Ep. 178 Let’s Socialize the Family, Say Warren and Krugman

4 March 2019     |     Tom Woods     |     20

This week Krugman endorses Elizabeth Warren’s plan for subsidized child care at the federal level. It’s so cheap, and it would help so many people! Meh.

Krugman Column

Democrats for Family Values” (February 21, 2019)

Contra Columns

“Why Uncle Sam Would Make a Bad Nanny,” by Rachel Greszler and Lindsey M. Burke
“Federal Early Childhood Education, Care Doesn’t Benefit Kids. Here Are the Facts,” by Lindsey M. Burke
“Why Is Day Care Scarce and Unaffordable?” by Jeffrey Tucker
Children Don’t Need ‘Day Care For All,’ They Need Their Mothers,” by Joy Pullmann

Link Mentioned

Bob Murphy Show, Ep 19: Why Rothbardian Institutions Would Become Nonviolent

Need More Episodes?

Tom and Bob have their own podcasts! Check out the Tom Woods Show, the Bob Murphy Show, and the Lara-Murphy Report.

The Contra Cruise!

Join us as we set sail for Alaska, July 5-12, 2019!

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • Matt Voegtli

    I don’t buy the two parents have to work theory. I make a very modest income and my wife still stays home. We own our home, are able to eat out once a week and I still have more money at the end of every month then we started with. It doesn’t take a lot if your priority is to stay home.

    • LP

      Cable TV, new computer/phone/car every year, faster internet than you need, student debt, netflix. If you don’t bother with things you don’t need, it’s not hard to live without 2 parents working.

      • Matt Voegtli

        True. I only got my associates and decided not to pursue a degree in a field I didn’t want, and I’ve only ever had about 6k in debt and that was for a business. I think student loan debt is one thing that MAY make it so both parents end up having to work. But I don’t think college is for very many people.

        • LP

          The hardest part is the friggen progressive income tax. On the face of it, if you’ve got 250k in student loan debt, and can each make 35k a year (which your degree had better let you do or it was a waste), you ought to be able to put 40-45k toward the debt and get it paid off in about 6 years. After all, living on $30k a year is reasonably comfortable. If you’re alone, making 35k, you’ll pay around 3k in taxes. Combined, you’ll pay 10k. That comes straight out of the amount you could otherwise pay toward debt.

      • David Smith

        You forgot probably the biggest thing

        Too much house

        Modern 2400+ square foot houses(for 3 or 4 people) with $200 a month association fees and $500+ a month property taxes will pretty much demand a second income.

        • LP

          That’s probably because it never entered my mind since I live in an area with pretty darn low property taxes (0.83%), which means you’d need about $750k worth of house before you’re paying 500 a month. But that’s a good point for people living in cities or more populated counties. $100/month more in rent or taxes and upkeep turns into an extra $1200 a year from your after-tax income.

          • David Smith

            I used to live in far western Chicago suburbs and property taxes ran between 3 and 3.5% depending on where you lived. Houses all over the area with 8k to 11k property tax bills plus association fees.

            If you wanna pay less than 6k you need to buy something built in the mid 60s or earlier.

            Absolute insanity

          • LP

            Wow. That means you’re re-buying your house every 30 years. That’s absolutely insane.

        • Ludwig van El

          WE can scrap the $500+ / month property theft, for a start. Warren is much more capable of organizing that than the electorate is,.

    • Peter

      Well you’re obviously not a malcontent.. (How novel.)

  • MDBurk2754

    Per Elizabeth Warren: “Child care is one of those things we’ve got to do for working parents and we’ve got to do for our children.” So then what are all the other “…things…” we’ve got to do, for whom do we have to do them, who decides and under what circumstances? What’s the assurance that doing something for one of the groups she notes (say, “…working parents…”) is necessarily a benefit to another group she notes (say, “…our children…”)? Last but not least, who’s the “we” in the “…we’ve got to do…” part of her statement?

    Since when does anyone have the right to decide not only what “…things…” to do but for whom to do them (along w/whom to do them “to” as opposed to “for”) and then, to add insult to injury, force everyone to pay- financially and otherwise- for the “privilege” of doing so? Answer: When we, as a votary, vote market systems over to political systems thereby giving govt. and its vested interests green light after green light to decide for us that which we could- and should- be deciding for ourselves: how to live our lives.

    • martinbrock

      Paid family leave …

      Of course, Trump’s socialization of the family prints money rather than taxing the rich, so there’s that …

    • Peter

      I think she’s oversimplifying..

  • martinbrock

    A few weeks ago (Ep. 173), Bob could think of the names of a few people confusing “sociaiism” with Swedish-style welfare state programs (including childcare subsidies), despite the obvious fact that calling these Swedish programs “socialism” is just nutty, but Newt Gingrich wasn’t one of them.

    Ironically, the title of Ep. 173 calls these programs “communism” despite the fact that no Marxist state ever claimed to create “communism”, which is a stateless stage following socialism in Marxist theory. Historical Marxist parties claim to aim for communism, and their socialist states sometimes wither away (disintegrate or collapse) but only to be replaced by another state rather than by communism. That’s not “real communism’s never been tried.” It’s what Marxists themselves say they’re doing.

    Sure, words mean what people commonly mean by them, and not only what academics mean by them, but Newt Gingrich and people across “the right”, certainly do confuse “socialism” with welfare state programs, and Bernie Sanders-style “socialism” might not be so popular today if rightists hadn’t laid the rhetorical groundwork for it this way.

  • Peter

    Why is it no one discusses a return on the investment when dealing with financing some of these programs? Does anyone really think that when we give out even if it’s “supposed” to be “no strings attached”, that honestly speaking it’s only human that we would have expectations about where the money goes and how it is to be spent.

  • davegrille

    The reality is that no education has been demonstrated to be successful before the seventh year.Head start is an example of politics triumphing over science and reality.

    • Matt Voegtli

      Really? Any sources on that? My anecdotal evidence with my own kids would leave me to about 5. I’ve never heard 7 before but there are a lot of milestones there so I’d be interested to read up on that.

  • David Smith

    You know, they have partially socialized daycare already, especially with the most recent round of tax cuts.

    The $2000 child tax credit, plus the $1,100 in tax reduction you get if you are in 22% bracket and putting 5k into a childcare FSA. Since FSA contributions are done before socialist insecurity is taken out, that’s an additional $310.

    That works out to about 32% of the cost of my kid’s daycare (currently paying infant rates) per year in a state that is right around the middle in terms of daycare cost.

  • Ludwig van El

    Ldet’s insteaed socialize government: democracy! (democratic government is a contradiction in terms: https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2019/03/08/some-clear-definitions/ )
    By socializing government, I mean self-rule, aka statelessness.

  • Steve from Richmond

    Messrs. Woods and Murphy: You repeatedly address only one argument relating to the left’s justification for taking money from the rich, namely, that the wealthy just wallow in their money, thus taking it will not be detrimental to society. What I read on progressive (or leftwing) sites is this: the left justifies the taking based on a belief that the rich got there only by exploiting the working class, and hence they (the rich) do not deserve to keep it. (The phrases I often read are “earned off the backs of” or “earned from the sweat of.”) Whenever I get the chance, I point out that the word “exploit” is negatively charged and demagogic. There is a “positive” aspect to the word: Many “exploited” employees earn a fine living (thankyouverymuch) are therefore happy to be exploited. And, of course, but for this “exploitation,” they might not otherwise have a decent job to go to.