[COFFEE] Child care and support for families

To have the mom to take care of the kids?

1 Like

“Best” is a relative term. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I don’t think Switzerland is outdated.

Yes, why not? If for you a child is just a lifestyle accessoire and first thing you do is giving it to someone else to take care of it, then why you have a child in the first place if career for both parents is more important?

The greatest impertinence is when people then also want to have this external care subsidised by the government. So the tax payers have to pay for your child because you don’t want to take your responsibility to take care of it by yourself.

4 Likes

I only said in some areas

Sounds very provocative, but I would argue that the return the society would get over the lifetime paid in taxes by those children (and both parents) is more than it would invest in subsidizing Kita for a couple of years.

6 Likes

What is “outdated” is the fact that, when one parent needs to stay home with the children, that parent is normally the mother. And it couldn’t be otherwise, given that men earn more than women. So, here again is the salary gap issue resurfacing.

7 Likes

That’s nowhere enforced or written and every couple can freely decide on their own how they want to do this. It’s nowhere written that it has to be the mother even though I think it makes more sense if it is the mother because that’s what mothers do and I think the relationship between mother and child is deeper. It’s an evolutionary aspect that mothers take care of their children and it doesn’t change because some feminists / extremists want to.

Actually, that’s what many families want. Just because there are some feminists / extremists who think that now also men mandatorily have to look after their children, otherwise he is a bad father, and that the woman has to go to work etc. doesn’t mean that’s really how it should be. I think it’s very strange that nowadays women almost have to apologise for doing housework.

There are families where both partners have some days off and take care of the children those days.

This isn’t systematically the case and there is no gender pay gap that can’t be explained. Women tend to go into professions where less money is earned. E.g. if you study philosophy or languages you will most likely earn less than someone who studied physics, mathematics, engineering, computer science, economics, etc. But this has nothing to do with gender pay gap, it has something to do with preferences. But there are also women in computer science and men in philosophy. So yes, choice of profession is important.

Furthermore, where a fixed salary is paid according to age, experience, etc. like it is often the case in government positions, there isn’t a pay gap. If there is a different salary, then it’s because there isn’t the same amount of professional experience or education and that also has nothing to do with gender, it’s a result of ones own choices.

In most cases, salary is a result of a negotiation process. So it also has nothing to do with gender, just some people negotiate better than others. Women tend to be more agreeable than men so they might negotiate worse than men but this is not the case for all women. There are also strong negotiators among women.

Actually, I know many couples where women earn more than their partners.

So, we can’t complain about a gap that exists purely as a result of own personal choices, preferences, and skills.

State school is mandatory, whereas pre-school childcare isn’t.

I agree that school is very important and that it should be offered by the government, but there is no benefit from pre-school childcare except that it is easier for parents to organise their lives and that they can shift the responsibility for childcare to someone else. Educated people has a benefit on society, pre-school childcare has only benefits for the parents and that’s why they should pay it in full on their own and there should be no subsidies at all for it, for nobody.

Not true. If a woman (or a man) stop working you lose part of your productive work force. The tax burden on the remaining workers to pay for schools, roads, etc. increases so there is a benefit in avoiding this

A subsidy is positive for everyone immediately if it encourages the parent to keep working and is less than sum of (tax paid by parent + tax paid by child carer)

It also makes sense in other situations. For example if a parent is in the early years of a career and has low salary but high earnings future potential you don’t want them to leave the workforce

I do agree there is inefficiency in the current system. For example state creches in Geneva have been designed with a lot of regulations and labour protections. I remember seeing the true underlying cost is well over >40k per kid per year

3 Likes

You could argue in the same way that if the government had paid me the 120’000 CHF MBA at IMD I would be now even more productive and have a higher salary now.

If the government would subsidies my holidays at some luxury resorts 3 times a year I would feel recovered much better afterwards and as such I would be much more productive and earn more money.

If the government would pay me a car I could be much faster at work and therefore be more productive.

If the government would subsidies my clothes and buy me a Rolex for 50’000 CHF people would be much more impressed and make more business with me.

If the government would buy me a flat in Zurich City near Paradeplatz I could be much faster at work and make more money.

It’s ridiculous.

Having children is a purely personal decision nobody is forced to have children so if you have some, then pay for them by yourself I would say.

The government is there to lay a foundation and not to organise everyone’s life and finance personal comfort at the cost of all others.

well start your initiative now then.

That would be rather pointless. There is too much propaganda and lobbying to really win a vote, and there is a tendency that initiatives get rejected no matter what the topic is, so it’s always more difficult to get an initiative through.

And look at the weekend, we cannot even get rid of the stamp duty because too many socialists in power, numbing people’s ability to think on their own. As I mentioned we’re the country of sheep. Meh.

Anyway, just because a majority says something, doesn’t mean the majority is right and what the majority wants is lawful or morally justified.

