This was a great conversation! I have also been trying to read more conservative voices (including Patrick Brown's) on these issues and it makes me optimistic that there is a lot of common ground.
> For a long time, children were sort of your implicit retirement scheme, right? You had to have enough kids to make sure that you’re not gonna be in poverty in your old age. We’ve sort of flipped that on its head as a society now. We’ve socialized the benefits associated with childbearing while the costs are still borne by individual families. So now since there isn’t an economic benefit to it, the decision to have a child is almost seen as just another form of consumption, or an individual choice.
I have said almost this same thing and I think it's a great point, children used to not be a burden on families but a benefit at least to a point. However I do think that the question of who now sees the gains from children isn't just the government, the way he puts it as "socialized the benefits", but also corporations! They are the ones who are getting new workforce participants, already literate and educated, largely paid for on our dime rather than their own. Not only that but by breaking down extended family ties who would normally be a key support in raising more children, now corporations get access to a more mobile workforce able to move across the country for job opportunities.
agree! we parents incubate employees. and also good citizens, community leaders, activists, faith leaders etc. this definitely extends beyond the flow of money to the flow.
Great conversation and a good place to start. I agree with most points except this “ we all ultimately have a mother and a father and I think conservatives want to protect that bond to whatever degree we can” - conservatives can protect it but they can’t force it down everyone’s throat. Ultimately every child deserves a loving home, who are we to say only a mom and dad can provide that.
I agree. Also, I think we can start with the whys of what building stable families is so hard in the first place, which will check the conservative box of leading to more mom/dad/kid homes and the liberal box of making sure people are able to build the kind of families they want with relative security.
Family care and environmental/ecological care in my mind go hand in hand when it comes to 1. The need for bipartisan support and 2. The need for more conversation around the problems we are trying to solve for and how we reach consensus for how to get there. Would love to see a conversation with something like eco-care as tied to family care at the heart! (This administration seems so hell bent on environmental policy as a liberal agenda, and therefore dismantling anything to do with the safety of our ecosystems as sticking it to the libs, and that’s just totally missing the point.)
This was a thought provoking conversation. I'm interested in the contrast between supporting paid leave for postpartum parents and supporting paid leave in other contexts. There does seem to be a prevalent line of thinking in some fiscally conservative corners that mat leave is straightforward and can be planned for, whereas things like paid leave to support someone who is ill, or bereavement leave to mourn someone who is gone, are less straightforward and therefore can't be addressed with well-intentioned policy.
On the one hand, I'm glad that at least we're talking about the fact that there's bipartisan support for parental leave and we should have more of it. On the other hand, in my own experience with those things, very few of our care experiences follow any sort of straightforward trajectory, including postpartum healing, but all of it is important, and all of it merits more social and political support than we currently have. That's my Lefty bias showing, I suppose :)
I'm sure Mr Brown is quite pleasant in person, but it's hard to take someone seriously when they work for an organization whose purpose is generating disinformation. EPPC is working hand-in-glove with the administration to advance the Trump agenda, including the latest spurious "study" being used to outlaw mifepristone.
Yes, it's important to talk to good-faith conservatives; no Mr Brown is not such a conservative.
I did enjoy this, and common ground was easier to find than I expected. However, I find it problematic to just accept that child care is expensive and say basically, "well it should be." That makes child care a luxury service, excluding a vast chunk of parents from participating, which ultimately disincentivizes work, the antithesis of most rightward arguments. Valet laundry service is an example of a luxury service. Good quality care for young children should be equitably accessible to all.
I hear you -- though I think what he meant is that the childcare will be expensive by its nature, and his way to help make it more available for families middle and lower income families is to expand the tax credit. He wants to put cash in the hands of folks rather than get the government involved in building centers etc.
I appreciate this and think there is definitely logic to it, and think the flexibility piece is really right on ---but also think the gov. could and should play a larger role in making sure quality childcare is available for those who need it and we can't rely on tax credits combined with the market alone as it is such a fragile ecosystem.
So where do I draw the line btw a huge, government-ran early years childcare national system and tax credits for childcare...honestly I am not sure and very much learning and thinking on the page here. And then also there are other things the gov. can do to support childcare besides building a system, including guaranteeing fair pay and conditions for the early childhood educators that I am thinking about as well...
This makes a lot more sense, thank you for your thoughtful response! I am generally very supportive of putting more cash in the hands of citizens. That said, that would continue the treatment of early childcare as a market good in a capitalist context, which is problematic. In an ideal world, the infrastructure would be similar to public schooling, but with adequate and equitable funding all around. And 100% yes to fair pay for people to whom we are entrusting our entire worlds, our beloved kiddos!
More conversations like this! We are never going to have any movement on family friendly policies unless it’s bipartisan.
agree! and I do plan to have more like this!
