Some really thought-provoking stuff here from @clairecm on whether the fallout from COVID-19 will lead to improvements in worker conditions.

I have few a thoughts on the child care dimension. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/upshot/coronavirus-future-work-america.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Policymakers have generally considered the need for publicly subsidized child care as confined to the poor. It's no coincidence that the creation of new subsidy programs often accompanies changes to the welfare system (e.g. 1998 Family Support Act & 1996 PRWORA). Welfare-to-work!

This longstanding "marriage" btwn child care & welfare policy may partially explain the many failed attempts to expand eligibility/benefits to middle- & upper-middle income families, at the very least. So, progress on child care is very much stymied by path-dependent thinking.

This intellectual narrowness is misguided. Child care, if done well, may be one of the most muscular pro-work & human capital enhancing policy levers available, for poor & wealthy families alike. That is: the marginal $ spent on child care affects outcomes across TWO generations.

The only time the U.S. thought differently abt child care was during WWII, when the Lanham Act created a system of universal publicly-provided (& not just subsidized) care. Was key that the need was broad, clear & urgent, but still the resistance was harsh https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/689478

Congressman Lanham hated the idea that his name would be attached to child care legislation. So, funding for it was not initially included in the Act b/c it was not deemed "public services". It was only later, and as an "inspired afterthought", that funding was made available.

Parents were among those initially skeptical of government-provided child care. But opinions shifted. A survey of Lanham Act centers in CA found that 100% mothers reported their "child enjoyed nursery school" & 81% had a "generally favorable" view of "early childhood education".

What does this all mean for today? The intellectual pigeonholing of child care & the challenges it faced during WWII make me pessimistic that something big can happen post-COVID19. Nevertheless, two things provide some basis for optimism:

First, COVID-19 exposed the reality that child care providers are not built to withstand large labor supply shocks. I'm afraid that many providers are closed for good, and new ones won't take their place. This opens the door to a public system, of the sort proposed by @SenWarren.

Second, it may be that child care's necessity increases as more people work from home. If true, & assuming work-from-home propensity is an increasing function of income, then suddenly there is a newly-activated & potentially tide-turning constituency available to press its need.

END OF THREAD.

Time for a beer and to listen to old Dead shows with @BrianKisida.