Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 540 posts

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#171

Post by sudobash1 »

jameslk wrote: post #143

It’s good that it’s a state policy, not a federal one. We need more policies to stay at the state level, regardless of the policy. Federalism is how we can test the effects of competing policies under the same house. If the policy is a problem for you, it’s a lot easier to vote with your feet and move to a different state than to move to a different country

I think it also gives it a better chance as an experiment. The federal government tends to pendulum swing between left and right on a fairly short cycle. Most states seem to be considerably more stable and less prone to trying to revert policies put in place by the "other side" every few years.

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#172

Post by beowulfey »

tbrownaw wrote: post #73
tock wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then do it today so mothers can continue to work and help the economy.

If the tax man can't see it, it doesn't exist. . Scenario A: Max and Alex are a couple and have kids. Max stays home with them, and Alex has a job with a coworker named Avery. Scenario B: Max and Alex are a couple and have kids. They both work, and hire Avery to watch the kids. The same total work gets done by the same group of people in both cases, but the second measures as "better" for "the economy".

It's not just about the economy, it is about freedom of choice. What does Max and Avery feel about their careers? Would they rather be working or watching kids? If one parent has to stay home, that might mean having to give up a good career.

No one should be forced to choose between a career and kids, unless the goal is falling birthrates.

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#173

Post by swsieber »

hammock wrote: post #156
siliconc0w wrote: post #113

My current theory is that we've basically gotten addicted to importing the world's smartest kids so we have been unwilling to invest in our own children.

What makes you say that when New Mexico is now offering free childcare?

I would not say that free childcare is an investment in children.

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#175

Post by bluecalm »

analog31 wrote: post #22
seneca wrote: post #9

[flagged]

If a tavern puts out a sign saying "free beer," nobody needs to point out that someone is paying for the beer. There's no confusion about this.

You are overestimating people. I've met several people with higher education who don't understand that trade-off. They see the world as a fight between good guys who want to give the society free stuff and the bad guys that want to make money out of it.

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#176

Post by runako »

Aurornis wrote: post #98
macintux wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget the "1% of the recipients are fraudulent, therefore the other 99% must spend 10 hours on paperwork and 6 months waiting for the benefits to start, with a 30% chance of rejection" approach.

> Don't forget the "1% of the recipients are fraudulent It’s complicated. Having 1% fraudulent recipients despite having very thorough and deep vetting processes should be a clue that fraud is a big problem. The fallacy is assuming that the fraud rate would stay the same if we removed the checks. It would not. The 1% fraud rate is only what gets through the current checks. The more you remove the checks, the higher t…

There's a couple of fallacies embedded here. For example, that there is a thorough and deep vetting process that is also impartial (vs being invested in denying benefits).

Also the assumption that an application that is denied == fraud. Programs are incredibly complex, and requirements are a moving target. I can imagine someone going to renew based on their understanding of the program, and inadvertently being flagged as fraud because some requirement changed (which in turn might have been incorrectly conveyed because the requirements are complex and even state staffers may not understand them all).

Some of this is down to the DOGE definition of "fraud, waste, abuse" as "anything we do not like." Using that definition, you can find fraud anywhere.

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#177

Post by outside1234 »

czhu12 wrote: post #142
yndoendo wrote: post #6

US actually provided child care to mothers employed during WWII. [0] Richard Nixon vetoed the bill that would have expanded it out to all families. [1] Funny how we keep forgetting the past and reject what benefited us as a whole with a moved to pure individualism built around selfishness. AKA The rich keep getting richer. [0] https://www.wwiimemorialfriends.org/blog/the-lanham-act-and-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.or…

For what its worth, the Economist recently wrote about how universal child care can harm children, citing a study from Quebec. > The trio published their first study in 2005, and the results were damning. Shifting to universal child care appeared to lead to a rise in aggression, anxiety and hyperactivity among Quebecer children, as well as a fall in motor and social skills. The effects were large: anxiety rates doubl…

This is probably because they are actually measuring hyperactivity when there is universal care versus 40% of it going unmeasured.

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#178

Post by jancsika »

tbrownaw wrote: post #73
tock wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then do it today so mothers can continue to work and help the economy.

If the tax man can't see it, it doesn't exist. . Scenario A: Max and Alex are a couple and have kids. Max stays home with them, and Alex has a job with a coworker named Avery. Scenario B: Max and Alex are a couple and have kids. They both work, and hire Avery to watch the kids. The same total work gets done by the same group of people in both cases, but the second measures as "better" for "the economy".

Interesting game engine:

1. Each sim gets a minimum wage of $childcare dollars

2. Each sim gets a maximum wage of $childcare dollars

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#179

Post by hammock »

beowulfey wrote: post #165
czhu12 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what its worth, the Economist recently wrote about how universal child care can harm children, citing a study from Quebec. > The trio published their first study in 2005, and the results were damning. Shifting to universal child care appeared to lead to a rise in aggression, anxiety and hyperactivity among Quebecer children, as well as a fall in motor and social skills. The effects were large: anxiety rates doubl…

It's not an intractable issue. It's just a matter of economics.

Agreed. If we could fund universal child care so that the ratio of caregiver to child was more like 1 to 2 or 1 to 5 or even 1 to 8 in extreme cases, then the lack of attentiveness would not be a problem.

Wait a minute… that sounds like…

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#180

Post by SoftTalker »

parineum wrote: post #150
macintux wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how many people would start businesses if we had UBI and free health care as a safety net.

It takes a good idea and a willingness to take a risk to start a business. I don't think that risk aversion is what's stopping new businesses, there are a lot of people who do a lot of what I consider too risky. Instead, what I wonder is how many new businesses wouldn't be viable under a tax structure that provides ubi and health care. Not to be dismissive but that's definitely a concern in a world replete with fledg…

Yeah this is sort of the reaction I had. Removing "risk" with UBI and free healthcare and free childcare also removes the filters for a lot of people who would be bad at running a business. If you don't have the stomach to take the risk and do the work to make your idea a success, then maybe you shouldn't try.

We don't need millions of more failed businesses as the result of giving everyone UBI.

Post reply on HN