I mean, I go to work full time and the kid is a daycare but i'm still parenting.
because if she gets sick at daycare, has a fever, vomits, bangs her head too hard, I have to be ready to drop everything that I'm doing and go pick her up, take her to the dr. Try to find out the Dr has an appointment or if I have to go to urgent care. While also now spending my annual leave or taking unpaid leave to deal with medical emergency.
Why is it me? Well, her father could go get her, but since we're a one-car family and I have the car, it's faster for me to get her, rather than him try to leave his work, catch a bus, get to daycare, catch another bus to the Dr's then another bus home with a sick kid.
Have any of the childless in here had to take a shit while also trying to explain why you have a belly button? and why you stink? Or trying to explain why you're menstruating and that it's ok that mommy's bleeding it's normal and not at all a bad bleeding like when you fell that one time on the sidewalk and started bleeding from your knee, no no it's ok mommy's ok and not hurt and i don't need an icepack oh shit get out of the freezer do not bring an ice pack into the bathroom thank you sweetheart that is very thoughtful of you, mommy appreciates you making me feel better, i feel so much better, please go put the icepack back while mommy washes her hands no i do not need a plastercast to stop the bleeding, you're very sweet.
There is no easy way to explain what it is like. There really isn't.
This is an important angle - for stay-home parents, one person can pursue a career without those interruptions and the other can manage the home. It's part of why the role has value, financial value.
It has financial value to the household in question. Normally, when you are asking to be paid, it is because your labor is to the benefit of your employer. Like, if I try to build myself a house, it's going to be very difficult and stressful. So maybe I should be paid to build my house? The parents and the child are reaping all of the rewards of the experience, the degree of difficulty never factors into my thinking.
Except, you know, for benefits handed out by the government. Which this would be. There's already programs that hand out aid for those with special needs.
It's not a special need, it's universal. Everybody has been a child. Most end up parents. We're all getting screwed at our jobs. The idea that the government is going to point that fact out, but only help parents, is backwards. UBI is a better fix because it sets the floor for every child born, for life. Only helping parents makes "parent" the government approved lifestyle.
Why not?
Because that's not what the word means.
Sure it is. Children are humans with special needs. This is like, so obvious I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.
Just in the general the idea of the government handing out money to people based on something non-universal going on in their lives so that they can live better lives is not at all strange or unusual or outside the normal functioning of government.
I mean, I go to work full time and the kid is a daycare but i'm still parenting.
because if she gets sick at daycare, has a fever, vomits, bangs her head too hard, I have to be ready to drop everything that I'm doing and go pick her up, take her to the dr. Try to find out the Dr has an appointment or if I have to go to urgent care. While also now spending my annual leave or taking unpaid leave to deal with medical emergency.
Why is it me? Well, her father could go get her, but since we're a one-car family and I have the car, it's faster for me to get her, rather than him try to leave his work, catch a bus, get to daycare, catch another bus to the Dr's then another bus home with a sick kid.
Have any of the childless in here had to take a shit while also trying to explain why you have a belly button? and why you stink? Or trying to explain why you're menstruating and that it's ok that mommy's bleeding it's normal and not at all a bad bleeding like when you fell that one time on the sidewalk and started bleeding from your knee, no no it's ok mommy's ok and not hurt and i don't need an icepack oh shit get out of the freezer do not bring an ice pack into the bathroom thank you sweetheart that is very thoughtful of you, mommy appreciates you making me feel better, i feel so much better, please go put the icepack back while mommy washes her hands no i do not need a plastercast to stop the bleeding, you're very sweet.
There is no easy way to explain what it is like. There really isn't.
This is an important angle - for stay-home parents, one person can pursue a career without those interruptions and the other can manage the home. It's part of why the role has value, financial value.
It has financial value to the household in question. Normally, when you are asking to be paid, it is because your labor is to the benefit of your employer. Like, if I try to build myself a house, it's going to be very difficult and stressful. So maybe I should be paid to build my house? The parents and the child are reaping all of the rewards of the experience, the degree of difficulty never factors into my thinking.
Except, you know, for benefits handed out by the government. Which this would be. There's already programs that hand out aid for those with special needs.
It's not a special need, it's universal. Everybody has been a child. Most end up parents. We're all getting screwed at our jobs. The idea that the government is going to point that fact out, but only help parents, is backwards. UBI is a better fix because it sets the floor for every child born, for life. Only helping parents makes "parent" the government approved lifestyle.
Why not?
Because that's not what the word means.
Sure it is. Children are humans with special needs. This is like, so obvious I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.
Just in the general the idea of the government handing out money to people based on something non-universal going on in their lives so that they can live better lives is not at all strange or unusual or outside the normal functioning of government.
They have special needs, but the question was should extra benefits be given to the children? Almost everywhere on the planet says yes. Even with UBI the concept would be kids also get UBI too, then at 18 it transitions to them getting the money, IIRC?
I think whether or not you have children you should probably get assistance if you need it. Children should change the math on need maybe but I wouldn't consider them special. The thread seems to all agree it's totally normal to have kids.
A basic income that includes children deserve a standard of living and grants that income to a caregiver or guardian seems fine. That doesn't really fix the career progression issue, but I think that's probably irrelevant. If having a child and being a caregiver is a priority to a person it should be respected, but it's still a choice. We should make the decision as fair as possible for whatever parent is doing the caregiving and allow paths back into the workforce if they want it - with the understanding that there are jobs you can't simply be absent from for two years and not need retraining or certification coursework.
If you aren't a working EMT for two years there's a lot of stuff you have to do before they let you back on a rig. It's in everyone's best interest those processes be clear and fair. Which they currently are not.
Posts
Sure it is. Children are humans with special needs. This is like, so obvious I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.
Just in the general the idea of the government handing out money to people based on something non-universal going on in their lives so that they can live better lives is not at all strange or unusual or outside the normal functioning of government.
They have special needs, but the question was should extra benefits be given to the children? Almost everywhere on the planet says yes. Even with UBI the concept would be kids also get UBI too, then at 18 it transitions to them getting the money, IIRC?
A basic income that includes children deserve a standard of living and grants that income to a caregiver or guardian seems fine. That doesn't really fix the career progression issue, but I think that's probably irrelevant. If having a child and being a caregiver is a priority to a person it should be respected, but it's still a choice. We should make the decision as fair as possible for whatever parent is doing the caregiving and allow paths back into the workforce if they want it - with the understanding that there are jobs you can't simply be absent from for two years and not need retraining or certification coursework.
If you aren't a working EMT for two years there's a lot of stuff you have to do before they let you back on a rig. It's in everyone's best interest those processes be clear and fair. Which they currently are not.