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

321–330 of 540 posts

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

#321

Post by mixmastamyk »

abustamam wrote: post #247
Rebelgecko wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Sounds like barter to me. There are some benefits, the kid expands their social life, the parent gets to fulfill career needs, etc. There may be issues, but shouldn't be thought of in completely negative terms.

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

#322

Post by terminalshort »

mariusor wrote: post #262
terminalshort wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say anything about school. This article is about childcare for children below school age. But basic education is also actually quite cheap and easy to provide. Abraham Lincoln was educated in a one room school house. We have made it expensive by turning it into a bureaucratic nightmare with administrators, school boards, lawyers, and PTAs, when all you really need is a few good teachers who are given the aut…

"until very recently" includes pre-industrial times to my understanding when education did not exist in an organized fashion for the poor. [edit] And in what world is Abraham Lincoln considered "the poor" for his times? I am sure you can come up with some less fortunate people during the same times which didn't really get the experience of that one room schoolhouse.

> And in what world is Abraham Lincoln considered "the poor"

In the world where he was born on the frontier in a log cabin, which is this one.

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

#323

Post by gfiorav »

Aurornis wrote: post #119
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…

The narratives on this topic are hard to pierce through. Economic literacy is low among the public. Politicians take advantage of this to pretend that solving everything is as simple as taxing the people you don’t like (billionaires, corporations, or even completely incorrect narratives about how we’ll use tariffs to make other countries pay us, which we all know is false). These groups are all represented as infinit…

Yes. Plus, taxing those with higher incomes is hardly “taxing the rich.” After all, the wealthy don’t have incomes; they borrow against their assets.

However, they do fund political campaigns, which is why politicians focus on the “work mules” of social welfare: the top 1% earners who contribute 90% of all welfare benefits. This distraction diverts attention from the “real rich” and the top earners can hardly do anything to address the issue... perfect scapegoat.

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

#324

Post by trollbridge »

mariusor wrote: post #262
terminalshort wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say anything about school. This article is about childcare for children below school age. But basic education is also actually quite cheap and easy to provide. Abraham Lincoln was educated in a one room school house. We have made it expensive by turning it into a bureaucratic nightmare with administrators, school boards, lawyers, and PTAs, when all you really need is a few good teachers who are given the aut…

"until very recently" includes pre-industrial times to my understanding when education did not exist in an organized fashion for the poor. [edit] And in what world is Abraham Lincoln considered "the poor" for his times? I am sure you can come up with some less fortunate people during the same times which didn't really get the experience of that one room schoolhouse.

Illinois had universal free public school since 1825, so no, you couldn’t find anyone who didn’t have access to that experience (or better).

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

#325

Post by mythrwy »

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.

You have a point but I live in New Mexico. It's not like many of these moms are suddenly going to become stellar parents with a $2K tax credit. The state has real issues with poverty, education and work ethic and it's often generational.

Giving children some stability, role models and nutrition early in life seems like a pretty good investment from my perspective.

If the state pulls it off without the usual mismanagement and graft remains to be seen but I applaud the effort.

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

#326

Post by insane_dreamer »

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…

> the Economist recently wrote about how universal child care can harm children

I expect nothing less from the Economist, of course.

If you read more closely, the issue wasn't that universal child care is bad, but how it's implemented is important (of course). Not to mention that a host of other factors could be contributing to the study's findings. For example, it could be that mothers spending less time with their children is detrimental to their development. Few people would argue with that. But let's examine why mothers are working full-time in the first place -- largely it's because families can no longer be sustained on a single income. And _that_ is more likely the root of the problem than "universal childcare".

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

#327

Post by legolas2412 »

jjk166 wrote: post #300
zdragnar wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be surprised to learn that Quebec is not in America.

America is the place without universal childcare being used as a control here.

I am reading the article and it looks like it is being compared to the elder cohorts of Qubec children and also rest of Canada.

Looks like Quebec's past and rest of Canada is the control.

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

#328

Post by sib301 »

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.

The fact he only supports women staying at home should tell you everything you need to know about the caliber person you’re dealing with.

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

#329

Post by trollbridge »

siliconc0w wrote: post #275
hammock wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

… behind in childhood nutrition? Between the WIC program, snap, and school meals there is plenty of resources.

It’s true that it’s means tested, but I’m not entirely sure we need to be providing free meals for rich people.

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

#330

Post by kirubakaran »

rs186 wrote: post #137
kittensmittens5 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until recently in human history 100% of humans were illiterate.

Terrible analogy. btw analogy is not a good way to win arguments.

Winning arguments with analogies is like painting still life with a broad brush
Post reply on HN