SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
childcare
Investing in Childcare Would 'Massively Increase' Parents' Earnings: Study
"This kind of payoff is almost unheard of in government labor-market policies."
Oct 07, 2024
While Republican proposals for solving the childcare crisis in the presidential campaign have ranged from recruiting "grandpa or grandma" as babysitters to slashing providers' certification requirements—with presidential candidate Donald Trump failing to give a coherent answer when asked about the issue last month—a new study delivers a simple message about how the benefits of public spending on childcare significantly outweigh the costs.
Researchers at Yale and Brown universities analyzed the universal pre-kindergarten program in New Haven, Connecticut, and found that "politicians could massively increase Americans' earnings" by expanding investments in such programs.
The New Haven program began as the result of a 1996 court ruling and is open to all families in the city regardless of income—but it uses a lottery system for enrollment due to limited funding and space.
The paper the researchers published with the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that parents whose children were selected in New Haven's lottery had 11 more hours of childcare than those who weren't able to benefit from the tuition-free universal pre-K program—enough to increase the parents' earnings by 21.7% even after their kids moved on to elementary school.
That increase makes childcare spending "one of the most effective, pro-work policies in the U.S.," said Washington Post economic columnist Heather Long.
The added earnings stemmed largely from the parents' ability to continue working without taking time off to fill in gaps left by a lack of childcare, particularly because New Haven's program includes extended hours, with children able to attend as early as 7:30 am and as late as 5:30 pm.
The paper emphasizes that families that didn't get a pre-K slot still utilized other childcare programs out of necessity—but they had to pay for them out of pocket and were able to send their children to the programs for fewer hours per week than those who won the lottery.
"A few more hours of care can have long-run returns for families that are quite a bit larger than the costs of provision," Seth D. Zimmerman, a research associate at Yale who co-authored the study, told the Post.
Combining the added earnings for parents and other economic benefits associated with early childhood education, the researchers found, every dollar spent on providing tuition-free full-time childcare yielded $6 in benefits.
"This kind of payoff is almost unheard of in government labor-market policies—much higher than for most other pro-work programs, such as the earned-income tax credit," wrote Post columnist Catherine Rampell in an analysis on Monday.
The study was published days after the White House released an issue brief titledChildcare Is Infrastructure, which the Biden administration said was made evident by its $24 billion investment in the industry through the American Rescue Plan.
"Introduction of universal pre-K across various states led to increased pre-K enrollment and higher employment rates among mothers with young children in those areas on average," said the White House. "Consistent with an increase in overall economic activity, places that introduced universal pre-k also had larger increases in new business applications and the number of establishments than places that did not."
Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has expressed support for expanding childcare programs and lowering costs for families, including by restoring the expanded child tax credit and providing an extra tax break for families with newborns.
The new study suggests that in the presidential campaign, "childcare should be front and center," wrote Rampell. "If you want to help workers, help them care for their kids."
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Stop the Nuclear Arms Race, States Like the US Should Pursue Domestic Peace
While projecting power to internal and external audiences through nuclear modernization, the United States ignores insecurity at home.
Oct 04, 2024
The
Pact for the Future, adopted by world leaders at the high-level United Nations Summit of the Future in September, ambitiously calls for a world free of nuclear weapons and a recommitment to disarmament during a time when all nuclear states are undergoing nuclear modernization efforts and tensions that could indicate the beginning of a new arms race. Meanwhile, the Fragile States Index notes indicators of weakened domestic human security factors within these states. Yes, states are proliferating and modernizing their arsenals in response to rivals doing the same, but where did this cycle start, what magnifies it, and how does it impact the people within these countries?
Peace comes not only through the protection from outside threats, but by fostering individual security through strong health, educational, and justice institutions. While states invest in deterrence, human security needs go unmet, and civilians develop mistrust in the government and other countries.
The United States has seen a decline in social cohesion and an increase in state fragility over the past decade, and the fractionalized population is on even greater display this year with the upcoming election. State fragility is also evident in an increase in political violence—demonstrated by two assassination attempts of a former president—democratic backsliding, an attempt to overturn an election, extreme gerrymandering, and restricting voters’ access to the ballot box.
Spending on non-defense programs and instead investing in the civilian sector decreases unemployment rates and contributes to economic security for the public.
Looking at only high-level, international interactions misses domestic factors that contribute to countries feeling less inclined to participate in diplomatic, arms control solutions, or having more isolationist practices. In 1997, Scott Sagan published a piece called, “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: Three Models in Search of a Bomb,” explaining the lack of attention to the “domestic politics model.” Today, amid a potential start of an arms race and a massive change in the global order, these factors are once again ignored.
Diplomacy and arms control is hard between countries when the people in those countries cannot decide what to do about it.
The decline in social cohesion isn’t just reflected in levels of trust that U.S. civilians have of other U.S. civilians. If you don’t trust your next-door neighbor, you sure aren’t primed to trust someone from a different country. Low levels of social trust make a populace more vulnerable to influence using “othering” rhetoric about international enemies and even allies. So, while U.S. citizens experience insecurity and instability at home, a policy that gives the illusion that the nation is strong placates grievances.
Research shows that the public’s support for defense spending and a willingness to use force is related to low social trust.
While projecting power to internal and external audiences through nuclear modernization, the United States ignores insecurity at home.
According to a report by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, the cost of a strong military also includes the forgone investments into human security:
Decades of high levels of military spending have changed U.S. government and society—strengthening its ability to fight wars, while weakening its capacities to perform other core functions. Investments in infrastructure, healthcare, education, and emergency preparedness, for instance, have all suffered as military spending and industry have crowded them out.
