So you're saying a glut of childcare workers is responsible for lowering the cost of childcare wrt petcare. I think that's unlikely. It's more that sectors of society value pets above children, they pay more for the care of pets - the same way that people leave millions for the care of pets and ignore the plight of poverty stricken humans.
People pay a lot to take care of the people they're related to, and the pets they own. When people could own people, they spent a lot of money maintaining those people. I guess we might be more evil than slave owners, but I think we're basically operating with the same instincts in a different legal environment.
Comments
Another way to say this is "People would rather take care of children than pets." I don't think that's sad at all.
So you're saying a glut of childcare workers is responsible for lowering the cost of childcare wrt petcare. I think that's unlikely. It's more that sectors of society value pets above children, they pay more for the care of pets - the same way that people leave millions for the care of pets and ignore the plight of poverty stricken humans.
People pay a lot to take care of the people they're related to, and the pets they own. When people could own people, they spent a lot of money maintaining those people. I guess we might be more evil than slave owners, but I think we're basically operating with the same instincts in a different legal environment.