You know that I have had strong opinions about childcare. But the current silly situation just keeps getting more and more absurd. Dean Dad is on the case with Florida State University's new policy (comments got disabled just before he started on controversial topics).
From Matt Reed:
One way to handle that dilemma, of course, is just to outlaw it. That was Florida State’s approach. It mandated that parents who are working from home, and whose children are young, provide proof of a nanny or other caregiver, or be fired. It’s a solution that makes sense if you assume that everybody (including the nanny) is independently wealthy and working just to have something to do. If you assume, though, that people need their salaries, then it’s sexist and barbaric. When I read it, I initially thought I had missed the attribution to The Onion. If we had an actual, functioning judicial branch, I’d expect that to get tossed on “differential impact” in a millisecond. Alas, no.This is the logical endpoint of not wanting to grapple with the joint problems of liability (in a classroom, somebody will get infected with covid-19 -- the US is a large country) and social design. At the same time that people are becoming richer off of the pandemic.
I think I am not unique in noting that removing childcare services shifts the economics of working in ways that really undermine the whole way we organize the economy. It also has the potential to induce large losses in student outcomes; vulnerable groups show disparate losses over the SUMMER. What are 2 years going to do?
But the other is the question of distribution. This has come up with trade. It is axiomatic that trade between the US and China makes both groups better off in aggregate. But it doesn't mean that there will not be losers in this game. There is an allergy to removing some of the wealth from the "winners" to compensate the "losers" as if market outcomes were some sort of ethical or moral process.
In the case of war we totally have concerns about "war profiteers" -- people who get rich in a time of great suffering instead of investing the money back into the common good. How is the pandemic different? A disease is not a moral process and so perhaps we should be thinking about how to distribute wealth and how to cope the shock. Short term cash transfers help (and are a good) but if the job distribution is very different afterwards then that will be bad. How do you square "stay home with your kids for the common good" with "Julie was there during the pandemic and was thus the best person to get the new promotion because of the skills she developed".
Finally, in the United States we link health care to employment. Let that sink in as you think about the FSU policy. If you have kids and are not wealthy then we'll take away your ability to be insured in the midst of a dangerous pandemic that often requires hospital care, even among the young/healthy.
It is a hard problem and it needs an even more serious grappling.
