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

181–190 of 540 posts

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

#181

Post by ponector »

bparsons wrote: post #145
SoftTalker wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was done so mothers could work building tanks and airplanes, not out of any concern for the children.

This is the big reason other countries have free or cheap childcare. People who have kids want to continue earning money, and people who earn money want to have kids. It can be easily justified using only an economic productivity argument.

In which country there is a cheap childcare, especially if we are talking about children under 3?

Also even if it is cheap, children can attend it few days a week, staying sick at home almost every week for a day or two. Not every employer can tolerate such worker.

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

#182

Post by frumplestlatz »

jeromegv wrote: post #31
seneca wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that hides most of the facts about how it works. There are a lot of parties involved in this, including people paying for it and being paid for it, and those paying probably out number those getting it for free at point of use. Sweeping that under the rug is just a sales ploy, which shows what the outlet wants you to believe about this program.

[flagged]

We shouldn’t subsidize employers who fail to pay a living wage.

We also shouldn’t put our finger on the economic scale such that it’s impossible to afford having a family unless both parents work.

There’s no such thing as “free”, and every intervention like this has sweeping and widely unanticipated consequences.

Nevermind the question of whether it’s best for child development, for which we have plenty of evidence showing the answer is “no”.

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

#183

Post by nradov »

TylerE wrote: post #94
jagged-chisel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would need to be building tanks and airplanes.

Why? We don’t need tanks and planes. We have plenty.

We've strayed pretty far from the original topic here, but the reality is that the US military is literally running out of working aircraft because they're so old. The average age of USAF aircraft is now about 28 years. The fleet was allowed to decay and not substantially recapitalized during the GWOT. Many of the fighters in the combat coded inventory aren't even allowed to hit their original 9G maneuvering limit any more due to accumulated airframe fatigue. Now we're paying an overdue bill.

And let's please not have any uninformed claims that somehow cheap "drones" will magically make large, expensive manned aircraft obsolete. Small, cheap drones are effective in a trench warfare environment like the current conflict in Ukraine but they lack the range, speed, and payload necessary to be useful in a potential major regional conflict with China. And the notion of relying on AI for any sort of complex mission in a dynamic environment remains firmly in the realm of science fiction: maybe that will be feasible in a few decades but for now any really complex missions still rely on humans in the loop to execute effectively.

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

#184

Post by LadyCailin »

ryandrake wrote: post #41
diogenescynic wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wholeheartedly agree, but I don't think the national politics would support that at the moment. I think we have to start somewhere that isn't controversial like extending coverage to kids. I don't think anyone is going to be against covering 8 and 9 year olds... but they might against 18 or 19 year olds. It's a foot in the door persuasion tactic rather than try to get everything all at once.

> I think we have to start somewhere that isn't controversial like extending coverage to kids. I don't think anyone is going to be against covering 8 and 9 year olds... Not sure what gives you this idea. The major political party in power in the US today campaigned in large part on cruelty and removing subsidies and social benefits from people. There are a huge number of people who would bitterly fight against provid…

[flagged]

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

#185

Post by [deleted] »

godelski wrote: post #80
diogenescynic wrote: post #5

Medicare should cover children. Then we'd be covering children and the elderly. I think that seems fair--children deserve healthcare (just like education) as a fundamental right. It shouldn't be dependent on their parents.

It baffles me that it's so hard to argue for care for children. The response is always "but it's the parents' responsibility". Which, okay, fair, BUT if the parent is failing their responsibility (which can happen for many reasons, many of which don't need maliciousness nor incompetence), then what? We let the child die? We let the child starve? That's what I don't get. A child doesn't have autonomy, so it shouldn't…

[deleted]

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

#187

Post by runako »

seneca wrote: post #58
chaostheory wrote: post #10

Given the negative world wide trend with birthrates, this should be a priority with every developed country even if it eventually comes at the expense of elderly socialized healthcare.

We would be even better off subsidizing parents staying home with their own children. Unfortunately most subsidies have proven ineffective at nudging up birth rates.

Those subsidies tend to be €X00 per month. I am not aware of any scheme that even attempted to replace 80% of forfeited wages. A subsidy that ends up with you having to move impoverish yourself is not going to have the desired effect.

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

#188

Post by reliabilityguy »

outside1234 wrote: post #177
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…

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

I suspect that if the sample pre universal care was big enough, then the measurement of 40% is still good.

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

#189

Post by runako »

SoftTalker wrote: post #163
runako wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This analysis is incomplete for a couple of reasons: 1. any universal childcare scheme will involve groups larger than the median at-home familial group. Avery is watching ~1-2 kids, but if those kids are at creche, they are in a group of (say) ~4-5. 2. In much of the country, a) is financially out of reach for many couples due to cost of living generally being based around two-income households.

4.5? At a US daycare those kids will be in a group of 20-40, with one or two adults supervising.

Varies by state and age? My very red state does not allow a group of 40, full stop. The largest group allowed is for 3-year-olds, with a 1:15 adult:child ratio. For younger children, the ratios and group sizes are smaller.

I was off on the 4-5 though. Ratio for Anyway, this is all to the point that it's nothing like the 1-2 in in-home care. There's a reason nannies are associated with richer people.

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

#190

Post by nradov »

SoftTalker wrote: post #163
runako wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This analysis is incomplete for a couple of reasons: 1. any universal childcare scheme will involve groups larger than the median at-home familial group. Avery is watching ~1-2 kids, but if those kids are at creche, they are in a group of (say) ~4-5. 2. In much of the country, a) is financially out of reach for many couples due to cost of living generally being based around two-income households.

4.5? At a US daycare those kids will be in a group of 20-40, with one or two adults supervising.

Bullshit. Most US states have strict staff ratio limits for properly licensed daycare facilities. The exact ratios vary by state but typically this is something like 1:4 for infants up to 1:14 for school-age children.
Post reply on HN