Read on Twitter
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">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/1...
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">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/1...
Policymakers have generally considered the need for publicly subsidized child care as confined to the poor. It& #39;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">https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/...
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& #39;m afraid that many providers are closed for good, and new ones won& #39;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& #39;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.
