You wanted me to to provide details? How about you lead by example? Or are you not paying attention? There are numerous studies showing that a lack of parental attention is a leading indicator to a poor quality of life in adulthood. You want to make an assertion that prolonged parental contact on average does not increase the maturity, social responsibility and quality of life of a child then you have to show some evidence.

> You're assuming that society is happy subsidizing the kids that you want to subsidize. How about some evidence?

I assume that the Swedish society is happy subsidising decent parental leave because there's a lack of obvious pressure from the majority to end such a practice. Just like there's a lack of similar pressure in France, Germany and many other European nations. Not only that, but the popular press are writing articles in favour of it! I'd say that people are not against it from these indicators. What kind of 'evidence' do you want me to produce?

>Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable.

Now you're showing your own bias. Why do you think that someone who takes their leave will be seen as unreliable? If it's a societal norm then they are seen as decent parents, not as unreliable. The mad pressure to live in the workplace across the whole of society is American and eastern Asian - that kind of culture is not followed in Europe, happily.

> As a result, the money will go disproportionately to the well-off. That's how almost all of the "not means tested" programs "for the children" work.

Wonderful generalisation. Again, a distinct lack of details, despite your aggressive and patronising tone. How about reflecting that someone with less free cash benefits more from these programs, since they have fewer reserves to fall back on. The rich have the choice, the poor don't. And these types of scheme give the poor the choice. > Pay attention much? The above is my first comment that addressed child care and it doesn't contain that "thesis".

You think that subsidising child care is a bad thing - your thesis/attitude/opinion is against the article, that the Swedish system is a poor model. That much is clear from your sarcastic response. Despite your aggressive tone and your begging for details, you've not put across a coherent point of view, nor have you presented any evidence in favour of your viewpoint. Instead, you've been reactionary and aggressive. How about a cogent, coherent argument in favour of your point of view with 'details' and evidence?

Otherwise your attitude comes across as you don't want to pay for it, therefore it must be bad thing.

Actually, I didn't ask (in this thread) for details. So, once again, you're arguing with voices in your head and trying to attribute them to me.

However, I'm pretty sure that I can get really good kids (and upbringing) for less from India. They won't look like Swedes, but ....

> >Also, folks who are closer to the edge economically are less able to afford to be seen as less reliable.

> Now you're showing your own bias. Why do you think that someone who takes their leave will be seen as unreliable?

My "bias" is that of an employer. It doesn't matter whether "taking leave" is ordinary or not - folks who take a lot of leave are folks who you can't count on as much as folks who don't.

Folks who take a lot of leave who are behind on experience and knowledge. When you need someone who knows what happened last month, you can't ask someone who was on leave then.

> Again, a distinct lack of details

Most people can figure out that that n months of paid leave for someone who makes a lot of money takes more money than n months of leave for someone who makes less money without being given "details".

> your thesis/attitude/opinion is against the article

Again, I've posted nothing that supports your assertion. Or, are you going with "any criticism implies ...."?

> Otherwise your attitude comes across as you don't want to pay for it, therefore it must be bad thing.

I've found that most demands for subsidy are a bad thing.

As our libertarian friends say, there are four types of spending. (1) Our money, spent on ourselves, (2) our money spent on other people, (3) other people's money spent on ourselves, and (4) other people's money spent on other people.

For (1), we're concerned with cost vs benefit. For (2), we're less concerned with benefit and more with cost. With (3), we're more concerned with benefit and less with cost. With (4) ....