I think government funded Universal Child Care while single parents or both parents are working makes sense. The key is “while both parents or single parents are working” and it should not be limited to “child care”. We need “after school programs” as much as “child care” programs. Whether a child is under school age or “of school age”, the typical person works 8–9 per day jobs, but many schools get out before 3PM and the parent does not get off work till 5PM. So a three hour extended “Gym/Study Hall” at the public schools staffed by the school system makes sense to me.
I was a single parent with a son in middle school when I was young (a long time ago) who was effectively what we called a “latch key” kid for three hours a day. He turned out fine. But the problem is not just during the work day, but during the school vacations which are far more generous than “work” vacation.
Thankfully during the summer and school breaks programs like the Boy’s Club existed. For me it was less about money then simply having access to programs like the Boy’s Club since I was an executive for Merrill Lynch at the time and so could afford programs like this, but these types of programs should be available to everyone. I continue to donate to these programs knowing their value especially to single parents.
Given the shortage of workers today, it makes sense to encourage as many people as possible to work and so an “entitlement” designed to get more people working and help those with lower incomes benefit more from working makes all the sense in the world to me.
Even if the financial subsidy phased out as incomes rose (as long as the programs being available to parents of all incomes while they were at work), it would be a big help to a society where more and more children can expect to grow up during some part of their lives with only one parent at home.
I do take some issue with the argument that this is largely a “woman’s issue”. More and more I see divorced couples “sharing” custody and other times I see the big issue is how to care for a child during “work hours”. Again the issue is not “babies”, but children.
As an aside, towards the end of my career as a senior executive and eventually CEO of a company, I did try hard to create “flex hours”, job sharing and even work at home programs so I could access the talent pool of women who choose to stay home or work less than full time. So I don’t think employers are oblivious to the issues.
As an aside I am a conservative and so my view on this issue is what is in the interest of all of us as a society to insure we maximize the potential of our workforce and economy both now and in the future. Ivanka Trump pushed hard for extended childcare benefits in the last tax bill. Her proposal would have cost $500 billion over ten years and it is not as generous as what we are talking about in this thread, so this “entitlement” would not be “cheap”. But in my mind, programs that encourage people to work without putting their children at risk should be a priority.
