Kentucky made child care free for child care workers • Hacker News Board

Re: Kentucky made child care free for child care workers

#121

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Oct 06, 2023, 6:24 PM UTC

isykt wrote: post #118

Gibbon1 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone had a comment about Clinton's reflexive criticism of Sanders free college tuition plan, that it was a give away to upper middle class students. Reality upper class and upper middle class students get free tuition from their parents. Taxing wealthy parents and giving some of the money back to their kids as free tuition isn't really a freebee. They also pointed out the wealthy fret that their kids are growing u…

> Reality upper class and upper middle class students get free tuition from their parents Yes, they get free tuition from their parents which is why they don’t need government assistance for college . We don’t give food stamps to millionaires either.

OTOH, we don't means-test fire protection, we just pay it out of general taxes, and if we want the rich to pay more, we just make the taxes more progressive.

There's no reason not to use that solution to every service, including ones currently means-tested, rather than having separate income and/or asset trsts with different standards and its own implementation bureaucracy for individual programs.

Well, there is a reason, but it is deliberate inefficiency and bureaucratic waste, either for corrupt purposes or to cause friction to frustrate the nominal purpose of the program while making the gesture of having the program.

Re: Kentucky made child care free for child care workers

#122

Post by lq9AJ8yrfs » Fri, Oct 06, 2023, 6:24 PM UTC

steven-xu wrote: post #9

Setting aside the philosophical free market questions, additional government subsidy childcare seems fine. There’s a positive externality of readily available childcare: one adult to many children is more efficient than home care, and parents being able to work generates economic production, taxes, etc. But couldn’t we come up with a subsidy with less market distortion? A specific subsidy to pay for childcare for chi…

> There’s a positive externality of readily available childcare: one adult to many children is more efficient than home care,

An externality [1] happens when there is some additional uncaptured aspect of a transaction, a "missing market". It seems implausible that there is a missing market in child care-- there are plenty of choices out there, different service levels and pricing. And when you put your child into child care and are now freed of child care responsibility for working hours, you can directly participate in the labor market, right?

Instead of externality maybe you could support intervention instead by arguing that there are facets of the child-care market that you don't like, resulting in the observed market outcome, such as capital overheads, barriers to entry, transportation barriers, or regulation.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Re: Kentucky made child care free for child care workers

#123

Post by pj_mukh » Fri, Oct 06, 2023, 6:27 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #110

pj_mukh wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a fine implementation but the flipside is a constant subsidy regardless of geography is basically the same as forcing a parent to not work in HCOL areas, If it was a childcare voucher that was guaranteed to get your child a seat that could be maybe exchanged for cash if you don’t want to go to work, that would be fine. It’s the same problem with UBI. I don’t need a basic income or childcare subsidy. I need a b…

> That’s a fine implementation but the flipside is a constant subsidy regardless of geography is basically the same as forcing a parent to not work in HCOL areas, Compared to the existence of HCOL areas without a subsidy, no, its not even incentivizing , much less forcing that. Compared to a hypothetical system which accelerates existing price divergence by adding extra subsidies in already high-cost areas, sure, but…

“ drawing people out of HCOL areas also mitigates HCOL.”

With a net reduction in agglomeration effects and resultant productivity. Pointless experiment,

I’d rather the government unleash infrastructure building in HCOL to make it cheaper and incentivize child-care workers (and other essential functions) to move there.

With growth every LCOL will become an HCOL if we don’t solve the problem now. See: Real-estate prices in Boise, Idaho.

Re: Kentucky made child care free for child care workers

#124

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Oct 06, 2023, 6:30 PM UTC

isykt wrote: post #109

InitialLastName wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that adding a rule that requires an administrator to figure out who is too wealthy to deserve some benefit and an enforcement arm to chase down and punish people who utilize a benefit that they are too wealthy to deserve is more expensive than the benefit (some) wealthy people would gain if the benefit were universal.

Another poster in this comment thread said that the money is clawed back automatically through tax returns. So which is it?

> which is it?

The answer obviously depends on the specifics of the system in question.

Re: Kentucky made child care free for child care workers

#125

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Oct 06, 2023, 6:32 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #120

api wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about women entering the workforce making it impossible to have a single earner home is nonsense. The problem is housing. Most things are the same price or cheaper as a percentage of median income today except housing. That’s because housing is treated as investment meant to appreciate, leading to perverse incentives to artificially restrict supply. IMHO housing is the economic problem in the Western world.…

> The thing about women entering the workforce making it impossible to have a single earner home is nonsense. The problem is housing. I think you may be right about the overall problem, but I'm not sure I agree that density is the solution. People starting families don't just want a house, what they want is enough space . Mothers want a yard they can send the kids out into when they need a moments peace, closets to s…

> People starting families don't just want a house, what they want is enough space. Mothers want a yard they can send the kids out into when they need a moments peace, closets to store everyone's junk, and bathrooms big enough to walk into while pregnant

All of this also means said mother can't go to the corner to pick up supplies, but must drive to the store. There isn't an abundance of neighbors to help out or restaurants with cheap delivery; everything must be done themselves.

The notion that families require low density is very culturally-specific and a choice more than a necessity. Yes, four people need more physical space than two, but not to the extent of modern suburbia.

