121–130 of 695 posts
[flagged]
You literally only had to read one more sentence: "With Monday’s announcement universal child care will be extended to every family in the state, regardless of income. This amounts to an average annual family savings of $12,000 per child."
I think it would be much better to provide a one year paid stipend so that a parent can be home with the children during their tender years.
This entire structure is set up to keep the boss happy while a stranger raises your child during their most formative and vulnerable years.
This is fantastic! I hope they succeed and there is no abuse or other issues, because it will show how much an economy can grow when women are allowed to work to their full potential. Families who were previously in poverty because the mom would struggle to pay for childcare to work can now have assurance kids are ok while the mom can pursue jobs, start her own small business (huge chunk of businesses are small busin…
Changing the definition of full-time hours to 30/week would do far more for families and children than giving free childcare so mothers can work more.
Making mortgages with a > 20 year term illegal, putting limits on the total principal allowed to loan as a multiple of income, and barring entirely non-human (i.e. any business entity) ownership of single family homes would do far more for families and children by removing the burden of ridiculous housing costs by removing the ability for people to compete for ridiculous housing prices.
Childcare is a great way to kick this off - it's politically hard to fight against anything "for the children" and it's not a stretch at all to extend coverage gradually, as people see the benefit and want it elsewhere / just one more year / etc. Just gotta hope it stays funded enough to avoid descending into a bureaucratic death spiral with months of delays for everything.
“This time will be different!” announce the proponents. Watch now, class, as the economic calculation problem works out as predicted in yet another instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
do we really need to point to how badly private healthcare has been working?
I'm very unfamiliar with New Mexico (having only been a tourist in Albuquerque and Santa Fe for a few days), but according to U.S. News it ranks 50 out of 50 for education: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education . Given some level of geographic mobility it doesn't seem like a place I would want to raise a child. Am I mistaken? Thoughts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize a lot of people actually prefer to give their child their best instead of outsourcing it so they can focus on bettering the economy, right?
It's an interesting way to divide up a country's labour. 50% do child rearing, and the other 50% do literally all other professions. If you did have such a large cohort engaged in that activity, there should probably be some kind of education where one could learn 'the best'. Of course people with kids would be too busy to attend. And the ones who did attend wouldn't have any kids to look after.
That's not that revolutionary; it's kind of traditional.
Is there a mandated state ratio of workers to children? In Michigan, by law, it is 1:4. It is great to offer free childcare to all citizens, but if those childcare facilities are inadequately resourced the quality of care will decline.
It looks like it's 1:6 until kids are 27 months, at which point the ratio becomes 1:10. When kids are 3-4 the ratio is 1:12, and when they're 5 and up, the ratio is 1:15. These are numbers from 2011, so not sure how that's changed over time.
what happened with socialization, friends and parents
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would make sense IMO to provide an equal value waiver to those who take care of their kid rather than send them to childcare. Stay at home moms do not provide a less valuable service than childcare providers. This policy appears to disincentives children staying with their mother even when it is preferred.
> Would make sense IMO to provide an equal value waiver to those who take care of their kid rather than send them to childcare. This is a great way to kill a policy. It would technically be most fair if every parent was given the same amount of money per child, period. Then they could do what they needed or wanted with it. But doing so would not only increase the costs dramatically (by a multiple) it would give money…
By your own argument, this policy dilutes the value New Mexico / Feds were prior giving to the poorer parents who met the means testing New Mexico used before, then, no? Because this isn't the beginning of "free" childcare in NM, they are just expanding it beyond the prior poverty-line times 'X" means testing.
Ergo per your logic "real outcome would be reduced benefits" to the poorer parents who already had subsidized childcare.
Edit: accidently switched "childcare" to "healthcare" a few times, flipped back
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would make sense IMO to provide an equal value waiver to those who take care of their kid rather than send them to childcare. This is a great way to kill a policy. It would technically be most fair if every parent was given the same amount of money per child, period. Then they could do what they needed or wanted with it. But doing so would not only increase the costs dramatically (by a multiple) it would give money…
I guess Youre not a fan of UBI?