We all know at this point no matter how much is added to public schools in deep blue areas there is not going to be improvement.I can't see how schools are not infrastructure. IF the dems expand the child tax credit permanently and call that infrastructure ... imo it's a stretch. But I'm no saying its a bad idea ... so long as they raise taxes on the investor class to pay for it, and THERE'S NO SUBTRAFUGE no matter how many pearls are clutched by the Trump/McConnell brigade.I'm not certain what the Dems plan is on childcare....it could be, they just want to help fund it, so it is affordable...and in that case, I would say you are correct, that is not an investment in infrastructure.I think investing in childcare centers is infrastructure investment....and an investment that could be utilized for a few generations.Except according to economics THEY’RE NOT, why do you feel the need to disguise your intentions by redefining the meaning of terms?Childcare centers would be infrastructure! I like my idea!Human beings are NOT INFRASTRUCTURE Care4all , which is why childcare isn’t INFRASTRUCTURE, which is the point of the OP. Economics is very specific in its definition of INFRASTRUCTURE for a good reason.If you have a gazillion baby boomers retiring and expiring, the economy needs both younger sexes to be a part of the workforce, full force, to fill the void, and to keep our economy growing.The word, "infrastructure" has had a common, generally understood meaning for generations. New technology has made it reasonable to include "Wideband internet" in the definition of "infrastructure," and nobody is seriously refuting that addition. All the politicians in Washington agree, regardless of party, that massive INFRASTRUCTURE spending can be justified at this time (which is arguable, but agreed).
Today's Leftists in Washington have stated, falsely, that things such as education, childcare, healthcare, and family leave, are "infrastructure." And yet we know that this is false.
So rather than put those initiatives into discrete legislative/spending proposals and debating them on their merits, the Democrats demand that they be called, "infrastructure," and continue to debate meaningless semantics, rather than the merits of their programs. Then, presumably, they go back to their low-information constituents back home and tell them that Republicans oppose "infrastructure" spending - again, a LIE.
If these programs are so good and beneficial, why do they have to lie about what they are? Why do they refuse to debate them on their merits?
You also need more children born, for our future workforce and continued economic growth.
In order for this to happen, we need to invest in childcare, so it is not such a burden on families with children. Children who truly are, our future as a Nation.
Unaffordable childcare, compared to the salaries these mothers receive, is preventing women from working to the degree that the economy needs them to work to replace the boomers, also while still continuing to have more children. Investing in good childcare centers, so they are a dime a dozen, bringing the costs way down and giving working mothers a choice of good care for their kids would reduce their worries, and would be a way, to do that....
If you want to spend public money on childcare, that’s fine let’s debate it on it’s own merits but don’t try to disguise it as something else in the hopes that the public will fall for a marketing gimmick.
It’s akin to claiming asteroids are stars because you don’t care for the way astrophysics defines the two terms.
It’s great that you think that Care4all , however the science of economics disagrees with you on it and thus any student of that science is going to tend to disregard your argument as an attempt to redefine the term to suit your own narrative.
Personally I don’t have any qualms with your reasoning other than the fact that you’re attempting to apply misleading labeling to it.
But I simply disagree with you, that building lots of daycare centers, so that the demands are easily met and supply meets the demand which would reduce daycare costs for families, is not an infrastructure investment.
And it could be simply grants to the private sector, on their building of the daycare centers, or adding an addition to ones house, to accommodate more daycare children.
But I am not DEAD SET on it being in the infrastructure bill.... I'd be content, no matter how it passes.