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

451–460 of 540 posts

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

#451

Post by WalterBright »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #397
coryrc wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, fifteen tons, we know that song. What society mass-moved individuals from menial work to better work? Many societies have made generational improvements: children raised with more opportunity, but I'm not aware (hey, I'm ignorant of a lot) of any that moved significant numbers of menial laborers themselves up significantly in standard of living besides the USA post-WWII or new technology (electricity, plumbing…

Well, that‘s not related to this specific conversation, but industrialization in socialist states did that in a number of cases. Soviet Union between 1950s and 1970s has seen significant growth and by various accounts achieved up to 5x improvement in purchase power compared to Russian Empire at its peak, in 1913 (how much goods could a worker buy for their salary, not including welfare, which was obviously superior i…

> America of 1800s was ugly place to live even for many white Europeans

Not when compared with the rest of the world.

Life in pre-Colonial America was pretty hard. Building a civilization by hand from wilderness is a tall order, and life was short. But after 1800, life improved by leaps and bounds. You can see this in statistics of average height.

As for the Soviet Union, I recall newspaper accounts from the 70s and 80s that if you were traveling there, be sure to load up your luggage with blue jeans. Blue jeans were in high demand and would fetch a nice profit. And how many Soviet consumer items do you have in your home?

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

#452

Post by WalterBright »

throwaway-11-1 wrote: post #441
WalterBright wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you should be honest about which classes of people that was referring to I'll go with "all men" from the Declaration of Independence. > the working poor are being absolutely crushed by capital right now They're being crushed by the government. You cannot make a country wealthy by raising taxes and redistributing the money. > your guys won! I go with the "all men" thang.

were blacks considered men? did it include women? it feels like you're purposely ignoring history Btw ~40% of the people i've met in homeless outreach have full time jobs, taxes are not what's keeping them homeless. In china 90% of the population own their homes, I'm sorry but the all that libertarian shit is such an obvious myth to protect the rich. Every country I've ever visited with more redistributive policies h…

> were blacks considered men?

Yes. The people who wrote the Constitution were well aware of the conundrum, but were faced with the reality that they could not form a union without allowing the slaveholders to continue. In essence, they kicked the can down the road, which resulted in a catastrophic war.

> did it include women?

Yes. Whether the word "men" means exclusively men or men and women depends on the context.

> taxes are not what's keeping them homeless

You're suggesting that taxes don't have effects beyond just paying the money. When a businessman is taxed, for example, that means he has less money to invest in his business, which means fewer jobs, fewer purchases of plant & equipment, slower growth, higher prices, etc., all of which negatively affect the rest of the economy, including poor people.

> that libertarian shit is such an obvious myth to protect the rich

America's rich people came from poor immigrants. The same for America's middle class.

> Every country I've ever visited with more redistributive policies has a substantially better quality of life

Have you ever looked at the size of government spending on redistribution? The US abandoned libertarianism in the early 1900s.

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

#453

Post by mlrtime »

Spivak wrote: post #445
svieira wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mos…

You go first then. It can be a you cut I choose type thing with gender roles. Because let me tell you dude I and every other woman is picking the men's package in this deal. You go ahead and be a 50's housewife if you think it's so good. We've had the option to choose if we want that terrible life for 40+ years now and "fuck no" won in a landslide. Do you know how depressing it is to find out that both my mom and my…

Hold on - you're conflating "traditional housewife with zero financial independence" with "choosing to be the primary caregiver for your own kids." Those are not the same thing.

The fact that your mom and MIL needed secret bank accounts isn't an argument against raising your own children - it's an argument for financial transparency and shared accounts in modern marriages. And yeah, we should absolutely have that.

But here's what you're missing: plenty of women (and men!) are choosing to be primary caregivers today because we have the choice now. It's not 1950 - it's 2025. Nobody's talking about giving up bank accounts or financial independence. We're talking about prioritizing raising your own kids over outsourcing it, when that's financially possible.