In my example if I had to pay full cost of childcare with all the regulations on top of my high taxes it would not be worth it and I would stop working. Result: everyone else would lose my taxes (which are more than the cost of the childcare) and in addition there would be one less childcare job. 2 people no longer contributing and now net recipients of taxes, bravo

As usual the right answer is somewhere in between. To my mind it would be counter productive to replace one imperfect policy “too many subsidies for childcare” with an ideological but badly thought through policy “no subsidy at all”

5 Likes

If we would stop trying to institutionalise everything and inflate the government to provide more and more services for everyone, then we could lower taxes to an extent that you would pay at least 50% less taxes :wink: That would help everyone and not only those who decided to have children and send them to childcare services at the expense of everyone else.

If your taxes are higher than childcare (let’s assume 2x40k?) then probably you could easily afford it without going bankrupt? So let’s now assume we stop giving the government more and more work and do exactly the opposite and your taxes are cut into half but for that you pay childcare on your own, I guess it would be still a fair deal, no?

I don’t think it’s worth keeping jobs just for the sake of it. Otherwise we would have people in every restaurant toilet that hands you papers after you washed your hands like in countries such as India. We need workforce where it makes sense and that person would find another job.

You can do that also on the playground, etc. There are several activities you can do with your kid where you can meet other people who have kids too and socialise. No need to pay 5000 CHF per month at the expense of tax payers.

There shouldn’t be paid maternity leave at all. If you decide to have children you can take the time off at your expense on not at the expense of society. It was your own voluntary decision and there is no reason why other people should pay for it.

Patron is a troll, you might just block him now… Also it seems that he has no other task other than patrol the forum to tell everyone how wrong we are doing everything.

8 Likes

Typical approach of an authoritarian socialist.

False assertions, propaganda

Instigate witch-hunt (reminds me of don’t buy from those people!)

Discredit inconvenient people you don’t agree with to shut them down.

Well done. Some dictators of the past would be proud of you.

Sorry I derailed the thread so badly. But I simply don’t understand parents that have kids just to put them to childcare asap. Just don’t have kids then or bear the full cost of having them. It’s like asking for the weggli and the 5 cents at the same time.

1 Like

Yeah your comment snowballed, didn’t it. It was innocent enough, but probably out of place considering the question. I might have made it myself in a conversation, with a bit of a :wink:. Unfortunately it was the ice-breaker for the narcissists though. This is the how forums degenerate, this short 20-post thread is a good example.

I find it kind of sad that it is absolutely forbidden to say anything against those that post their irrelevant opinions onto every thread in this forum, because that would be cancel culture. This thread is a good example of when forum moderation should step in. Hopefully they will one day.

Childless who comment on a thread about childcare options in Zurich. :roll_eyes:

11 Likes

I am sorry to diverge more, but I would like to add a comment of a different type. Namely that humans are not made to live in a nuclear family, two (or one) parent/s and child/ren. Just look at the life style of large primates.

So if you are a large family living in a family farmstead, of course you don’t need a child care. There are always enough adults who can rotate keeping an eye on children while also doing other things. But if you are a couple of parents living with two children in Zürich, you can’t just bring them to your work and let them play with whatever is there while you are working. You need a child care.

Stop working to take care about children is also a nonsense of bourgeois boheme / people who want to be close to nature without knowing how things work “in nature”. Tell it to any, even a modern one, farmer, let them laugh. You don’t stop working to take care about children, you work and take care about children at the same time.

Another point is that children’s need (starting from 9 months or so) is not only to play with their parents. For a proper development, they also need to play with other children.

Nevertheless, excessive external child care like boarding schools is also not good for children, they should see their family every day. So, as always, you have to find a balance. For example both parents working 4 days per week and 1 day taking care of children. So you have 3 days per week of external child care.

5 Likes

Also i would say that its not per se easier to take care of the children if they have a daycare, you have more things to think about. You come home from work, you still need to shop, maybe make laundry and clean, etc.

Alsowe sould all be grown ups here and know that there is not only one way to archive a goal. We should just give people options and let them do what fits them best.

-My partner wants to have a career, things are not set up in most employers to (realistically) have a long career break then restart, nor to work reduced schedules, without being labelled as “someone who should get the easy jobs because of their kids” (and get lower salary)

-job market in our area is competitive, not many employers look at people seriously after long career breaks

-my wife wants to have the choice to be with me and not be trapped- she can leave anytime if she doesn’t want to be with me anymore

-We were not wealthy enough to afford the luxury of one of us staying home to care for kids

-I also think it is good for my daughters to see the example of their successful mother not reliant on her, our parents were the same

We spend a lot of time with our kids - my view is that it is quality that counts not quantity. I see their upbringing being a lot better than many others with stay at home parents. If I didn’t believe that I would change

Maybe a mod can split into a 2nd thread “should parents use external childcare” and those who want to comment can

3 Likes