I no longer believe in capitalism. At all.

[Hauldren Collider]

Taking a nap instead of going to the movies is technically a tax dodge, but is it using any resources? Would it be hit by a perfect consumption tax?

If this is actually just a nonsense question I apologize.

[Jaguar]

To go to the movies, you need to work to pay for it, and therefore pay taxes.

You can avoid this by choosing to do a non-market fun activity, and deprive the government of your tax money.

- - -

Replace "go to the movies" with "hire a babysitter", and "do a non-market fun activity" with "be a stay-at-home mom" and you have gribbler's original point.

[Jon Miller]

I actually think that a good housewife is way under valued in the market. But I guess this is at least somewhat due to there being no prospects for career advancement and no health insurance/etc (at least in the US).

And of course, it is in the underground economy.

After talking to someone who was a nanny for a few years, I would seriously consider that.

Theoretically a good nanny is better than a daycare for the child, does additional things (like feed/etc the child), is obviously cheaper than a daycare for more than one child, and is perhaps cheaper even for one child.

JM

[snoopy369]

I don't think that a good nanny is theoretically better than daycare, quite the opposite. Socialization benefits aside - and they do exist - a good daycare gains benefits of efficiency, and has more well trained staff. They also are open more days (nannies take vacations, don't forget) and are usually cheaper (even my $350/week daycare is cheaper than a nanny until you get to 3 kids).

It is possible to get close to the same benefits as a daycare if you're hiring a nanny that has a degree in ECE and puts in a lot of effort, plus coordinates with other local nannies... but at that point you're basically looking at a daycare by another name.

Either way, this is all sort of silly. The real question - and the reason Ben's point of view is slightly misogynist, though perhaps not intentionally - is, what does the (highly) theoretical woman want to do? Some women want to be housewives, and thus should be. Some women want to have a career, and should. Some are in between, and should decide based on economics. You really can't have this discussion in the vacuum without the woman being a) known and b) asked.

[giblets]

Taking a nap instead of going to the movies is technically a tax dodge, but is it using any resources? Would it be hit by a perfect consumption tax?

If this is actually just a nonsense question I apologize.

Sure it's a tax dodge. The point is that people who have jobs are engaging in relatively few tax dodges and contributing more to the rest of society. And your time is a resource.

[Jon Miller]

From what I have seen, nannies usually are told to take vacations on days when the employer wants them too.

This might be a difference between Canada/Sweden/Denmark and the US.

And you really get 1v1 at a daycare? Or even 1v2? And a good nannie is emotionally invested in the child, while a daycare is not. There are some negatives there (it is basically like having an additional person in the family), but I think just positives as far as the child is concerned.

Socialization shouldn't be a problem, things are arranged as they would be without a daycare and I think you get healthier socialization.

Canada payed their nannies more than europe, so I don't know what the US is. In europe it was ~1000$ a month plus room/board for ~40 hours a week (but really more...).

For training, you want someone who is good at caring for kids. And not only that, but someone you can guide/direct so that your child is raised in the way you want.

I think you are more likely to get that with a good nanny than with a daycare.

I admit getting a good nanny might be more difficult.

JM

[Jaguar]

Sure it's a tax dodge. The point is that people who have jobs are engaging in relatively few tax dodges and contributing more to the rest of society. And your time is a resource.

Also, people with fun jobs. For example, a good piano bar musician, who can make a living off of his work. He stealthily derives utility from his job in a way that, say, a trash collector does not. But the piano bar musician doesn't get taxed on his utility for having a relatively fun job, and a trash collector doesn't get a tax credit for his disutility from having a relatively unpleasant job.

[rah]

And a good nannie is emotionally invested in the child, while a daycare is not.

That is an insult to every daycare worker. And just wrong.

[snoopy369]

I don't agree daycare necessarily adds value outside of increasing family earnings. (It probably does in an unsafe/disconnected community, or when the parents can't be bothered.)

Any socialization that can happen at daycare can happen at home in a healthy community. Probably better socialization too, as it's going to be less structured and consistent. Throughout my childhood there was far more socializing outside of school than inside it, even though we usually lived in areas where there were few if any neighbors within walking distance. I also was one of the more socially accepted kids (accepted in every group) even though we moved around a lot.

Certainly possible, but socialization in a group setting (being used to sitting in a circle, for example, and listening to someone teach) is not really possible without a structured environment. You also get over separation anxiety much more easily, and get used to doing things in a school environment. I see kids even at 1 having a harder time adjusting to the daycare environment because they sat out that first year - at 5 it's much the same.
See: http://www.livestrong.com/article/55...nding-daycare/

The sickness one sounds suspiciously like having chicken pox parties. Most illnesses that are likely to affect the health of a student you can't pre-load into your child even if you wanted to. There's a different flu every year. You either have the immune system that will fight it off or you don't. I went until 5th grade before I missed a day of school IIRC. Then later I missed a lot of school due to health issues. Not to mention that a child which isn't being kept in a hermetically sealed box is going to be exposed to this stuff anyways.

