In a comment to this post of mine from yesterday in which I used the phrase “affordable daycare,” reader Eric377 posted this comment:
Eric377/October 18, 2015 7:50 am
Leaves I understand as policy. Affordable daycare a whole lot less. Affordable daycare is not what is meant here. States could change regulations to allow lower cost daycare. Is that what is meant? That would be “no”. It gets affordable by roping in other people to pay what is described as unaffordable. There is a price point where providers and customers and regulators are seemingly in full agreement that the service shouldn’t be offered; won’t be profitable; and won’t be purchased. This is a non-problem.
To which I responded:
Okay, Eric, I’m gonna risk a copyright lawsuit by the New York Times and reprint here without permission Gail Collins’s entire column in yesterday’s Times, titled “What Happened to Working Women?”.
That’s the full column. I’m going to add this: The purported justification for federal subsidies to industries such as the oil and gas industry and agriculture is that it has a significant positive effect on the economy. Agree or not with those policies, that is the stated justification for it.
Just as that is the stated justification for a slew of other policies that the American taxpayer is forced to pay for. Such as highway and bridge construction and maintenance, before the Tea Party gained control of Congress.
I understand that it requires abstract reasoning to understand this. And that people who incessantly rage about the American taxpayer having to pay for this or that don’t DO abstract reasoning. But really, some things are interconnected. The health of the economy and government subsidies for daycare are two of those things.
Seems there’s an actual difference between what is unaffordable for individuals and families and what is unaffordable for, say, the national government. In other countries as well as ours. The public in other countries has figured this out.
Just wanted y’all to know.