In The Atlantic Blog, I read an article about women working and putting their children in daycare. This is a controversial subject because many people seem to look at the situation as either 1) enslaving the women at home or 2) liberating them from their bonds and letting them work. I don’t see it that way.
Personally, I think that it would have made all the difference in my life to have a mother at home. Economically, this article points out that a mother’s raising of her children is an investment that will provide great benefits in the future. The investment cannot be better made by anyone other than the mother.
The blogger points to research that shows that prekindergarten (day care or preschool) can increase the child’s performance in English and Math, but it can also increase behavioral problems and lack of self-control. Economically, if a mother wants to see a return on her investment, she must weigh the costs of behavioral and self-control problems vs. money earned at work. Later on in life, when the parents are retired, what type of return on that investment will the mother receive? Will the child be successful in life and be able to support the parents? On the other hand, will the parents be able to support themselves and their children?
3 comments:
I have worked with many working mothers that have gone through a similar dilemma. I believe that kids in daycare often receive good treatment, learning, and social activities. However, I do think that a parent can only be sure that their child is being raised the way they would like them to (at least from ages 1-5) if they are the person/persons actually caring for the child. This also brings up another interesting point. I don't think that a mom is the only one qualified for this job. I know a family in which the mother's skills pay more in the workplace, and the father has chosen to stay home with their kids. This arrangement has worked great for them. It would seem then that a child would benefit more from being home with a loving, nurturing parent (mom or dad) than with a qualified, caring, busy daycare worker.
I have worked with many working mothers that have gone through a similar dilemma. I believe that kids in daycare often receive good treatment, learning, and social activities. However, I do think that a parent can only be sure that their child is being raised the way they would like them to (at least from ages 1-5) if they are the person/persons actually cared for the child. This also brings up another interesting point. I don't think that a mom is the only one qualified for this job. I know a family in which the mother's skills pay more in the workplace, and the father has chosen to stay home with their kids. This arrangement has worked great for them. It would seem then that a child would benefit more from being home with a loving, nurturing parent (mom or dad) than with a qualified, caring, busy daycare worker.
-1 on Will's comment for a spelling error.
-1 on Ole's post for a spelling error.
Ella: it actually isn't very hard for us to "back out" values of services like this. There is uncertainty about this, but it is usually a cop out to say that it can't be done.
We need to be very careful in how we think about this.
If your neighbor has kids you benefit from a positive externality if they are well cared for. But ... as long as the care is the same, society is just as well off if a parent cares for the child and someone outside the family works outside that home as it is if the mother works outside the home and hires someone to provide care for the child.
What's important is that the care be provided the most efficiently. We tend to be biased that - on average - mothers provide the best care, followed by fathers. Perhaps that is true, but the phrase "on average" is the key: sometimes it will be more efficient for the mother to work outside the home and hire help.
Ella also pointed out that we also need to recognize that just about everyone thinks they're a good parent. We all think we're good drivers too, and look at that facts on that issue! We really need to be asking adults about their parents, and there is a large minority of those saying that their parents stunk at the job. We need to pay attention to them when considering this issue.
An additional factor that is forgotten in all of this is that we have fewer children, and a higher likelihood of parents surviving until their children reach majority. Add to that the fact that we are not struggling to survive, and we are led to the outcome that the typical child today probably receives a lot more parental guidance than any child received a hundred years ago.
Ole's point is common, but not really correct. The arithmetic of opportunity cost is fine, but it lacks marginal analysis. You can do the exact same arithmetic for most households when the first adult works outside as when the second one does. The marginal analysis comes in when we think of what might happen beyond this example. Even if all this is correct, it still implies that all improvements in the situation are gravy for the family - and we make choices all the time where we barely cover costs in the hopes that we will reap the upside potential.
Lastly, having said all this, keep in mind that a lot of what is happening when adults choose to work for others is an increase in liquidity rather than income. But ... that has to pretty valuable since we all choose to take that route (rather than say farming).
Post a Comment