It's hard as hell, it's undervalued, and it's not for everyone. But acting like everyone who makes that choice is deluded? That's just as dismissive as the people who think all women should be doing it.

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

#454

Post by mlrtime »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #321
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.

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.

We're talking about different age ranges here. For 0-3 years, especially infants, the attachment research is very consistent primary caregivers matter enormously for development. A 1yo doesn't need to "expand their social life" they need secure attachment. The socialization benefits you're describing kick in later, around 3-4 years old.

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

#455

Post by mlrtime »

danorama wrote: post #96
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".

But what if Avery has the skills and training to watch 5 kids at once in a group?

What age?

0-18 months, there is no skill other than being the parent(s).

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

#456

Post by mlrtime »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #304
jazzyjackson wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Child rearing is the most economically important task a mother can do, it's just not compensated for fairly. The wrong thing to do is ensure the parents are working for low wages + have children raised by low wage workers.

> Child rearing is the most economically important task a mother can do This is really only true in the post-WWII Western nuclear family. Most cultures historically and today have group elements to childbearing.

Right, and that's exactly the point. It was extended family and close community, not institutional strangers. Grandma watching the kids while mom works the fields is completely different from dropping an infant at a commercial daycare center with a 1:6 caregiver ratio. The "it takes a village" argument doesn't support modern daycare, it actually undermines it. Those historical models were built on trusted relationships and continuity of care, not economic transactions with rotating staff.

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

#458

Post by int_19h »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #224
tock wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Child rearing is the most economically important task a mother can do, it's just not compensated for fairly. The wrong thing to do is ensure the parents are working for low wages + have children raised by low wage workers.

It reminds me of Bujold.

“Oh, certainly, you could produce quantities of infants — although it would take enormous resources to do so. Highly trained techs, as well as equipment and supplies. But don’t you see, that’s just the beginning. It’s nothing, compared to what it takes to raise a child. Why, on Athos it absorbs most of the planet’s economic resources. Food, of course — housing — education, clothing, medical care — it takes nearly all our efforts just to maintain population replacement, let alone to increase. No government could possibly afford to raise such a specialized, nonproductive army.”

Elli Quinn quirked an eyebrow. “How odd. On other worlds, people seem to come in floods, and they’re not necessarily impoverished, either.”

Ethan, diverted, said, “Really? I don’t see how that can be. Why, the labor costs alone of bringing a child to maturity are astronomical. There must be something wrong with your accounting.”

Her eyes screwed up in an expression of sudden ironic insight. “Ah, but on other worlds the labor costs aren’t added in. They’re counted as free.”

Ethan stared. “What an absurd bit of double thinking! Athosians would never sit still for such a hidden labor tax! Don’t the primary nurturers even get social duty credits?”

“I believe” — her voice was edged with a peculiar dryness — “they call it women’s work. And the supply usually exceeds the demand — non-union scabs, as it were, undercutting the market.”

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

#459

Post by int_19h »

WalterBright wrote: post #200
nradov wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've strayed pretty far from the original topic here, but the reality is that the US military is literally running out of working aircraft because they're so old . The average age of USAF aircraft is now about 28 years. The fleet was allowed to decay and not substantially recapitalized during the GWOT. Many of the fighters in the combat coded inventory aren't even allowed to hit their original 9G maneuvering limit a…

The problem is that fighter aircraft have gotten too expensive to afford to build, even for a nation.

If Sweden can do it...

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

#460

Post by mixmastamyk »

mlrtime wrote: post #454
mixmastamyk wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We're talking about different age ranges here. For 0-3 years, especially infants, the attachment research is very consistent primary caregivers matter enormously for development. A 1yo doesn't need to "expand their social life" they need secure attachment. The socialization benefits you're describing kick in later, around 3-4 years old.

Daycare typically won't take a kid until potty trained, so at least 2 and a half or so. At the early ages, it's only a few hours a day as well in my experience.
Post reply on HN