They might be paying a portion of their childcare, but they are not paying their childcare - they want it free or subsidized.
One way to see the issue more clearly is by imagining someone is getting subsidized childcare for child 1. Now they’re looking to have another child and also want that child’s childcare to be free or subsidized. Why should other people subsidize thats 2nd child? The person can clearly not afford the 2nd child. Staying with that logic, what then gives that person the right to ask me to subsidize their first child’s childcare in the first place?
If they have already cut expenses like holidays, eating out, not gambling, not buying dumb non-educational toys, etc. then I might be more empathetic, but I am confident that they are spending on those non-essential luxuries.
> They might be paying a portion of their childcare, but they are not paying their childcare
You might be paying a portion of their childcare, but you are not paying their childcare. One could say the same to parents at a private day care. They are, after all, only paying their portion of the cost of the service, not the cost of the service.
> they want it free or subsidized
How do they get it for free? Again, do you think they aren't paying their taxes?
> The person can clearly not afford the 2nd child.
This does not follow. If the economic reality in which they choose to have a child includes tax-paid childcare, and they can afford a child given that, then they can clearly afford the child.
Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Japan, New Zealand all have universal childcare and seem to have a lot less teen violence than the US that has no universal childcare.
What a weird connection to make, assuming your assertion is accurate.
Even if it is, it is worth noting that it isn’t all sunshine and roses in those countries from a demographic point of view, notwithstanding universal childcare.
There is one big issue with expanding schemes from pre-school (aged three or so) all the way down to infancy. In their early years, children’s development seems to depend more on the intensity of adult interaction than being around other kids.
This is an article that is less about the economics of pre school care (> 3 year old children) and more about the effect of mass warehousing babies / infants under the age of three.
Unaffordable childcare seems the problem not it's universality.
Why? Why should I pay for someone who chooses to have children but can’t afford them?
They also pay for the childcare. Do you think they aren't paying their taxes?
They might be paying a portion of their childcare, but they are not paying their childcare - they want it free or subsidized.
One way to see the issue more clearly is by imagining someone is getting subsidized childcare for child 1. Now they’re looking to have another child and also want that child’s childcare to be free or subsidized. Why should other people subsidize thats 2nd child? The person can clearly not afford the 2nd child. Staying with that logic, what then gives that person the right to ask me to subsidize their first child’s childcare in the first place?
If they have already cut expenses like holidays, eating out, not gambling, not buying dumb non-educational toys, etc. then I might be more empathetic, but I am confident that they are spending on those non-essential luxuries.
> They might be paying a portion of their childcare, but they are not paying their childcare
You might be paying a portion of their childcare, but you are not paying their childcare. One could say the same to parents at a private day care. They are, after all, only paying their portion of the cost of the service, not the cost of the service.
> they want it free or subsidized
How do they get it for free? Again, do you think they aren't paying their taxes?
> The person can clearly not afford the 2nd child.
This does not follow. If the economic reality in which they choose to have a child includes tax-paid childcare, and they can afford a child given that, then they can clearly afford the child.
Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Japan, New Zealand all have universal childcare and seem to have a lot less teen violence than the US that has no universal childcare.
Aren't most of these cultures often known for not being all that warm/friendly/open to outsiders in general?
What a weird connection to make, assuming your assertion is accurate.
Even if it is, it is worth noting that it isn’t all sunshine and roses in those countries from a demographic point of view, notwithstanding universal childcare.
For instance, New Zealand is facing an uncertain future due to weak economics, leading New Zealanders seeking prosperity elsewhere: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/09/leaving-new-ze...
Details matter here:
This is an article that is less about the economics of pre school care (> 3 year old children) and more about the effect of mass warehousing babies / infants under the age of three.