I really enjoyed this. Thanks to both of you.
so glad!
This was a great conversation! I have also been trying to read more conservative voices (including Patrick Brown's) on these issues and it makes me optimistic that there is a lot of common ground.
thanks!
> For a long time, children were sort of your implicit retirement scheme, right? You had to have enough kids to make sure that you’re not gonna be in poverty in your old age. We’ve sort of flipped that on its head as a society now. We’ve socialized the benefits associated with childbearing while the costs are still borne by individual families. So now since there isn’t an economic benefit to it, the decision to have a child is almost seen as just another form of consumption, or an individual choice.
I have said almost this same thing and I think it's a great point, children used to not be a burden on families but a benefit at least to a point. However I do think that the question of who now sees the gains from children isn't just the government, the way he puts it as "socialized the benefits", but also corporations! They are the ones who are getting new workforce participants, already literate and educated, largely paid for on our dime rather than their own. Not only that but by breaking down extended family ties who would normally be a key support in raising more children, now corporations get access to a more mobile workforce able to move across the country for job opportunities.
agree! we parents incubate employees. and also good citizens, community leaders, activists, faith leaders etc. this definitely extends beyond the flow of money to the flow.
Great conversation and a good place to start. I agree with most points except this “ we all ultimately have a mother and a father and I think conservatives want to protect that bond to whatever degree we can” - conservatives can protect it but they can’t force it down everyone’s throat. Ultimately every child deserves a loving home, who are we to say only a mom and dad can provide that.
I agree. Also, I think we can start with the whys of what building stable families is so hard in the first place, which will check the conservative box of leading to more mom/dad/kid homes and the liberal box of making sure people are able to build the kind of families they want with relative security.
Family care and environmental/ecological care in my mind go hand in hand when it comes to 1. The need for bipartisan support and 2. The need for more conversation around the problems we are trying to solve for and how we reach consensus for how to get there. Would love to see a conversation with something like eco-care as tied to family care at the heart! (This administration seems so hell bent on environmental policy as a liberal agenda, and therefore dismantling anything to do with the safety of our ecosystems as sticking it to the libs, and that’s just totally missing the point.)
love this point, thank you!! I will explore this soon.
This was a thought provoking conversation. I'm interested in the contrast between supporting paid leave for postpartum parents and supporting paid leave in other contexts. There does seem to be a prevalent line of thinking in some fiscally conservative corners that mat leave is straightforward and can be planned for, whereas things like paid leave to support someone who is ill, or bereavement leave to mourn someone who is gone, are less straightforward and therefore can't be addressed with well-intentioned policy.
On the one hand, I'm glad that at least we're talking about the fact that there's bipartisan support for parental leave and we should have more of it. On the other hand, in my own experience with those things, very few of our care experiences follow any sort of straightforward trajectory, including postpartum healing, but all of it is important, and all of it merits more social and political support than we currently have. That's my Lefty bias showing, I suppose :)
I'm sure Mr Brown is quite pleasant in person, but it's hard to take someone seriously when they work for an organization whose purpose is generating disinformation. EPPC is working hand-in-glove with the administration to advance the Trump agenda, including the latest spurious "study" being used to outlaw mifepristone.
Yes, it's important to talk to good-faith conservatives; no Mr Brown is not such a conservative.
I did enjoy this, and common ground was easier to find than I expected. However, I find it problematic to just accept that child care is expensive and say basically, "well it should be." That makes child care a luxury service, excluding a vast chunk of parents from participating, which ultimately disincentivizes work, the antithesis of most rightward arguments. Valet laundry service is an example of a luxury service. Good quality care for young children should be equitably accessible to all.
I hear you -- though I think what he meant is that the childcare will be expensive by its nature, and his way to help make it more available for families middle and lower income families is to expand the tax credit. He wants to put cash in the hands of folks rather than get the government involved in building centers etc.
I appreciate this and think there is definitely logic to it, and think the flexibility piece is really right on ---but also think the gov. could and should play a larger role in making sure quality childcare is available for those who need it and we can't rely on tax credits combined with the market alone as it is such a fragile ecosystem.
So where do I draw the line btw a huge, government-ran early years childcare national system and tax credits for childcare...honestly I am not sure and very much learning and thinking on the page here. And then also there are other things the gov. can do to support childcare besides building a system, including guaranteeing fair pay and conditions for the early childhood educators that I am thinking about as well...
What do you think?
This makes a lot more sense, thank you for your thoughtful response! I am generally very supportive of putting more cash in the hands of citizens. That said, that would continue the treatment of early childcare as a market good in a capitalist context, which is problematic. In an ideal world, the infrastructure would be similar to public schooling, but with adequate and equitable funding all around. And 100% yes to fair pay for people to whom we are entrusting our entire worlds, our beloved kiddos!