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

421–430 of 695 posts

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

#421

Post by [deleted] »

ryandrake wrote: post #390
mothballed wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't you want your friends to better be able to afford what you have, by getting an equal value stipend to stay at home if you're for universal childcare? There are many families that might be only one or two tuitions away from being able to stay at home with their child like they had wished, and assigning the waiver/voucher to the child instead of to the daycare can make that happen. And no it's not a free l…

I'm not sure I follow, but I'm open to being wrong. The point of this subsidy is not to encourage people to move from paid-childcare to stay-at-home. That's a totally separate economic decision. The point of it is to ease/eliminate the burden of those who require paid-childcare. If we think there is a societal advantage to financially incentivize parents to stay-at-home with a subsidy, I'd be open to looking at the c…

[deleted]

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

#422

Post by toast0 »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #15

It's easy to promise things, but hard to deliver them. How can the state "guarantee no-cost universal child?" Will the state provide the child care itself? Or will the attempt to provide funding, relying on the private market to provide the service. Are there a bunch of underworked child care providers just waiting around for new customers? Or would they expect the child care industry to go on a hiring spree? Regardl…

> Regardless who provides it, more workers would be required to deliver the service, and new facilities as well. What industries will those workers come from, who will now see reduced services and higher prices as a result?

Paid for child care frees up some stay at home parents to enter the labor force; it's kind of circular, but some of those parents will work in child care. This won't fill the whole gap, but it will fill some of it.

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

#423

Post by jimt1234 »

scarface_74 wrote: post #156
zackmorris wrote: post #143

I just want to +1 this post before it gets flagged for being "political" or whatever. I grew up in the 1980s and have watched America slide from being a civilization that was the envy of the world into something resembling empire or feudalism or I-don't-know-what. The US literally declared its independence from England to shrug off authoritarianism/aristocracy. Yet we've reproduced that wealth inequality here. We're…

What’s frustrating about this is that conservatives are always warning about the decreasing child birth rate. But fight against policies that would help support families who have children. Universal healthcare is similar. You want to support small businesses? Lack of affordable healthcare stops a lot of people from leaving corporate America to start their own business.

> What’s frustrating about this is that conservatives are always warning about the decreasing child birth rate. But fight against policies that would help support families who have children.

Didn't the Big Beautiful Bill include $5K for newborn babies? I thought I saw a headline that said that. But anyway, yeah, 5-grand is gonna solve everything. /s

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

#425

Post by stickfigure »

mothballed wrote: post #416
stickfigure wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody's being targeted for additional tax. But correct, benefits aren't being spread evenly across the population. That's how pretty much all social benefits work. Hell, think about how childless people must feel about this. Or the child tax credit. Nothing is "perfectly fair", but sometimes public policy is good enough.

Childless people are getting the best deal of anyone. They get new social security payers with a better invested upbringing, all for paying out a pittance and offloading most of the cost onto parents -- all the meanwhile having their social security payout almost completely untied to making the investments needed to get their payment. Childless people basically get their cake and eat it too under the social welfare s…

[flagged]

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

#426

Post by ceejayoz »

harikb wrote: post #386
ceejayoz wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The more broadly you spread the money, the less benefit each person receives. But this is true in the other direction, too. Means testing costs money, time, and ensures some needy folks fall off the program. For example, Florida did drug testing as a condition for welfare benefits... and it cost more than they saved. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-fl...

Please read the article. Since 2019, they had a program that was means tested. The new proposal is to expand it to all parents > With Monday’s announcement universal child care will be extended to every family in the state, regardless of income.

You're entirely missing the point of my example.

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

#427

Post by SilverElfin »

gwbas1c wrote: post #357
SilverElfin wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 childc…

I stayed at home with my mom until I was old enough for school. My wife and I sent our kids to daycare. Our kids are fine. Turns out kids need a lot of time with other kids.

It turns out that kids raised by their parents still get a lot of time with other kids though. Their parents don’t just keep them at home. They meet with friends. Go out and play. Their parents take them to classes and activities. Your view is “our kids are fine”, but most parents may say that about their own kids without knowing what the alternative could be. I’ve experienced both situations myself and also observed it as an adult. I think most childcare is a lot more of a free for all than parents think, rather than some sort of well designed experience. If you reduce the ratios significantly by having two kids per worker, maybe the quality improves to approach what a parent can provide. But that’s a lot more expensive.

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

#428

Post by mothballed »

stickfigure wrote: post #425
mothballed wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Childless people are getting the best deal of anyone. They get new social security payers with a better invested upbringing, all for paying out a pittance and offloading most of the cost onto parents -- all the meanwhile having their social security payout almost completely untied to making the investments needed to get their payment. Childless people basically get their cake and eat it too under the social welfare s…

[flagged]

You don't pay "into" social security. You pay up. The people you paid are dead and won't be returning your money. Yours will be funded by now-children. That investment lies by far on parents, with some pittances paid into property taxes for schools or low-income welfare programs.

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

#429

Post by daveswilson »

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.

As a resident of New Mexico I can tell you that it is a miracle that we can afford to launch this program at all. Perhaps when the long-term economic benefits begin to pay out, we'll be able to pay people to support their personal preferences. As it stands, while I don't have kids at home anymore, I can see the long-term economic benefit to the state, and am very pleased that my tax dollars are helping to get this done.

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

#430

Post by pear01 »

mothballed wrote: post #408
pear01 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I pack my kids lunch but other kids get a "free" lunch I'm worse off? Yes there is no "free lunch" I'm paying a tax for something I don't need. The comment you are replying to already anticipates this. How is it not the same argument? Your budget comment also puzzles me. What if my existing family budget is put under stress by the "free lunch tax" so now I'm even further away from being able to pack my own lunc…

It's very convenient that it is greed when the stay at home mom wants an equal voucher, but not greed when a mom joins a capitalist for-profit enterprise for whatever wage she can avail herself of with the childcare bill footed by everyone else. Which is precisely what we are discussing.

Make it a progressive tax then? The point was many people can afford to help others to make society better for all. But you only want to pay taxes for what you're personally interested in? If you think stay at home needs to be prioritized in some way, as another comment mentioned, that's a separate argument. You are also relying on scenarios that don't even sound plausible. If someone can barely afford stay at home and this tax makes it that painful for them, then make it more progressive. Then again I'm not sure they are equivalent. At the end of the day a majority deciding something like this is in the common interest and you having a problem because you won't personally take advantage of it sounds like greed to me. No one should be going broke because of this tax. If you think capitalist mommy is making too much while you foot the bill then wouldn't the remedy be to tax her more? Are you worried about people who can't afford the tax or do you just resent some people for getting societal benefits while also making more than you?
Post reply on HN