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

New Mexico is first state in US to offer universal child care

governor.state.nm.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 695 posts

Re: New Mexico is first state in US to offer universal child care

#211

Post by tuckerman »

bluGill wrote: post #152
dzink wrote: post #12

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…

Why the sexist word "women"? Do you really mean to imply that men/fathers should not be stay at home dads? I know several stay at home dads who by all reports do a very good job of raising their kids while mom works. (granted the vast majority of stay at home parents are mothers). Fathers are people too, and they should be treated like the great parents they can be (until proven otherwise).

I mean, I’m a gay dad, so I get that what you are saying is a real problem, but I don’t think it’s a problem in this thread. If you had a goal of improving women’s ability to participate in the workforce you’d likely come up with a policy like this (that would also help some dads too, even if that weren’t the primary goal).

Women are far more likely to be the primary, stay at home caregiver if one exists and face a lot of discrimination in the workforce as a result of those expectations (on top of already facing other workplace discrimination issues).

Re: New Mexico is first state in US to offer universal child care

#212

Post by palmfacehn »

dzink wrote: post #12

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…

Worker productivity has consistently increased, yet workers are struggling to support their families or delaying having a family, because they cannot meet the cost of living. Instead of looking towards the inflation of the monetary base as a driver of price inflation, families are supposed to let the state raise their children. Pricing parents out of the house and into the workforce is instead marketed as "liberation". Liberty implies that a choice is given. Mothers or fathers should have the ability to choose to stay home and benefit from the increases in productivity.

Citing GDP growth is cute, but as nothing has been done to address the underlying drivers of price inflation, we can reasonably expect that socialized child care will become an economic necessity. Any potential benefits of productivity gains will continue to be eaten by those who are first to drink from the monetary spigot. While GDP and hours worked may increase, living standards may not.

Re: New Mexico is first state in US to offer universal child care

#213

Post by giantg2 »

ch4s3 wrote: post #110
bombcar wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many things that may be better overall, but because they're not financialized, they don't show up on GDP and so are deemed "worthless." Breastfeeding doesn't move money around, but formula does; things like that. Cooking your own meal doesn't raise GDP beyond the cost of supplies, but door-dashing from a restaurant does.

More realistically here, there’s a limit to the funding any individual state can come up with to fund benefits. Tradeoffs have to be considered and increased workforce participation increases the tax receipts that fund these programs. It’s not much more complicated than that.

I find it dubious that adding the people who don't find it financially feasible to use childcare to cover working hours will generate tax revenue to cover this due to the low income and low tax nature. Not to mention the addition of the cost from all the current paying families.

Re: New Mexico is first state in US to offer universal child care

#214

Post by foxyv »

declan_roberts wrote: post #122

I'm going to take the reverse position. I don't like this policy. 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.

It's a pretty nice consolation prize considering the almost total lack of parental leave in the United States. When someone throws me a lifeline I'm not going to complain that it isn't a certified life preserver.

Re: New Mexico is first state in US to offer universal child care

#215

Post by hedora »

xp84 wrote: post #178

Apparently until now they've been providing this only to families below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. FPL is $32,150 for a 4-person family, so $128,600 combined family income (2 people working for $64,300 each -- and that's before fed and state taxes are deducted). Since that is far from being wealthy enough to "just" spring for expensive care, I'm glad to see this. My only question is who the heck is going to b…

Not sure where in California you are, but the SF Bay Area’s economy is heavily distorted by intentionally bad roads and artificial housing shortages.

Pretty much any blue collar or service worker is either living in a prop 13 house, has roommates, or is driving well over an hour to get to work.

That’s not true in many other places on earth. California could fix it, but the politicians keep actively making the problem worse.

For instance, there’s a statewide mandate to reduce commute miles (not carbon, and not time). If towns don’t comply, they get in trouble with the state government.

Similarly, construction permit departments are adversarial, and “affordable housing” initiatives routinely block market rate housing from being built.

On top of all that, the ‘08 housing crisis put a bunch of contractors out of business, and so did covid. Those people largely moved out of state. The result is that there’s no one to train new workers, and even if there were, there’s no reason for those new workers to locate here, since the pay scale doesn’t make up for housing costs. (This would be a huge opportunity if we fixed the roads so they could drive to work sites quickly, or allowed new housing construction, but we don’t.)

Re: New Mexico is first state in US to offer universal child care

#216

Post by gcheong »

declan_roberts wrote: post #122

I'm going to take the reverse position. I don't like this policy. 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.

I think you're talking about parental leave which is a different thing and another area where the US falls short compared to other developed countries. This is to provide care for your kids after you would have gone back to work in any regular scenario until the kids are old enough to start school.

Re: New Mexico is first state in US to offer universal child care

#217

Post by _DeadFred_ »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #170
dzink wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would solve a lot of Republican’s problems as well. Israel has the kibbutz system and they have the highest birth rate of developed economies. They also have amazing tech and women participation and excellent contributions even in the military. If you raise the country’s children well, you get more GDP and less prisons and less need for policing, and less need for welfare programs. Plus you get quality workers f…

[flagged]

The USA is barely getting around to banning legal child marriage. Many many countries have not only child marriages, but arranged child marriages which can fall into selling these 'brides'. Not sure the Israel is any worse than other countries.

Re: New Mexico is first state in US to offer universal child care

#218

Post by ch4s3 »

giantg2 wrote: post #213
ch4s3 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More realistically here, there’s a limit to the funding any individual state can come up with to fund benefits. Tradeoffs have to be considered and increased workforce participation increases the tax receipts that fund these programs. It’s not much more complicated than that.

I find it dubious that adding the people who don't find it financially feasible to use childcare to cover working hours will generate tax revenue to cover this due to the low income and low tax nature. Not to mention the addition of the cost from all the current paying families.

> generate tax revenue to cover this due

That's not the claim I'm making. Someone entering the workforce has tax implications for a local government far beyond their individual tax receipts and will increase their future earning potential.

Re: New Mexico is first state in US to offer universal child care

#219

Post by non_aligned »

Aurornis wrote: post #80
mothballed wrote: post #16

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…

> But doing so would not only increase the costs dramatically (by a multiple) it would give money to many parents who didn’t need it for child care.

And while no-strings-attached payouts appeal to rational geeks, they usually lead to public perception problems. If you give a voucher for childcare to a parent struggling with addiction or a gambling habit, they will probably send the kid to childcare. If you give them cash, they probably won't.

It's a minority that might not be worth fixating on from a rational policy-making point of view, you bet it's the minority that will be in the headlines. Selfishly, I'd like cash in lieu of all the convoluted, conditional benefits that are available to me. But I know why policymakers won't let me have it.

Re: New Mexico is first state in US to offer universal child care

#220

Post by duxup »

nemomarx wrote: post #118
chongli wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your optimism but I’m skeptical. I dated someone who worked in child care (with a degree in ECE). She was quite miserable caring for a dozen screaming babies all day. I think the burnout and turnover for such a job (which requires a degree but still paid minimum wage) is likely to be extremely high. The other thing that doesn’t make sense to me is the economics of it. The pay for the staff is very low bu…

Burnout and turnover for teachers are also like that, so it's what you'd expect? maybe they can unionize like teachers though

I feel like unionizing really hasn't done much for teachers. They're paid poorly, the conditions are still poor, they don't seem to get much help.

Yay teacher's union?

Post reply on HN