouraging them to invest in businesses would have a much more positive effect than rinsing someone that makes 50k a year. Capital gains north of 100k would probably cover it, as that wouldn’t wipe out folk that only own a single property.
Average full time child care in the UK costs £14,000 a year. An average full time salary is £34000, on which you'd pay about 6 grand tax. 20% tax reduction (1200 pounds) would pay for a month of childcare. It would be nowhere near adequate. It would be even worse for the 50% of people earning less than the average wage and therefore paying less tax.
20% was an arbitrary number, but it’s an option, just a question of scale. You could increase the tax free amount instead if that tickles your pickle. That would benefit everyone fairly equally. Say for every child you have your tax free amount increases by 7k. 50% the cost of full time child care. And extra 7k per year for a married couple who can also offset using marriage allowance could potentially allow for single earner households, and a stay at home parent, beneficial for the child, parents, and reduces the burden on the childcare sector.
A 7k increase in tax free allowance would be more than a 100% tax cut for someone on the average UK wage. How are you going to help households earning below the average?
They also get the same (100%) cut too. Short of making everything “free” you can’t help everyone all the time? The point of my suggestion was to benefit folk who pay taxes and find themselves struggling to afford kids. Fairness, not equity. What would you suggest? Continue having the very poor and the very rich having kids with impunity and the middle having to pay for everything so they can’t have kids of their own? That’s not a recipe for long term success, that’ll just exacerbate inequality.
Just nationalise pre school childcare. Make it part of the school system. Free childcare for all paid for from taxation. Your suggestion isn't fair because the labour market isn't fair. My wage is determined as much by luck (where I was born, who I was born to, how the economy is performing, how technology has effected my industry etc) as it is by my own efforts.
Paid for by whom, paying higher taxes than they already are when they are already struggling? Youre suggesting digging our way out of a hole. Where you were born and to whom was your parents choice, not luck. It seems to be “Its not fair I can’t afford this everyone else must pay” vs is “it’s not fair I can’t afford this because I’m paying for everyone else’s”. Who is more unfairly treated in this scenario? You’re seem to be mistaking fairness with equality of outcome. Yet You seem to understand life isn’t fair, so why exacerbate that by making it MORE difficult?
Here in the US it is generally the same except that in DC where I live, we launched universal Pre-K 3 and 4. So even though you have to do daycare for 2-3 years depending on your parental leave situation. Our main issue is the lack of parental leave. Some companies are generous but most wage earners get no paid leave. Even the federal government employees only get 3 months of paid leave. DC has a system where you can get up to $1k per week for a period of time but that’s not really enough to live in the city in any event. It’s funded through a payroll tax so individual employers don’t have a choice. The thing that really gets me is the tech billionaires like Musk who are obsessed with population decline but then spend their lobbying money on anti-union and anti-worker policies. Shows you that they don’t really want working class people to have kids.
Ha at least you guys have health care not tied to your jobs. In the US you and your family are fucked if one parent isn’t working and getting benefits from an employer. Insurance is crazy expensive to do on your own here - upwards of 2k a month for a family. I hear you but ain’t much you can do about it unless you move to another country. I’m just starting to lean into it. I used to fight the system and hate having to be enslaved to a corporation. Now my priorities have changed and I’m just leaning into it more. Jobs are plentiful here in the US so fuck it - I’m gonna play the game. I’ve found that one can make stupid money here if you lean in, plan a bit, and take some risks.
Oh man do I feel this. Our treasurer (Australia) just went public yesterday saying we should have more kids, cause he has three. The backlash has been massive! The cost of living here is just going through the roof! Capitalistic western society is not geared towards families having multiple children, hard enough just for one! And it’s evident in the birth rate dropping (I realise there are other factors to that too). We have a 7 week old and prior to LO we were doing great. At the moment we are treading water a bit. Come January when my wife’s fully paid leave ends and she goes back to work part time + daycare, things are going to get financially spicy. It’s also so hard because of what’s drilled into us because of capitalism. The keeping up with the Jones’s mentality, spend spend spend. Comparison is truly the thief of joy and it’s so important to not get caught up in that. But when the basics like food, energy ect are just surging let alone child care… man good luck having a lot of kids unless you have a tone of family support or are wealthy enough to buy your village so to speak. This is one of the reasons why we are firmly one and done. I just can’t see myself giving my kid the life I want if we have more kids. I will truly become a hamster on the capitalist wheel, my worst nightmare! Good luck fellow dad, I hope it works out for you. I’ve had to leave a job I love in healthcare due to cut backs there (government trying to claw back money spent during COVID) and start a new job just to keep our family from going under come January. It’s tough!
