considerations on welfare statism and fertility-friendly policymaking

In reference to my previous post about Sweden, this article in The Public Interest evaluates the effects of so-called "family friendly" policies, such as "free" day care.

The conclusion is that "free" day care is, of course, paid for upfront in the form of taxes, making its use near-mandatory, as people paying 35-50% tax rates become less able to afford not to use day care. The overall effect is that, to provide free day care, a nation makes it economically necessary for women with young children to work -- and most job growth is in administering the welfare state itself, and most child care jobs are held by women, so the end result is economically compelling women to leave their own childen to care for other people's children.

Of course, the talented ones can use the system to pursue employment as hockey players or lawyers or cabaret singers. But it's not clear that the segment most able to take care of themselves is the segment for whom taxation policies should be designed.

One interesting point is that, while the (now defunct) Public Interest is a conservative publication, this article ends up suggesting rather progressive policy alternatives such as Social Security credits for stay-at-home parenting, and a sort of "GI Bill" for stay-at-home parents (providing tuition credits for later education and job training), who sacrifice career advancement in order to raise children, in a move somewhat analagous to soliders who sacrificed career advancement to defend the nation.

Of course, that leads me to raise the question of whether these benefits would apply to someone who stayed home to raise their children on welfare -- are we to reward them by paying for their education? (If I balk at this, I think it makes me more fiscally conservative than TPI, which makes me itch). Of course, the thought of paying taxes towards such a thing makes working people indignant, but I think most things that would significantly ameliorate poverty and crime (like rehabiliation, college classes, and family visits for prisoners) make working people indignant.

If it would be the case that a GI Bill for parents could be "stacked" with other benefits -- a weekly check just for breeding, plus a free or reduced-cost grad degree? -- well, sign me up. Sperm donors aren't that hard to come by.

Of course, views on subsidizing (or, in some views, fairly compensating) parenting activities are strongly informed by whether one thinks the world needs more people in it. And while I used to be rather smug (like, when I was a high school debater, many of whom are quite smug in general) about how the world is overpopulated and anyone who chooses to have children is using valuable resources, the US is currently only replacing its population through immigration and the high birthrates of first-generation immigrants. Japan is suffering serious economic consequences from its below-replacement birthrate. And there is also the argument that people are going to keep making babies no matter what you do, so maybe the point is quality rather than quantity; measures that alleviate poverty and make those inevitable children more likely to be productive taxpayers and less likely to be criminals are in the public interest and possibly could be cost-effective, regardless of whether one holds the pronatalist view that children are a good in themselves.

This post has no punchline whatsoever. Feel free to reply in the comments.