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

301–310 of 695 posts

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

#301

Post by bluGill »

dataflow wrote: post #176
bluGill wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

>> when women are allowed to work to their full potential > Why the sexist word "women"? Do you really mean to imply that men/fathers should not be stay at home dads? That's... not even remotely what the sentence said? Or are you offended because you believe childcare obligations have historically prevented men from working their full potential?

Women was used in several different places. Each is offensive, because in each case a man could do the same work, and the work could be done. I have no opinion on if a man or woman should be caregiver - I've seen both cases work well - every situation must be taken case by case.

What does full potential even mean? If someone wants to do something, but they have to do something else or they would starve (that is play vs work) which is living up to their full potential - what they want to do, or what they must do?

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

#302

Post by cvoss »

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.

Perhaps there is something about the environment of an economically disadvantaged household that could be improved by a stipend which allows at least one parent the breathing room to dedicate full time attention to the child instead of a job (or multiple jobs). I don't think the findings you mentioned cut against that idea at all.

I hear you saying the benefit of dedicated caregiving for children mostly helps families with less economic advantage. I'd agree with that, and suggest that OP's proposal capitalizes on exactly that. I'm not convinced of what may be implied in your argument that low-earners make for bad parents and that children should be separated more from their parents for their own good. Let the internal dynamics of a family be solved first, before saying we need to separate parents from children more.

Moreover, those with more economic advantage are unlikely to take a stipend in exchange for staying home. That's not a good deal when keeping the job pays so much that they can afford to pay for childcare.

It is precisely those with less advantage who will take the deal.

So I don't agree with your prediction that such a stipend mostly benefits those who are already well off.

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

#303

Post by stackskipton »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #155
nerpderp82 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you spell it out with math?

Tax $100 each from couple A and couple B. Couple A leave their kids at a daycare and work. They get $200 in childcare costs reimbursed by the government. Couple B has one parent stay home to take care of their kids. They get nothing. Couple A: -$100 + $200 = +$100 Couple B: -$100 + $0 = -$100

Sure and under income taxes, Couple B probably pays much less since US income tax structure is gives massive benefits to couples with single income. It may not be enough to offset joint income. As with most economic changes, there is massive web of things.

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

#304

Post by Pet_Ant »

mothballed wrote: post #16
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…

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.

> Stay at home moms do not provide a less valuable service than childcare providers.

They are strictly less efficient than commercial daycare because the adult-child ratio is much higher. How many women would be of out of the work for if they were taking care of children?

Also, it prevents trickle down and the lifting of the poorest in society.

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

#305

Post by xp84 »

ujkhsjkdhf234 wrote: post #222
xp84 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just gonna throw this out here: Well-off kids who barely know their workaholic parents have different but equally bad issues for society, than the poor kids do. Those poor kids have learning deficits. The "well-off" kids often have morality deficits. A mom or dad raising them properly might help them more than being Student #642 in a government childcare facility. This isn't an argument against childcare. My chil…

You aren't wrong but calling it being "Student #642 in a government childcare facility" the wrong way of looking at it. Children grow up best when they are allowed to play with other children. Modern society robs kids of that and helicopter parents are bad for society.

I agree with you vigorously on both those points. I am skeptical however that NM will be able to create a lot of healthy, play-based environments for so many kids.

The market already has incentives to create them -- a ton of good places have waiting lists nationwide, showing unmet demand even at the current price. This suggests the price will need to go higher to attract enough people to do this job. It seems their "$12,000 value" estimate is based on an optimistic belief that they will be buying childcare for their citizens at current prices. When they realize there aren't that many slots available at current rates of pay, will they be okay significantly increasing the costs of the program?

So, my expectations for these facilities are very low and that's a big part of my concern.

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

#306

Post by jjk166 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #290
jjk166 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that stay at home parents should get the same credit as childcare providers because they perform the same service to society. If you're only caring for your own kids, you are providing significantly less to society than those caring for many kids. You want to focus on raising your own kids, that's fine, but do it on your dime.

>you are providing significantly less to society than those caring for many kids And getting paid considerably less. You're almost certainly providing proportionally more for your pay. A childcare provider can register and only look after 1 child, usually, but wouldn't because they want/need more income. Presumably nannies (careworker for children from a single family) are registered childcare providers where you are…

It is cheaper per child to care for multiple children at the same time. It's basic economies of scale. Nannies and childcare providers that only look after a single child ought not to be subsidized, at least not nearly to the same extent as those who provide care more efficiently.

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

#307

Post by ericfr11 »

KetoManx64 wrote: post #258
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…

You don't understand how economics work if you think this is actually going to be helpful. By providing "universal" child care, you just moved the cost of childcare from the individual to the tax base so now everyone has to pay an ineffifient system that often eats up 30-50% of the incoming money in bureaucratic inneficiencies before it will even reach the child care system. On top of that the increased taxes are goi…

I just use my bike: why should I pay taxes for roads maintenance. Unfortunately, a society is not just about economics

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

#308

Post by SilverElfin »

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…

> because it will show how much an economy can grow when women are allowed to work to their full potential

This feels like the wrong goal. Why does it matter how much an economy can grow? Is that worth not having a parent raise the child? In my opinion, it’s important for kids to spend more time with their families not less. Having one parent at home is very useful for bonding, development, etc. And frankly no childcare, even one with good ratios of workers to children, can substitute for it. I think the notion that “if the children are taken care of” is perhaps not recognizing that there are different levels of “taken care of”.

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

#309

Post by TulliusCicero »

mothballed wrote: post #16
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…

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.

From the government's point of view, they want more people out in the workforce, so it probably doesn't make sense that way.

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

#310

Post by giantg2 »

motorest wrote: post #280
giantg2 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. You can actually think through your belief. The announcement provides a concrete number: $12,000 per child. Do you generate $12k in tax revenue? Note that this means direct and indirect tax revenue, not only from you…

Yes, I understand that and still don't think that adds up. Things like SNAP for a family of 4 would be less than $12k per year. And that increased tax revenue would have to offset the currently working and paying families that will now use the program. We would have to wait for the experiment to conclude to see what the increased earnings for participants will be.
Post reply on HN