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

311–320 of 540 posts

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

#311

Post by gfiorav »

jack_h wrote: post #117
gfiorav wrote: post #34

This is one of my pet peeves. If you believe in the welfare state concept, you should never refer to anything that’s subsidized as “free.” It’s a recipe for disaster. As a European who was uprooted and settled in the US, I’ve become painfully aware of how little we Europeans comprehend the workings of the economy. I believe this is partly due to the propaganda surrounding the welfare state as “free.” Of course, nothi…

As I’ve grown older I’ve come to realize that there are no solutions, merely tradeoffs. Saying something is “free” is selling a solution which rhetorically works well with a voting populace that has little, if any, knowledge of economics. Describing the n-th order economic consequences and how you are trading one set of issues for a different set of issues — which may be acceptable on balance but is not without conse…

Agreed. Many in this thread appear confident that “everyone” comprehends that anything labeled “free” actually implies “subsidized.” However, I still believe they are mistaken.

People fail to realize that increased social programs inevitably result in reduced income for everyone. If they understood this, you would observe the polls on this issue, which already reflect the fact that most individuals are willing to assist those in need but do not support most social programs.

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

#312

Post by somenameforme »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #287
abustamam wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That either means that childcare is too expensive or teachers don't get paid enough (probably both tbh) I feel like a lot of folks don't actually do this math, and don't realize that they're essentially just working to pay someone else to watch their kid.

> That either means that childcare is too expensive or teachers don't get paid enough (probably both tbh) It's not necessarily either one. If you do it yourself, you reuse the existing home instead of needing a separate building with its own rent, maintenance and security, the children and the adult watching them wake up in the same place instead of both having to commute to the childcare building, you have no admini…

Yip. Oddly enough, this has a lot of economic parallels with cooking at home vs eating out. For a silly example, you can make an Egg McMuffin for a tiny fraction of what you'd pay at McDonalds for one. Yet McDonalds (franchise, not corporate) operate on single digit profit margins. Why?

Because when you buy that Egg McMuffin you're not just paying for it. You're paying for an entire building of workers, the rent on that building, their licensing fees, their advertising costs, their electric costs, and much more. When you make it at home you're paying for nothing but the ingredients.

So it creates a paradoxical scenario - you're getting charged way more for stuff than if you made it yourself, but yet somehow you're not getting ripped off.

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

#313

Post by frumplestlatz »

russdill wrote: post #276
georgeburdell wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Outside the home childcare is not 24/7.

No, but it is during our most productive, aware, and valuable daylight hours.

> Also, it's really weird to be making this argument for mothers and not fathers.

In the context of human history, it’s not weird at all.

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

How?

It reduces the time children spend with a parent, and it creates a world in which both parents have to work just to afford having children.

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

#314

Post by gfiorav »

crazygringo wrote: post #297
rtuulik wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its free at the endpoint for user. That's what the "free" means here. No one is pretending that resources for things like roads, police, firefighting, primary schooling and others come out of nothingness and don´t have any cost.

Exactly. What else are you going to call it, but free? That's literally the word for it. Everybody understands that anything which is free is ultimately paid for by someone . And everybody understands that things provided for by the government come from taxes. We don't need new words for basic concepts everyone already understands.

I hope you were right, but I strongly suspect you are mistaken.

Most people fail to understand:

- Social welfare programs come at the expense of reducing everyone’s income.

- The extent of the social welfare overspending is significant; we have long surpassed the point of helping those in dire need and are now funding numerous programs that, if fully understood in its long-term cost, would likely not be supported.

- The top 5% of income earners contribute 90% of the welfare programs and are not “the greedy rich.”

- The actual greedy rich do not have income and fund political campaigns, which is why politicians often conflate high-earners with the rich (to obscure the influence of interest groups)

What would be a more accurate term than “free”? Subsidized. It may not be as catchy, but it provides a more precise description.

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

#316

Post by frumplestlatz »

marysminefnuf wrote: post #296

At most high schools in our district we offer childcare to the teachers for free. I think thats really the model we should be moving to. Just add pre-k and daycare to the public school system. We have the space already.

Give the state your kids and get to work, comrade?

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/17/archives/in-soviet-union-...

> The vast majority of Soviet families require the salary of a working wife to make ends meet. Repeatedly, Soviet citizens express astonishment when they learn that an American father can support a family of two, three or four children without his wife's working. Many are also surprised that American women would willingly have more than one child.

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

#317

Post by terminalshort »

crazygringo wrote: post #295
terminalshort wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until very recently in human history 100% of childcare operations were unlicensed, and this was better in every way than a government bureaucracy run system.

Until recently, you had personally known everyone, for years, who you might hand your child off to for a few hours. We have things like licensing because we're handing off our children to perfect strangers, and want some level of assurance that it's not going to be a disaster.

We are only handing them off to complete strangers because the informal system has been driven underground by laws that only allow the state licensed bureaucratic monopoly. If state licensing was optional and people were allowed to run neighborhood businesses I bet you would see something very different.

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

#318

Post by thunky »

benregenspan wrote: post #57
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one has accused roads and fire services of being free.

This is a good example, because a "freeway" is free at point of use, but obviously understood to not be free of construction and maintenance cost. It is called "freeway" because "free-to-drive-on highway" would be too wordy.

> It is called "freeway" because "free-to-drive-on highway" would be too wordy.

This is wrong. "Freeway" comes from free flow of traffic:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/freeway.cfm

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

#319

Post by sib301 »

georgeburdell wrote: post #256

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.

What if the husband wants to stay home and raise the kids?

Also no, women (or men) who stay home don’t “know best” by default. That knowledge is earned and requires intent.

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

#320

Post by gfiorav »

rectang wrote: post #78
gfiorav wrote: post #34

This is one of my pet peeves. If you believe in the welfare state concept, you should never refer to anything that’s subsidized as “free.” It’s a recipe for disaster. As a European who was uprooted and settled in the US, I’ve become painfully aware of how little we Europeans comprehend the workings of the economy. I believe this is partly due to the propaganda surrounding the welfare state as “free.” Of course, nothi…

I agree with the concept of not labeling things which are subsidized as "free", while still considering the price worth it. Similarly, I think the framing of negative rights vs entitlements makes sense, while still believing that certain entitlements are worthwhile. Unfortunately, I have found that such framings are mostly associated with a set of beliefs which I feel profoundly at odds with (e.g. unlimited wealth in…

Right. I believe every socialist should feel offended by the term “free healthcare.”

Building an economy capable of sustaining such a system requires immense effort and collective support. Describing it as “free” is a marketing tactic that assumes people are stupid.

Post reply on HN