🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3731@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes:
>
>The point was that for most of us there is no choice between children and
>work.  Almost everyone wants children eventually, and for the majority
>of couples both father and mother must work in order to support the family.

I certainly do not agree with this last assertion that to have a family
both father and mother *must* work to support it. I think that
most people decide they want to work not that they have to work. As two
income families they have become used to a certain way of life and they
do not want to give that up, so both parents work. After all it is a lot
easier to continue to live on two incomes after the "child" arrives then
to make even more drastic changes in lifestyle by voluntarily taking a
substantial cut in family income. 

>But while we're deciding on economic arguments alone -- with a little
>touch of consumer convenience -- that on every day of the week at least
>some stores should be open, we're doing nothing to provide the social
>support that the retail workers will need.  Like daycare on Sundays, for
>example.

One of the arguments being made as to why people need Sunday off is so
that they can be with their children. It seems to me that the need for
daycare would only exist when both parents work on Sunday, not a very
likely occurrence, but one that will occur. (You certainly don't need
day care if one of the parents is at home.)  I hope that the author, when
suggesting that we aren't providing the required social support like
Sunday daycare, is just commenting on the fact that most daycare
services are not open on Sundays and is not suggesting that there should
be taxpayer (government) subsidized daycare. I do not support any form
of subsidized daycare. Our governments have big enough debts as it is
and I don't want them forking out even more money on another social
program. 

   Donald Acton