> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of John D. Giorgis
[snip]
> >A few months ago, I had suggested to the rest of the board at Plugged In
> >(www.pluggedin.org) that we add child care to our services, so that those
> >with the greatest obstacles, especially young, poor, single mothers, can
> >participate in our programs. After seeing these numbers, I
> decided to make
> >that, or something like it, a condition for my support of the building
> >project we are beginning.
>
> That is unfortunate. If we are to believe in equal pay for equal work,
> then employers should not provide extra benefits to employees
> with children
> without a stay-at-home mother vs. employees in a family where the wife (or
> husband) has chosen to invest in their own children by staying at home.
>
> Indeed, this is a market-distorting incentive that *discourages*
> having one
> parent stay at home with the children.
Are you under the impression that I was talking about child care for Plugged
In's employees? I'm talking about people trapped in poverty who need
someone to watch their children to give them the freedom to grow and learn.
In any event, employers who help their employees with child care are to be
commended, in my mind, since they're doing social good. It's not as if the
childless are being denied benefits; if they had children, they'd get the
same. You seem to be promoting the same line of thinking that has led
childless people to try to not pay taxes that go to schools, as if they had
received no benefit from the existence of public education. All of us are
*somebody's* children.
Nick
