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

271–280 of 540 posts

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

#271

Post by nathanaldensr »

Spivak wrote: post #242
hammock wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. If we could fund universal child care so that the ratio of caregiver to child was more like 1 to 2 or 1 to 5 or even 1 to 8 in extreme cases, then the lack of attentiveness would not be a problem. Wait a minute… that sounds like…

Okay but you do understand that what you're suggesting costs the full salary a woman (because of course it would never be men asked give up their careers) could earn for the family and the economic gains that come with it. Back of the napkin calculation is three trillion dollars of value lost annually . And that's before the knock-on effects of such a massive recession. Household income will drop by 30-40% across the…

[flagged]

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

#272

Post by abustamam »

It takes a village.

When I was a kid (youngest of four) growing up in a suburb of a small town, my mom would often drop me off at a neighbor's house to watch me while she ran errands or did stuff for my siblings. No payment, just neighbors being neighborly.

Now, I can't fathom something like that being feasible in our increasingly individualistic neighborhood. Regretfully, I don't even know the names of most of my neighbors. I wave to them on the street but I wouldn't ask them to take care of my daughter.

I know that's mostly my fault for not meeting my neighbors. But also, most families aren't even home during the day anymore because they have to work.

Ideally we could go back to being an interdependent society but it has to happen organically. No amount of legislation or budget can fix that.

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

#273

Post by tomp »

petcat wrote: post #169
bparsons wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Very few other countries have free childcare. In Europe I'm only aware of Slovenia and a couple others. Canada doesn't have anything close to the universal system that's in New Mexico.

Slovenia doesn’t have free healthcare, only subsidized.

Source: https://www.gov.si/teme/znizano-placilo-vrtca/

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

#275

Post by siliconc0w »

hammock wrote: post #156
siliconc0w wrote: post #113

My current theory is that we've basically gotten addicted to importing the world's smartest kids so we have been unwilling to invest in our own children.

What makes you say that when New Mexico is now offering free childcare?

One state offering something is a start but we're still far behind maternity, pre-k, childhood nutrition, and primary or secondary education in general for most of the population relative to peer nations. Plus this administration's cuts to Medicare or SNAP which will also hit the poorest kids the most. Plus the national debt they are saddled with.

Our children's well being (physical health, mental health, education, etc) is routinely ranked toward the absolute bottom compared peer nations.

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

#276

Post by russdill »

georgeburdell wrote: post #269
russdill wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what, pay someone a full time salary for caring for 1 or two children? Pretty sure that doesn't scale

If governments aren’t willing to value women at what their work at home is worth, they’re not serious about tackling the birthrate problem. Show me a country with universal childcare with a TFR above 2.1. It’s a cheap substitute for the love and attention only a mother can provide young children

Outside the home childcare is not 24/7. It's for a portion of the day. Also, it's really weird to be making this argument for mothers and not fathers.

Having childcare available gives the opportunity for both parents to spend more quality time with their children.

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

#277

Post by nineplay »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #146
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".

The financials of childcare don't really make sense to me. YMMV depending on your situation, but childcare costs are basically equivalent to my wife's teacher salary. And because of our tax bracket, it'd actually be CHEAPER for her to quit her job and take care of 2 kids full time, vs getting paid teach like 20 kids. There's tradeoffs in terms of career progression, but it seems broken that there's a decent financial…

The financials of leaving the workforce rarely make sense to me.

> There's tradeoffs in terms of career progression

There's X years of lost income, lost retirement savings, lost raises and bonuses ( depending on career ), lost promotions, lost acquisition of new skills which will keep the stay-home parent up to date with the modern workforce once they leave.

Teaching and nursing are still women dominated and famously supportive of women going back to work or starting work after staying home with the kids. For every other career path, good luck. How many people here would hire someone who'd be out of the workforce for 5, 10, 15 years without a second thought?

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

#278

Post by AnthonyMouse »

tbrownaw wrote: post #73
tock wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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".

> The same total work gets done by the same group of people in both cases, but the second measures as "better" for "the economy".

It's worse than that, because it's not the same work. In Scenario B the person watching the kids isn't their parent so they don't have the same bond or interest in the child's long-term success. It also introduces a lot of additional inefficiencies because now you have trust and vetting issues, either the child or the person watching the child has to commute every day so that they're in the same place because they no longer live in the same house as each other, etc.

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

#279

Post by watwut »

czhu12 wrote: post #142
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…

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…

I take the fact that child care is not some kind of super new thing and exists in well run countries without their kids being behind, worst behaved or more aggressive then American kids.

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

#280

Post by svieira »

Spivak wrote: post #242
hammock wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. If we could fund universal child care so that the ratio of caregiver to child was more like 1 to 2 or 1 to 5 or even 1 to 8 in extreme cases, then the lack of attentiveness would not be a problem. Wait a minute… that sounds like…

Okay but you do understand that what you're suggesting costs the full salary a woman (because of course it would never be men asked give up their careers) could earn for the family and the economic gains that come with it. Back of the napkin calculation is three trillion dollars of value lost annually . And that's before the knock-on effects of such a massive recession. Household income will drop by 30-40% across the…

It doesn't cost the fully salary of the woman, it redirects it to something that can't be captured by large scale economics. Which, if you're trying to break the backs of the uber wealthy, is an excellent way to do it.

> Women won't be put back into financial captivity without a fight

This, along with the language of the supposedly "pro-male" camp ("why shackle yourself to someone who will just rough you over for most of your paycheck later and leave") are both approaching marriage wrong. If you're trying to achieve a good that cannot be had individually (a happy marriage) then both sides have to freely give 100% of what the shared good requires. Marriage cannot work as a Mexican standoff between two parties who are trying to take as much as possible from it without giving anything in return.

Dangerous? Yes. It's the most dangerous thing you can ever do, to take yourself in your own hands and offer yourself to another.

Post reply on HN