Project 2025, written by many former Trump administration advisers, calls for an expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal in order to “deter Russia and China simultaneously.” Countering China, and using it as a “pacer” is not only touted by the Trump campaign. The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review calls on modernization in order to deter China and its growing nuclear forces. However, even if China did reach the high end of projected growth in nuclear force, it would not be close to the 3,700 nuclear weapons that the United States has in its arsenal. The United States is undergoing a $1.2 trillion effort of nuclear modernization over the coming decades in order to keep its deterrent force strong.
From 1974 to 1987, an increase in defense spending worsened unemployment rates among Americans, but was specifically harmful to Black Americans and women. When non-defense spending increased, unemployment rates reduced. During this time, the United States was significantly proliferating its nuclear arsenal in the Cold War, and the strategic spending percent of the defense budget went from 11% to 16%. This was because the shift in spending toward a nuclear buildup necessitated hardware and technical spending rather than personnel spending.
The current budget for U.S. Nuclear Forces is $75 billion a year, however the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate for the 2023-2032 period of $756 billion is $122 billion more than the year before’s estimate of $634 billion for the 2021-2030 period. There are many other ways that the United States could spend this money than on a weapon that should never be used, but universal early childhood education (“Pre-K”) is estimated to cost $20-46 billion per year, and there would still be a few billion to spare.
Spending on non-defense programs and instead investing in the civilian sector decreases unemployment rates and contributes to economic security for the public.
In a preliminary study conducted at the Nonproliferation Education and Research Center at the Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, it was found that a weak security apparatus—one of the indicators in the U.S. Institute of Peace’s Global Fragility Index—was associated with a low state sentiment score in the 2005-2022 Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conferences. A state’s sentiment score increases as it gives examples of its own fulfillment of its obligations under the treaty but decreases as the state blames other states for not fulfilling their obligations. In a way, it measures a state’s own sense of responsibility in the process or its willingness to blame other member states for the degradation of the system.
The findings demonstrate a relationship between domestic institutional factors and how states behave at the international level. Specifically, states that have political insecurity have a lower confidence in the NPT process. They express less confidence in other member states by calling out misactions, and do not express how they contribute directly through their own policy to uphold the nonproliferation regime.
When U.S. institutions are weakened, leaders may continue to evade responsibility by blaming all institutional issues on outside actors through scapegoating. Some scholars argue that the pursuit of a nuclear weapons program provides a unique opportunity to divert a political legitimacy crisis, such as in the case of Iran, and that activities such as the testing of nuclear weapons are so salient, they show a deliverable that gains a party in power prestige.
Global power politics does not exist in a vacuum. While understanding dynamics between states is important, state fragility is a lens through which to understand the origins of broiling tensions that prevent the pursuit of diplomatic arms control solutions. The United States is not the only state seeing a decline in social cohesion indicators; however, it is necessary to turn inward and stabilize domestic human-security factors before we can address rivals, competitors, the axis of evil, or whatever label makes us feel more secure. Addressing instability within the country will make the United States more legitimate in its claims, and institutions will have more capacity to handle outside threats as the populace is more secure.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The US Childcare Crisis Is Finally an Election Issue
As one of the only industrialized countries in the world without national paid leave, the United States forces moms in particular to choose between continuing to work or raising our children.
Sep 30, 2024
Every mother in America knows this struggle well: How do you afford to raise a child?
My daughter was born almost 14 years ago, and my family is still financially recovering from the struggle of supporting a newborn. And we’re not alone—American families are spending a greater and greater portion of their income on childcare.
According to the nonprofit Child Care Aware, the average cost of childcare in the U.S. is now more than $10,000 per year—and even higher for infants and toddlers. And the problem is only getting worse. It’s no wonder so many women are choosing not to have children because they say they can’t afford them.
I’ve come to understand my experience as a failure of our elected leaders to provide basic needs like affordable, accessible childcare and paid family and medical leave.
Right before I found out I was pregnant, I was let go from my job and lost my benefits and stable income.
Once my daughter was born, instead of enjoying every moment of being new parents, my partner and I were stressed about our financial situation. I didn’t have a job to go back to, and even if I did, we wouldn’t have been able to afford childcare.
I remember tirelessly googling childcare providers in the area and becoming exasperated at the costs. There was no way that we could afford to pay $300-plus a week just for daycare—we wouldn’t be able to cover our basic living expenses.
The situation became a Catch-22: If I didn’t work, it would be impossible to balance our bills and afford the essentials to raise a child. But if I did, we wouldn’t be able to afford those things anyway, because all the money would be going to daycare.
This is why so many mothers like me are driven out of the workforce. As one of the only industrialized countries in the world without national paid leave, the United States forces moms in particular to choose between continuing to work or raising our children.
The fortunate mothers who do have access to a paid leave program are significantly less likely to quit their jobs and more likely to work for the same employer after the birth of their first child. That’s not just good for mothers—that’s good for employers and our economy as a whole.
As I think back to those days, I remember always feeling sad, not realizing that like 10-15% of new mothers I was likely dealing with postpartum depression. That feeling was only compounded by isolation and the stress of financial insecurity.
Paid leave can help address those mental stressors. According to one study, women who took longer than 12 weeks maternity leave reported fewer depressive symptoms, a reduction in severe depression, and an improvement in their overall mental health. I know I would’ve benefited greatly from knowing that I could take the time to care for my child without worrying about winding up in dire financial straits.
Having a child should be a joyful event, not a deeply stressful one. I’ve come to understand my experience as a failure of our elected leaders to provide basic needs like affordable, accessible childcare and paid family and medical leave.
I’m glad that unlike elections in the past, this crisis has become a major issue. I hope to see a day when no mother has to go through what I did.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular