Here is why universal pre-K is a very bad idea.
The whole point of pre-K is to facilitate women being in the workplace, right? Workplace can mean two things. One is a career and another one is a job. The difference is that a job is something you can leave for 3, 4, 5 years and then go back. If you are a cashier at a supermarket and you leave the job when you have a kid, you can go back to being a cashier several years later. But if you have a career, there’s nothing to go back to.
The only reason I put Klara in daycare at six months is that the alternative was to abandon my career forever. That was absolutely the only reason. And it was very, very hard to do. (If you have no problem being separated from a 6-month-old child for several hours a day, something is very wrong with you. If you still have this problem when the child is six years old, that’s not normal either.)
It’s the same for a doctor, a software developer, a dentist, a business owner, a marketing specialist, etc, etc. Once you leave a career, all you can get when you go back is a job.
Now, who’s going to fund this universal pre-K? Let’s forget all the childishness about billionaires paying for it. In countries where it exists, the people who pay for it are people like me. And if you are reading this blog, like you. People with careers are taxed to pay for pre-K for people with jobs. As a result, paying for pre-K becomes a lot harder for people with careers who actually need it and who’ll never qualify for the government-sponsored daycare.
The only reason that this makes sense is because it will be very profitable for tech companies. What do you think kids will do much of the day in these cheap governmental daycares? They will stare at screens. Even at expensive private places you need to wage a guerrilla warfare to prevent this from happening. But if you don’t even pay for it, if you are a cashier with a job, how much say will you have when there is a concerted effort to turn your child into a tech consumer from infancy?
I don’t see any other explanation for the simultaneous push for guaranteed basic income to facilitate people with jobs (as opposed to careers) staying at home and the effort to take their kids out of the home. If people with jobs are becoming superfluous in today’s economy and you need measures to keep them fed while they don’t work, then why is there a need for a measure that guarantees the possibility of these folks to hold the jobs that don’t exist?
Of course, there is a more sinister explanation that it’s about brainwashing the children of the undesirables into compliance with the ruling ideology. The deplorables are clearly unhappy with the globalization and the ideological uniformity it requires, so their kids can’t be allowed to be in contact with them too much. I favor the economic explanation I offered above but this one makes sense, too.