What are the demographics of those that dropped out of the work force? Didn't some UBI studies observe that while there are people that dropped out of the workforce, these people consisted of mothers that can now go back to child rearing or younger people that can now pursue an education?
It is extremely unfortunate but studies like this are almost always done by people with somewhat close-ended goals. This research in this one is mostly self reports, and then, mostly "did free money make you feel better?"
They are not recording, or interested in recording, the nature of who dropped out of the workforce and why, even though that seems like far more important, and somewhat more empirical, information.
In your criticism you are missing some crucial details surrounding this report.
This is essentially scrounging to make the most out of what was a single, but fully budgeted, study on BI with the intention of running more studies.
The study was cancelled by the incoming government out of spite. All people who set up plans, knowing the full length of the study beforehand were suddenly tossed out of the program and it was just down, including any study occurring.
They're trying to gather what and any information they can from the program that wasn't even given the chance to run to completion.
Our high cost of education should be teaching people to create more value than the 15k/yr of value it is raising a child before the age of 5.(daycare costs, 4 children per 1 adult)
As an ancedote, it seems part time mothers are significantly happier than stay at home moms.
Trying to distill 'child rearing' to $15k/year and calling it a 'waste of talent' is absurd. Not everything can (and should) be broken down into a monetary amount and optimized for.
You can classify anything as a 'waste of talent' when looking through this lens. Are you a software engineer? If so, then doing literally anything apart from developing software is a 'waste of talent'. Cleaning dishes? Gardening? Exercising?
Yes, having a software engineer cleaning dishes for a restaurant is a waste of talent.
Maybe if overtime was flexible, you could suggest hiring unskilled workers to do those tasks at home.
I love my kid, but it's not like he's learning cutting edge stuff that requires an engineer to teach them. And there's many hours in the evenings and weekends we spend together where he learns how his dad behaves.
A huge part of growing up is developing bonds, understanding relationships and getting your kid on a firm footing so they can deal with what the world throws at them.
A lot of that develop happens when they are not learning, or at least you don’t think they are.
My son never used a babysitter. He was raised by both his mother and me at home 24/7 (she didn't work, I worked from home).
He is hardly dependent on us. More on his grandparents because they spoil him, but the first 4/5 years of his life, he would see them only a few times a year.
You don't need to justify working full time, or your wife/husband doing the same, but there is no way childcare in a nursery/pre school is as good as stay at home parents (assuming normal parents of course).
Heck, it is common for kids that are put in nurseries when very young, to develop very very strong bonds with the caretakers, sometimes more than with the parents. (source: studied/worked as one)
I would never crap on parents who use childcare (I don’t think you are either), because I know not everyone has the ability to have a stay at home parent or family to look after their kids.
My original comment was more targeted to the OPs statement that little kids can’t learn much, so having a parent around doesn’t matter.
As a parent myself, I come to realize that even though you might not think your teaching your kids, you are, even just the basics of socialization and play. And on top of that, those shared activities are was build a bond between you and your child, which is necessary to raise a well adjusted child.
I am not. My cousin had to put her daughter in a nursery when she was 2 months old as she had to work and grandparents weren't available. I know it is hard, and most people can't stay home. I tell my son he was very lucky to grow up as he did. I know that, and I know a lot of people sacrifice as much as possible for their kids.
I was replying to gp about using never using nanny's services or how it is a waste of talent for parents to do so if they can have more 'important' things to work.
Go create this lean startup factory that raises children from infants to 18 year olds. After all interested parents are superfluous to the well being of a child.
Child raising is invisible and yet so crucial to our economy. What happens to our economy when parents refuse to raise the needed labor inputs for free anymore?
I'm not going to do the leg work to validate unsourced claims that you made, but I will assume you don't have kids based on your comments.
It's possible that things are more complex than you suggest (or realize). One simple example is the typical start/end time for school. In Houston (a random example, but a very large school district), this is the school schedule [1]:
* 7:30 a.m. - 2:50 p.m. for elementary schools and K-8 campuses
How well does that schedule fit with a typical job?