This isn't imaginary science here, Aeson. This is real, basic social immunology (which my wife has a Ph.D. in, so I do have some real knowledge here). Your body will react to each different strain of various viruses/bacteria/fungi as it is exposed to them, and then will gain some basic immunity to them. This is why kids get sick with all sorts of things while as an adult you get a lot less... each kid has to be exposed to the various strains of germs and develop the memory cells to better resist future infections. Kids that are in daycare are exposed to more of these diseases than kids that are not, because not only are they interacting with more children at once (both in their class, and in the school) but they are also interacting with kids from different neighborhoods typically. You miss less school in the first few years of elementary school if you've been in a daycare because you have fewer new things to get exposed to - you still see some, like you say the flu virus for example, but you also miss some things other kids have that you already were exposed to (including some of the older flu viruses, which certainly still hang around).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/research/14childhood.html

Having lower child to teacher ratio is going to be more beneficial for learning. Especially when the teacher is the most likely person in the world to be dedicated to the task, and even more important with kids with non-normal (positive or negative) learning abilities. My parents instilled a love of learning (especially reading) in me before I ever went to kindergarten. They knew my abilities, and what I liked, and they specifically gave me things which would challenge me at something I enjoyed. Structured school environments for the most part tried to kill that love by treating me (and everyone else) as just another clone. I had a few teachers in school who recognized my abilities and a couple of them did a little to help promote them specifically. But the next year it's a new teacher and back to square one, often relearning what one of the previous teachers helped give me the chance to study ahead. My parents never forgot, never tried to hold me back from my potential.

Lower ratio is better in some ways and not in others. Having a higher number of teachers is also better in some ways - you have teachers with different strengths, for example. My wife is good at science and math, I'm good at math and history, but neither of us is really very good at music or art. Which of us is going to give our son a good foundation in art? Am I going to have to have my sister come over regularly to give him music lessons? On the other hand, the daycare has an art teacher, a music teacher, and the teachers in his class have various strengths as well. You still have a very low ratio - at most 5 to 1 for his class, and usually 4 to 1. We're not talking a 30 to 1 public school here (that would be way cheaper for one!). There's still a lot of personal attention, and on top of that he learns from the other kids - I can see that already, learning to wave from one kid (because he waves in the same manner), learning to say a word from another. I don't know why you hate structured school environments - perhaps you had poor ones - but they don't need to treat everyone like clones, and good ones don't. They recognize that everyone does need to learn the same things while also realizing different people learn differently, and adapting sufficiently to meet both needs.

The teaching materials that the average child of 1-5 needs are going to be present in just about any good home environment. Books of the proper reading level (for the child) and some toys with logical/creative implications. The proper reading level would be more likely for non-normal students to be found in the home (assuming caring parents). For instance, we had encyclopedias, dictionary/thesaurus, and fiction like Hardy Boys and the Narnia series which I loved to read, long before I ever got to classes that would give me access to that level of reading in the curriculum.

That's absolutely not true. Start with the fact that a young kid in daycare (1 or 2) learns primarily from the toys he plays with (hand-eye coordination, for example). You can buy all of the toys the daycare has... if you have a lot of money. But most people have a smaller selection by far - and thus the exposure to new toys in the daycare is valuable. On top of that you can buy all of the toys you'd buy otherwise, and have all of the daycare's toys in addition... books the same way, you have a larger selection, plus you find out about things you may not have known about. Art materials are more freely available; you certainly could have all of that stuff, but my point is about efficiency - it would cost you a lot more and you'd get less use out of them. The proper reading level should be found at both daycare and home - an involved parent will ensure that if nothing else (if your student at 3 can read, like I could, you just make sure the daycare lets him read from the 5 year olds' room).

Also, spending time together helps build a healthy family bond. Any bond that developed between the daycare personnel and the child is almost surely far less important over the course of a child's life.

Sure - and we do that on weekends and evenings at dinner. I don't disagree that you lose a little of the family bond by using a daycare, but you certainly develop family bonds just the same, and you learn to develop bonds with others that you don't as easily form without the structured environment. Like it or not, nearly everyone must spend significant time in a structured environment during their lives, whether at school or at work, or likely both; starting as a baby to learn how to fit in and be your own person while also meshing well with others makes it much easier in the long run.

I certainly am not going to say that everyone must go to daycare, or that it's always better or for any particular child. What I am saying is that daycare has benefits, and the claim that it is always better to be a stay-at-home mom is incorrect.

[snoopy369]

From what I have seen, nannies usually are told to take vacations on days when the employer wants them too.

This might be a difference between Canada/Sweden/Denmark and the US.

And you really get 1v1 at a daycare? Or even 1v2? And a good nannie is emotionally invested in the child, while a daycare is not. There are some negatives there (it is basically like having an additional person in the family), but I think just positives as far as the child is concerned.

