Earlier today, @oren_cass and @wellscking released a report arguing for much larger cash benefits for families with children, but only for families with labor income.

This thread contains a few of my thoughts about their report.

https://americancompass.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/American_Compass-The_Family_Income_Supplemental_Credit-2021Feb18.pdf

Starting with some points of agreement:
* Cash benefits for households with children are a great policy
* It's good for benefits to be paid monthly, to meet needs throughout the year
* It's reasonable fund higher child benefits in part by consolidating existing benefits

My main disagreement with the report, as regular followers might have guessed, is that it calls for excluding households without labor income from cash child benefits.

The report offers a thoughtful justification for this choice, but one I disagree with.

Cass and King argue that the social compact depends (or should depend) on "reciprocity".

The envision a bargain where society supports families with kids, in exchange for families "contributing productively to the society and investing in their and their children’s futures."

I don't actually have an issue with the principle of "reciprocity," in the abstract. I agree that our social compact works best when everyone pitches in what they can.
But I have two issues with how the principle is employed by Cass and King.

First, a reciprocity norm simply should not apply to the relationship between a society and its children.
Kids can't contribute much of value to a society. Yet one of the most important obligations of a society is to ensure the wellbeing of children.

If I understand Cass and King correctly, they have a response to this:
All children are part of families, so the right analytical frame is to consider what the family owes to society (something) rather than what the children owe to society (nothing).

But I still disagree with their conclusion. Society's absolute obligation to take care of children doesn't disappear just because the children are first and foremost members of families. (That's why the state can sometimes decide to remove children from abusive parents.)

And even when considering the social compact between society and adults, it's never a *purely* reciprocal arrangement. (For instance, for many Americans, the expected benefits they'll receive from Social Security far exceed their contributions. It's actuarially unfair insurance.)

Putting these two arguments together: When it comes to families with children, we should err on the side of grace, providing them with enough to ensure that their kids have a basic standard of living, without worrying too much about what they're contributing in return.

My second issue with the report's application of "reciprocity": I disagree that a single parent who stays out of the labor force to raise a child isn't contributing to society enough to warrant a reciprocal benefit.

Cass and King also have a response related to this point: They argue that labor performed by a family member within the home shouldn't count as a contribution to society, because it's the family itself that benefits from the labor.

But I don't think this is quite right. Yes, the family is the primary beneficiary of labor performed within the home. But when parents spend time to raise children, society *does* also benefit — from a larger future workforce, among other things.

You don't need to use dry terms like "externality" to recognize that staying home to raise kids can be a form of contribution to society that can warrant a reciprocal benefit under our social compact.

Anyway, these are just a few thoughts. Potentially of interest to @hamandcheese @PTBwrites @LeahLibresco, among others