> The conclusions are only logical that this is an area where government support and intervention can reap vast societal benefits.
If it's not an economical proposition, involving the government surely can't help.
The issue is that folks want a very high caregiver/child ration, for what is essentially unskilled labour (any non-pathological adolescent or adult can take care of children acceptably). So the supply of workers (i.e., just about everyone) vastly outstrips the demand.
Why not just go back to single-earner households and extended families?
If it's not an economical proposition, involving the government surely can't help.
The issue is that folks want a very high caregiver/child ration, for what is essentially unskilled labour (any non-pathological adolescent or adult can take care of children acceptably). So the supply of workers (i.e., just about everyone) vastly outstrips the demand.
Why not just go back to single-earner households and extended families?