Socialization shouldn't be a problem, things are arranged as they would be without a daycare and I think you get healthier socialization.

Canada payed their nannies more than europe, so I don't know what the US is. In europe it was ~1000$ a month plus room/board for ~40 hours a week (but really more...).

For training, you want someone who is good at caring for kids. And not only that, but someone you can guide/direct so that your child is raised in the way you want.

I think you are more likely to get that with a good nanny than with a daycare.

I admit getting a good nanny might be more difficult.

JM

Sorry, Jon, you don't know what you're talking about. I don't know about Europe, but in the US, unless you're using illegal immigrants (which the Europeans probably were, if they're paying 1000/month) you pay a lot more for a nannie. 1000/week is probably closer, particularly when you include the taxes you have to pay (you are an employer in this situation and have to cover payroll taxes and such). I know some people who are nannies and they make 3000-4000 a month. And they get vacation like normal people - ie, if they want a week off, they tell their employer a month ahead of time, and then take vacation. Again, perhaps if you are hiring illegal immigrants you can force them to do whatever you want - but legal nannies are just employees.

Daycare personnel are very much invested in the children - I see that all the time. Sure, you might have bad daycares, but good ones absolutely are invested in their kids, and give them plenty of attention.

I've covered the socialization in other posts so I won't reiterate here - but this isn't my hand-waving, this is solidly researched. Structured environment socialization is not the same as playing at the park with other kids. On days where the daycare has in-service days (usually a couple a year) I've taken my kid to the park and seen the nannies with their kids - usually they just leave the kids in the playground and sit together and chat. Are you going to tell me these people are more invested than a daycare that spends all of their time paying attention to the kids, and interacting with them? 1v1 here isn't particularly helpful when the 1 is chatting with her friends. And you probably won't get 1v1 - it really is too expensive, most people with just one kid have nanny shares so it's more like 1v3 - which is close to the daycare 1v4 or 1v5, which is still plenty small for the kids at that age.

Training - bah, aren't you an academic?? You actually need to LEARN how to educate young children. People that are 'good with kids' are nice, but you need to actually understand how a young child develops and learns in order to teach them properly. And you aren't going to guide/direct a nanny any more than a daycare - you can select a nanny that is in line with your thinking, perhaps, but same for a daycare.

[Jon Miller]

I do know what I am talking about, my fiancee was a nanny in Denmark, Sweden, and Canada.

I know what she was paid, and I know that she was legal, and I know the conditions that she worked.

It might be different in the US.

I don't think that children brought up in daycare outperform children brought up by interested parents at all. I would classify an interested nanny (versus the uninterested ones) as closer to an interested parent.

JM

[Jon Miller]

At there very least there doesn't seem to be any evidence that high quality daycare is better than high quality homecare which would be true if your statements about training being necessary were valid.

http://ww1.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/PDF/1996/Aug/lamb.pdf

JM
(That being said, at least for Canada my girlfriend counted as being trained due to her extensive experience.)

[Kuciwalker]

Also, people with fun jobs. For example, a good piano bar musician, who can make a living off of his work. He stealthily derives utility from his job in a way that, say, a trash collector does not. But the piano bar musician doesn't get taxed on his utility for having a relatively fun job, and a trash collector doesn't get a tax credit for his disutility from having a relatively unpleasant job.

By the way, this isn't a normative claim about how evil it is to get utility from something, or how we need to tax "fun", etc. The real point is that if you impose a tax on labor (or equivalently consumption) then people will (at the margin) shift out of jobs that aren't fun but pay lots of money into jobs that are fun but pay less money, and that they will choose to consume fewer goods that have to be bought in the market (nannies) and consume more goods that are produced outside the market (stay-at-home moms). This sort of distortion is pretty much unavoidable so it's not worth worrying too much over.

[snoopy369]

I don't think that disagrees with what I'm saying at all. Confirms it, more - I'm not arguing that daycare is necessarily superior, but that it is as good, and better in different ways. I prefer a daycare to a nanny because you know more what you are going to get, as you have a lot more parents to get 'reviews' from, and it is likely cheaper unless you have 3+ kids. I think both have advantages, outside of cost issues - but explicitly saying nannies are better is flat-out wrong (as explicitly saying that stay-at-home mom is better is also wrong). All three have advantages and disadvantages and the individual situation is relevant.

[Jon Miller]

This (nanny versus stay-at-home moms) is not the aspect of 'shadow' economy which studies of european VAT taxes point to when a high VAT is employed.

What happens in europe are things like:
(VAT) Person A goes to Country B and purchases goods instead of in Country A (that they reside in).
(VAT) Person A starts selling sandwiches and juice and so on out of their home and don't report that they are running a business (because they can do so for so much less than a 'business' since they do not have to pay an extra VAT).
(Income Tax + VAT?) Person B builds person A a new garage, person A hands person B $... but person B was just a 'friend' so this is unreported.

And so on.

JM