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

Post by titanomachy » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 3:58 PM UTC

hnlmorg wrote: post #142

Aurornis wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You realize a lot of people actually prefer to give their child their best instead of outsourcing it My wife and I staggered our work schedules to minimize the time spent at daycare. The one thing we didn’t expect: The kids absolutely loved daycare. It was a great place with excellent caretakers. Most of all, it was socialization with their friends. From reading sneering interment comments (like the one above) I wa…

Exactly this. There are so many benefits to day care for the children. It’s hardly the prison camp people make it out to be. I don’t know if these negative comments are because HN in general dislikes the wider educational system, or if it’s because they dislike governments handing out “charity” to help less affluent families. Maybe a touch of both? But daycare can actually be a really rewarding experience for childre…

Post by MisterTea » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 3:58 PM UTC

smeeth wrote: post #171

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.

Hate to break it to you, but many kids actually do better away from their parents than with them. It's extremely sad, but a consistent finding in early childhood education is that the children who thrive most in daycares tend to come from the least advantaged backgrounds. So a policy of paying parents to stay home would mostly benefit kids who are already well off.

Post by s5300 » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 3:59 PM UTC

dzink wrote: post #31

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…

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…

Post by garciasn » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 3:59 PM UTC

yardstick wrote: post #182

smeeth wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate to break it to you, but many kids actually do better away from their parents than with them. It's extremely sad, but a consistent finding in early childhood education is that the children who thrive most in daycares tend to come from the least advantaged backgrounds. So a policy of paying parents to stay home would mostly benefit kids who are already well off.

Kids are social and like playing and learning from other kids. Daycare lets them do just that. It’s a great thing and every toddler I’ve met who wasn’t in daycare was behind in something. Especially verbal skills. Plus daycare allows women to continue their career progression. It’s soo important. Not every woman wants to end their career as a mother to a young kid. Daycare enables successful women to thrive and still…

Post by _mu » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 4:00 PM UTC

non_aligned wrote: post #219

Aurornis wrote: post #80

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…

> 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…