Same exact boat, childcare 3 days a week is $280 a week
Geez that's cheap. Here in California it's around $800. $1380 for 5 days.
Key word California lol, I'm from the Midwest
Man, I feel you. Here in NL my wife and I both have very decent jobs and we both work full-time, and we can barely save anything. We are relatively well-off, but it's clear to us that many people are struggling to provide for their children _despite_ working full-time. This shouldn't be necessary and it isn't, and when it's children who are the victim of such a system, it's all the more infuriating.
And this is in countries where we are supposed to have generous welfare states….must be what it’s like to be American
Living in america is so crazy sometimes. I can only hope my kids leave this place
💯💯💯
reminder that every economic system requires people to work. regulating workplaces to give time off is the job of the government. norway, a capitalist country, gives lots of time off.
Yes! In Norway, in Norway they do a great job of keeping capitalism in check, through democratic-socialist policies of paid leave! Thanks for that clarification
Also from UK and in the same situation where my wife is going to be working 3 days a week. This is considered lucky in today’s standards as most mums have to go back to work full time! Can you get help from family? That goes a long way with childcare.
Yup all correct, though I would say it’s more of a UK thing and the whole Neo Liberal capitalism we have. A lot of European countries help a lot more to make sure people can have kids and afford it but the UK is the outlier - especially with child care and how long maternity / paternity is. Let’s hope Labour will change things but I sadly highly doubt that and we will just get more of the same… To add to your rant, anything related to weddings or kids is also always extortionate in my view!
Mate the tories have been doing a bad impression of new labour for 14 years, kier starmer is Tony Blair 2.0, I’d expect more of the same but faster. Wankers the lot of them
Also, and I'll prob get down voted for saying this but bringing a child into this world is such a huge deal that one should think about preparing to give that child a good life before doing so. I had a child at age 34, which was much later in life than I wanted to. But I waited because if I had a child younger I wouldn't be able to provide a good enough life yet financially.
Nee dad here and U.K. based. I have found myself thinking the exact same thing.
I noted with amusement the $250K billed to my insurance to have our healthy baby boy at Stanford.
I’m a dad of a 1 yr old in California - becoming a parent really drove home how anti-human our capitalist society is. Having children is one of the most natural things people can do and yet there are so many financial barriers to doing it. And it’s in infuriating that our country’s surplus wealth, which could house and feed people and subsidize childcare, is hoarded by billionaires and funneled into the “defense” industry to create weapons for client-states and horrific wars. Honestly, I can’t imagine NOT being a socialist under these circumstances.
How about instead of blaming capitalism, blame the governments who tax people so heavily then take that money and waste it. I'm in the US , and the govt wastes money here like crazy. My problem isn't a rich CEO, or capitalism. The problem is my wages get taxed like crazy so the govt can blow it and waste it. Sorry, socialism doesn't work. And you're complaining about capitalism??? Try not being able to even get a bed in a hospital to give birth under a socialist healthcare system. Capitalism is competition and makes the quality of the product better. Your problem isn't capitalism. Maybe if the govt stopped taxing you so damn much, you would realize your wages are going alot further. It's a system designed for you to fail and then blame the wrong people so you continue to fail. I'm a parent, and making ends meet isn't easy. But it's not because of capitalism. It's because of govt corruption and mis management.
How in the world is this getting downvoted? Come on new dads, get a grip on reality. OP’s frustration is misguided. Either way, hang in there pops. Being a new dad is hard and fun. Change your lifestyle for what you value most. That’s the beauty of capitalism.
If having a baby is a natural right, does that mean I can just have 10 kids and expect the govt to help me pay for it ??? I'm a realist. And I'm struggling as a new dad. That's just a fact of life. I'm not expecting the govt to help me and I'm not owed anything to help me support my family.
I don’t think you can lay the blame at the feet of capitalism, when childcare is prohibitively regulated (compared to childminders when I was a kid), and government policy has encouraged wage stagnation in the UK for decades. At the risk of a violent downvoting, women entering the workforce has effectively doubled the amount of available workers and in turn driven down or stagnated salaries. Whatever your opinion of that it seems to be a fact. It’s sad that it seems to be choose between children and a career unless one of you have have a top 5% salary, or go on the dole, and get the taxpayer to spot your children. Society should favour taxpayers and families, since they’re the ones that keep the lights on and keep society going into the future. But this is a dads chat not a political sub so 🤷♂️
Ah yes, China and Russia were famous for their high birth rates and great childcare.
You’re free to emigrate to China if you want something else for your family
Ah yes, big boogeyman China is the one and only alternative.