251–260 of 695 posts
Despite being 31st in educational funding, New Mexico has ranked 50th in juvenile education for 8 years in a row per the Annie E. Casey foundation: https://www.aecf.org/interactive/databook?l=35 You can research for yourself and see other evidence that the educational outcomes for children in New Mexico is generally very, very poor. Expect similar results with New Mexico's "universal" child care.
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.
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.
I think you're confusing GDP with a measure of worth or quality. It is not. Just because you can earn money doing double-shifts in a coal mine that doesn't make it better than spending the same time at a beach doing nothing.
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.
Worse. Not just a "stranger" but a subset of strangers running "real businesses". I would rather my kid be raised by a) spouse b) grandparents c) no-habla cash only daycare (who are catering to customers who's average values are much closer to mine than an above the table business). Only after all those options are exhausted do I look toward a "real business". So basically this is a subsidy of the 4th place option.
Real businesses subject to real inspections and real assessments, you mean? With "strangers" who need to have qualifications and background checks?
To each their own of course but I'd prefer somewhere I know is actually judged to be a safe environment than some under the table option.
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.
Worse. Not just a "stranger" but a subset of strangers running "real businesses". I would rather my kid be raised by a) spouse b) grandparents c) no-habla cash only daycare (who are catering to customers who's average values are much closer to mine than an above the table business). Only after all those options are exhausted do I look toward a "real business". So basically this is a subsidy of the 4th place option.
Where is the money coming from to keep these services afloat? The federal funding environment seems less magnanimous these days, plus as other have pointed out, New Mexico is not an economic powerhouse.
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.
In what way does this disincentivize anyone? If you want to stay home with your kids, stay home with your kids. This is literally not preventing anyone from being a stay at home parent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Really school funding and public education in the US in general is in a very strange place across the board and has been for decades
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…
On top of that the increased taxes are going to raise prices of everything because the businesses don't just eat the cost of taxes, they pass it off to the consumer. So all these families that get free childcare are going to be paying more for their groceries, rent, unilities and everything else.
To top things off, you now have random strangers with no bond with your children looking after them in a ratio of maybe 1:8 or 1:10. So your children are going to be stressed out and anxious and are going to act out both at the childcare place and at home, so you're just going to be getting phone calls all day about your children fighting other children.
All in all, you might feel like you're better off but once you do the math you're at about the same place if not worse off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My wife and I have no interest in ever having children, yet we are happy to pay property taxes that go to local public schools. Why? Because an educated society is better able to make educated decisions. We are being "penalized" for making the choice to not have kids in order to "subsidize" those who don't.
Correct. It all comes down to whether you believe parents leaving home to work on their careers instead of staying home to raise their kids is an unambiguous good that needs to be subsidized the same way education is.
Historically it was considered a beneficial necessity to gather the children to write down knowledge so that it could be brought back home for the whole family to learn from, but in the age of the internet perhaps separating children and parents is never good at any (young-ish) age?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> With this policy, those who needed childcare but were priced out of the market will be able to access the service they needed. And the rich parents who can afford childcare are also given a subsidy. A married parent who wants to stay home but can't quite afford it is forced to work. Is this really what you want? If it is the poor your care about why not subsidies just them?
> A married parent who wants to stay home but can't quite afford it is forced to work. I’m confused; how does your preferred policy solve this problem?
Policy is a constant battle of unintended consequences. I clearly understand that nothing isn't immune from those consequences, and so I'm constantly adjusting my preferred policy trying to find the least bad compromise.