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

251–260 of 540 posts

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

#251

Post by dmoy »

godelski wrote: post #91
ghaff wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be aware that Medicare is a long way from free. At least if you've had a well-paying job in the past few years, Medicare premiums are pretty similar to exchange costs (or COBRA).

Everyone knows Medicare isn't "free". Medicare and COBRA are not similar costs. My parents pay half what I would pay if I took COBRA and they have a better plan. Neither of them were struggling before they retired and I'll put it this way, they bought a second home in retirement.

So if we're doing anecdotes...

One of our parents pays about $20k/yr all in for ACA - $12k/yr of premiums and $8k/yr on top of that (all unsubsidized)

Her (also unsubsidized) Medicare would be $6.5k/yr partA premium + $1.6k partA deductible+ $2.3k partB + $1k partD + $5k medigap, or about $16.5k total. She has no work credits for Medicare subsidy.

If you have subsidy from free partA premiums, then Medicare is about twice as cheap as unsubsidized ACA, yes. If you don't have subsidy for either, it's a little cheaper, but not by a ton.

So if you just stuck kids on existing Medicare pricing with no work credit for partA, then it would not be substantially cheaper than unsubsized ACA.

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

#252

Post by caseysoftware »

Tade0 wrote: post #208
tbrownaw wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

My SO spent a few months collecting the neighbour's daughter along with our own from kindergarten and in exchange the neighbour would make dinner for us. This arrangement started because the neighbours' shifts didn't align with kindergarten hours. At some point it struck me that this is all labour, but there was no money exchanged for the services rendered and certainly no taxes collected. Even worse - without this o…

> At some point it struck me that this is all labour, but there was no money exchanged for the services rendered and certainly no taxes collected. Even worse - without this our neighbours would have to take an inordinate amount of time off, as getting a babysitter was too expensive.

How is this bad?

Both your and their family benefited directly in terms of trading responsibilities and indirectly in building relationships between daughters and neighbors.

Is your concern that neither of you paid taxes?

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

#253

Post by loeg »

watwut wrote: post #49
add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our politicians are unpopular because they do nothing to help us, and when they explicitly help us it's framed as lazy poor people looking for handouts. It makes no sense.

Maybe people should stop voting for the party that does that then. And for politicians that do that then.

Neither major US political party has a great track record here. On balance, I prefer one over the other, as I'm sure you do too. But they're both pretty far off from my ideal set of policies.

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

#254

Post by abustamam »

tock wrote: post #30
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.

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

I'd argue that that's the wrong goal. Ideally, families can afford to live off of one salary so that mothers could choose to continue to care for their children if they wanted to do so.

Currently, very few families are privileged enough to live off of one salary. Both parents need to work in order to make ends meet.

I'm not saying it's an easy problem to solve, or that free childcare isn't a good interim solution. But important to keep the end goal in mind.

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

#255

Post by ivan_gammel »

WalterBright wrote: post #197
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…

> a moved to pure individualism built around selfishness The US was founded on individual rights and freedoms, not community sacrifice. Meanwhile, during the 1800s, scores of millions of people moved up from poverty into the middle class and beyond. (Immigrants to the US arrived with nothing more than a suitcase.) > Funny how we keep forgetting the past and reject what benefited us as a whole Oh the irony!

> The US was founded on individual rights

Excluding those whose land was stolen and redistributed by government.

> not community sacrifice

Excluding government-funded infrastructure projects like canals that enabled growth. And support that immigrants received from ethnic communities.

> Meanwhile, during the 1800s, scores of millions of people moved up from poverty

Yes, fifteen tons, we know that song.

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

#256

Post by georgeburdell »

Ham-fisted reactionary policy versus attacking the root cause, which is 1) cost of living has now increased to require two working parents 2) The government values housewives at about $2k per year in tax credits. Let women stay at home and raise their children as they know best, and pay them for the cost of the service they provide.

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

#257

Post by tstrimple »

tbrownaw wrote: post #215
OGEnthusiast wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the US doesn't have a high-trust society anymore, so paperwork is a necessary evil to prevent malicious foreign actors from wiping us clean. (See: the recent Somalian autism claims scams in Minnesota).

Where does mass trustworthy behavior (ie, "a high trust society") come from?

It probably starts when one of the only two viable political parties stops undermining everything possibly good in this country in their effort to prove government doesn't work.

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

#258

Post by peanuty1 »

jimt1234 wrote: post #240

I've always wondered why on-site child care generally isn't offered as a perk through employment. Many large companies, like the F500 I work for, offer various on-site perks, like subsidized cafeterias, exercise facilities, garden, meditation room, etc., but never the thing that would help (parents) the most: an on-site child care center. My hunch is it comes down to two major obstacles: (1) the liability risk is too…

Offering free childcare would be far more expensive than offering subsidized cafeterias, meditation rooms, and a gym.

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

#259

Post by caseysoftware »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #103
Aurornis wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several of the UBI pilot studies included new venture creation (including solo self-employment, not just classic business creation) as part of their measurements. The last few I looked at had zero difference in new business creation between recipients and control group. A lot of the UBI trials have actually had disappointing results. The arguments usually claim that it’s not a valid test because it wasn’t guaranteed…

> Any UBI system that provided even poverty level wages would require significant tax increases to pay for it Or cutting other things to pay for it, in addition to smaller tax increases. And the costs go down once it's bootstrapped long enough to obtain the long-term economic benefits that grow the economy (which will take a while to materialize). Honestly, my biggest concern with it is that people will (rightfully)…

> And the costs go down once it's bootstrapped long enough to obtain the long-term economic benefits that grow the economy (which will take a while to materialize).

That's a major claim. Which places under UBI (or in one of the experiments) has that manifested?

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

#260

Post by bluecalm »

runako wrote: post #166
parineum wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The data on UBI isn't out there, but it is notable that countries with similar tax rates to the US manage to have universal healthcare and more expansive safety nets. Some examples: New Zealand (tax rate ~30% less than the US), Korea, Switzerland, Australia, UK, Japan, Netherlands, Norway. Americans really should be asking why we're paying a significantly higher tax burden than New Zealand and not getting similar ser…

Switzerland has mandatory healthcare insurance and subsidies for low income earners. The insurance is provided by private companies. It's not really universal healthcare system like in most EU countries.

Private insurance can work out fine if regulated well. In USA you have regulatory capture that makes services expensive. Impossible barriers to entry coupled with terrible regulation on price transparency and a lot of cartel like behavior.

Post reply on HN