Re: Kentucky made child care free for child care workers

#126

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Oct 06, 2023, 6:38 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #112

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Universal childcare is low-hanging fruit for America. Unfortunately, there is a vocal section (mostly married men) who want a stay-at-home mom and believe this will, similar to women entering the workforce following the advent of contraception and the civil rights movement, "force" their wives into the workplace.

Do you think my preference for my wife to be a homemaker is wrong or irrelevant? It's not just an arbitrary preference: in general it is better for the children. It is also what most mothers (at least mothers of young children) would prefer, including my wife. Don't get me wrong: for some children, childcare is a better alternative than what awaits them at home, but I think for most it produces worse outcomes. And th…

> Do you think my preference for my wife to be a homemaker is wrong

Yes! It's totally fine for your wife to want to be a homemaker. But if you're asking for a world where economic necessity forces her into being one, I totally think there's a moral shade to that preference. (Even if it's simply a preference.)

(Clarification: "wrong" as in unethical. I don't think you're a bad person for having that preference. Far from it, I think you're thinking of your kids.)

> this kind of thing will force some women into the workforce

Is there evidence of this in Luxembourg, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Germany or Portugal [1]?

Keep in mind that plenty of women are forced out of their careers to take care of their kids. Adding them back into the economy boosts productivity (whatever they were doing is likely more productive than raising only their own kids, systemically). Taxes from that productivity alone may be the missing variable that balances the equation to not force those who truly choose to stay at home into a profession to keep up with COL.

[1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/01/which-co...

Re: Kentucky made child care free for child care workers

#127

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Oct 06, 2023, 6:40 PM UTC

akavi wrote: post #55

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

Universal childcare is low-hanging fruit for America. Unfortunately, there is a vocal section (mostly married men) who want a stay-at-home mom and believe this will, similar to women entering the workforce following the advent of contraception and the civil rights movement, "force" their wives into the workplace.

Universal Childcare at the margin means some people who would rather take care of their own children are pushed to take a job and have someone else watch their child. I fail to see why that's superior to a universal childcare subsidy, which can be used for childcare or retained if someone wishes to care for their child themself. Or better yet, a universal child allowance that parents can use to defray whatever child…

> Universal Childcare at the margin means some people who would rather take care of their own children are pushed to take a job

What is the evidence for this in the countries with universal childcare [1]?

I believe the missing ingredient is the additional production of women who were forced out of their careers by having kids. Those women are more productive working. That additional production may singularly offset the system's marginal cost.

[1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/01/which-co...

Re: Kentucky made child care free for child care workers

#128

Post by api » Fri, Oct 06, 2023, 6:50 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #116

api wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about women entering the workforce making it impossible to have a single earner home is nonsense. The problem is housing. Most things are the same price or cheaper as a percentage of median income today except housing. That’s because housing is treated as investment meant to appreciate, leading to perverse incentives to artificially restrict supply. IMHO housing is the economic problem in the Western world.…

Housing isn't the only aspect, by far. Our family healthcare insurance premium is double our mortgage, and it goes up more than inflation (and wage growth) every year.

Yeah health care is another problem but the cost disease here is not as deeply entrenched in the economy as housing. The whole real estate market and a giant chunk of the financial system runs on the idea that housing must always go up, which necessitates that it must become less affordable over time.

Re: Kentucky made child care free for child care workers

#129

Post by lliamander » Fri, Oct 06, 2023, 6:50 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #125

lliamander wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing about women entering the workforce making it impossible to have a single earner home is nonsense. The problem is housing. I think you may be right about the overall problem, but I'm not sure I agree that density is the solution. People starting families don't just want a house, what they want is enough space . Mothers want a yard they can send the kids out into when they need a moments peace, closets to s…

> People starting families don't just want a house, what they want is enough space. Mothers want a yard they can send the kids out into when they need a moments peace, closets to store everyone's junk, and bathrooms big enough to walk into while pregnant All of this also means said mother can't go to the corner to pick up supplies, but must drive to the store. There isn't an abundance of neighbors to help out or rest…

There is value in mixed use neighborhoods - low density doesn't automatically mean suburban sprawl.

Most of human history has been spent in much lower density living situations than we have now, and I'm pretty confident there is a negative correlation between housing density and fertility.

Re: Kentucky made child care free for child care workers

#130

Post by api » Fri, Oct 06, 2023, 6:51 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #120

api wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about women entering the workforce making it impossible to have a single earner home is nonsense. The problem is housing. Most things are the same price or cheaper as a percentage of median income today except housing. That’s because housing is treated as investment meant to appreciate, leading to perverse incentives to artificially restrict supply. IMHO housing is the economic problem in the Western world.…

> The thing about women entering the workforce making it impossible to have a single earner home is nonsense. The problem is housing. I think you may be right about the overall problem, but I'm not sure I agree that density is the solution. People starting families don't just want a house, what they want is enough space . Mothers want a yard they can send the kids out into when they need a moments peace, closets to s…

Density increase isn’t the only angle. That’s why I also listed telework, transportation, etc.

We need a multi pronged approach. Basically any policy that improves housing affordability without too much negative or perverse incentive elsewhere should be favored.