>which could be in the details of how care is provided and its quality

This has "true communism has never been tried" vibes. When enacting a policy, you can't guarantee it will come out optimally, so it makes sense to factor in any potential negative effects, even you think you're not going to make them. After all, I doubt the people campaigning for childcare in quebec were expecting the results to be negative.

The more likely case is one person (most often women, but men do childcare as well) is taking care of the kids of at least 3 couples (6 people), and could be up over 10 couples (which happens though often isn't legal or a good idea). That is per year, the kids grow out of daycare in 12-15 years, but a person typically works for 40 years.

> Ironically, if we do get "investment in mothers" and "universal childcare", it will be for the profit and benefit of the ruling class that will want to make sure your child is indoctrinated in the regime's propaganda as early and deeply as possible

This feels over the top/paranoid to me. But I also acknowledge that East Germany’s universal child care was dismantled after German unification for being exactly what you describe.

All of human history, children grew up spending lots of time under the supervision of older siblings, cousins, and other elders in the “village”.

Mothers (and fathers) had to be out getting water, foraging, hunting, doing laundry, farming, blah blah.

Obviously there is a middle ground between parents leaving kids for 10 hours straight and only seeing them 2 hours per day, but spending all day with parents and no one else is also another extreme (I would have gone nuts watching over them all day).

All these government actions don’t have an answer to the loss of the “village” that are inherent to economic mobility, having fewer children per family, and neighborhoods optimized for cars.

I am a father. I am an extremely involved parent and spend a ton of time with my son.

I also would go absolutely insane if we didn't have any childcare for him. It is better for my ability to function as a good parent that I can hand him off to somebody else for a period of time. It is not the case that every couple has a member who is built to be a stay-at-home-parent.

Sure, and epecially when the child is a bit older then introducing a "preschool" situation for a few hours a day is probably valuable. But having an infant in a daycare for 8-10 hours a day is probably not.

My kids are around so many other kids, interacting, playing, arguing, sometimes fighting (hands to yourself!), they are around so many caring adults that live nearby, we talk to them every time we see them. I know how lucky we are. I bet people that say dumping your kid at an institution have no idea how nice life could be in that regard.

Yes, community raising of children is how it "used to be" but dropping your kids off for 8-10 hours a day to be raised by absolute strangers with zero ties to your family and spending time with other kids who have zero familial ties to you as well and maybe even no community ties is not the same at all.

And your bias is that if institutionalized child care is shown to lead to worse outcomes than parents caring for their own children, you will feel a lot of personal guilt.

All of my friends' kids who are in daycare get sick frequently. I work on the top floor of a building that has a YMCA daycare on many of the bottom floors, and I often get sick passing through there on the way to work.

You can take your kids to parents days out or parks where they consistently meet with other kids and become friends. The option isn't 100% daycare or 100% staying at home and never seeing anyone.

That has to be true for the preservation of your own emotional well being and self image as a good person.

Yes but a daycare isn't your village raising your kids, it's random people, most aren't from your community much less your own country.

actually, i strongly believe that the most benefits come from how (not how much) parents interact with and care for their children. i went to kindergarten too, and i grew up spending a lot of tome outside with other kids with plenty of opportunity to socialize, both supervised and unsupervised, but lack of my parents availability (to put it mildly) created an anxiety that completely ruined any social ability that i would have been able to acquire otherwise.

so sure, each case is different, and you are not wrong, but you are putting to much value on good institutions. the heavy lifting still comes from the parents. your children are doing well because you care that they do.

You are citing the results of an experiment that is impossible to perform.

There is more to life than economics. Economics should put a floor on what you do in life - that is you need enough food to live, and enough shelter (including clothing)... However once that basics are met you need to ask about trade offs. Rice and beans are a nice meal once in a while, but sometimes I want "steak and caviar". Likewise, all I need to live is a "tiny house" shack with some heat - but I really like having more space. I wouldn't mind having the largest private house in the world complete with staff to maintain it - but the work I would need to afford is not something I'm willing to do (I'm not sure if I could get into the CEO suite if I tried, but I know enough of that CEOs do with their life that I'm not willing for that)

At what point will you decide that something other than economics matter? I can tell you now that I have kids time with the kids is more important than money. However I'm also a staff software engineer and so I'm making more $$ than most. You need to make your own decisions based on your own life.

You are either paying the mother (or father) to stay home, or paying for child care so they can work.

I don't think it has to be a completely level trade on an economic basis. A lot of parents would prefer to be able to stay home even if it's not a purely economic optimum. And staying at home doesn't necessarily preclude earning any income. A parent could still do part time work from home, or even outside the home, when the other parent is there etc.

We had a few decades in the US where it was pretty normal and comfortable to raise a family on a single income. What law of physics dictates that it’s impossible to construct such a society again?

We managed to have a society with a significant number of families living on one income for quite some time. 2 incomes shouldn’t be a requirement to keep a roof over a family’s head. The goal shouldn’t be “2 incomes,” it should be “1 income is sustainable and families can actually be a family.”

Usually what people mean by this is "build smaller living spaces closer together"

> It is a very deeply embedded assumption that women are primary parents.

Because this is typically true, even in cases where both parents work.

Men cannot breast feed. In the first years, the mother is the primary parent, by biological instinct of the child alone. After that, both are parents and it depends if the mother or the father is the better parent. But you have to really hate your child (which many parents of course do) to try to force them to live against their biological instincts when they are infants.

That is something we need to fight.