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

471–480 of 540 posts

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

#471

Post by int_19h »

EasyMark wrote: post #399
nkrisc wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some things, yes. I think this sort of thing is compatible with being legislated at the state level. Other policies are not. See states with strict gun laws being undermined by neighboring states with very loose laws.

Sure but you have to pass a Constitutional amendment to fix that, and I don't see that happening on something as divisive as gun ownership.

At this point I don't think the constitution has much meaning left to it. So many matters have already saw massive changes, sometimes even going back and forth on it. And Wickard v Filburn is still standing precedent. In this kind of climate, SCOTUS could easily chip away at 2A case by case, especially considering that the current expansive interpretation of it only became the new policy less than 20 years ago.

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

#472

Post by runako »

Aloisius wrote: post #404
runako wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data on UBI isn't out there, but it is notable that countries with similar tax rates to the US manage to have universal healthcare and more expansive safety nets. Some examples: New Zealand (tax rate ~30% less than the US), Korea, Switzerland, Australia, UK, Japan, Netherlands, Norway. Americans really should be asking why we're paying a significantly higher tax burden than New Zealand and not getting similar ser…

New Zealand effective taxes rates are generally higher than the US, not lower unless you're doing something odd like comparing based on average local wage. Switzerland, the Netherlands and Japan all use the Bismark model (contributions for insurance), so taxes don't really reflect the cost of universal healthcare. The issue in the US is not an allocation problem. The average person in the US already pays more in taxe…

> New Zealand effective taxes rates are generally higher than the US

US tax rates are complex due to local variance and other factors. Tax rate on the median NZ income appears to be ~30%. Tax on median US is lower, but state taxes can add significantly. There is not a neat divide between red states & blue states here; Alabama & Georgia have state income taxes, for example.

> The average person in the US already pays more in taxes that are spent on healthcare than in any other country.

And that's before the health insurance premiums!

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

#473

Post by int_19h »

monero-xmr wrote: post #364
trollbridge wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t work if all of the productivity gains are captured by the wealthy owners of most of the capital though.

If more of society’s desires can be delivered with fewer people at lower cost, all of society benefits

Not necessarily. For example, if most of society's wealth is concentrated with a few people, and the rest can get crumbs from that table only by serving the wealthy, then a situation where something is delivered with fewer people at lower cost translates to more people starving because they are no longer economically useful.

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

#475

Post by WalterBright »

int_19h wrote: post #466
WalterBright wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price of freedom is always paid in blood. > This country was 100% founded on community sacrifice. I recommend reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and if you really want to get into it, the Federalist Papers. I don't recall any of that advocating free food for all, UBI, free healthcare, etc.

What do you think patriotism is, if not "community sacrifice"? GP's point is that you are playing fast and loose with words here, so much so that your point doesn't make sense. "Community sacrifice" is a much broader category than those few policies you dislike.

Take a look at the post I originally responded to. It wasn't about patriotism, it was about wealth redistribution.

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

#476

Post by omikun »

WalterBright wrote: post #413
insane_dreamer wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US was founded on individual rights and freedoms ... during the 1800s, scores of millions of people moved up from poverty into the middle class and beyond. Woah! The US was founded on occupation and slavery. How do you think millions of people were able to move up out of poverty? Because the US was abundant in land and natural resources, which during the 1800s we stole from the native Americans and exploited in…

Yes I know about that theory. But it has problems. When the US was founded, half of the states were slavers, the other half free. Guess which half prospered? The free North! Which stagnated? The slave South. Did you know that the Slave South was unable to supply their troops? They were largely barefoot. The reason they were in Pennsylvania was to raid a shoe factory (but got smashed at Gettysburg instead). Towns and…

> Did you know that the Slave South was unable to supply their troops? They were largely barefoot. The reason they were in Pennsylvania was to raid a shoe factory (but got smashed at Gettysburg instead). Towns and cities and industry sprouted up all over in the free North, not so much in the South.

Guess where the north got their cotton to make those shoes? The south. The textile industries of the north would've never gotten their start without cheap cotton made possible by slavery.

> As for natural resources, why is resource-rich S. America mired in poverty? Why did the Indian nations never industrialize, and remained poor? Why did resource-poor Japan become super rich after being burned to the ground in WW2? Why did resource-rich Russia never become prosperous? Why did zero-resource Taiwan become a wealthy powerhouse? Why is resource rich Africa still stuck in poverty?

Every South American nation that tried to raise itself out of poverty had their government overthrown or their leader assassinated with the help of good ol' USA. Japan/S. Korea/Taiwan industrialized because USA decided they needed strong allies to counter Russia/China. Check out the grand area plans. Africa was colonized, exported millions of their people to slavery, and is continually destabilized by the west (corporations, world bank, IMF, etc) to perpetuate resource extraction.

The poor is kept poor so the rich can get richer. Why is food so plentiful and cheap? Slave labor. Read Tomatoland for a taste. Why are clothes so cheap? People are working for pennies to make those clothes. Why doesn't the iPhone price rise with inflation? There are millions of poor rural Chinese pounding for a chance to work at inhumane conditions for a few dollars a day. You think they make enough to pull their families out of poverty? Nope, it's mostly foreign companies that are reaping the bulk of the profit while continually pressing their costs (labor wages) down.

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

#477

Post by omikun »

WalterBright wrote: post #440
throwaway-11-1 wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when you say 'individual rights', you should be honest about which classes of people that was referring to. By the way, don't be so defensive, the working poor are being absolutely crushed by capital right now, your guys won!

> 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.

You mean all land owning men or men of sufficient wealth (those who can vote). Certainly not women. In other words, the male elites.

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

#478

Post by omikun »

abustamam wrote: post #272

It takes a village. When I was a kid (youngest of four) growing up in a suburb of a small town, my mom would often drop me off at a neighbor's house to watch me while she ran errands or did stuff for my siblings. No payment, just neighbors being neighborly. Now, I can't fathom something like that being feasible in our increasingly individualistic neighborhood. Regretfully, I don't even know the names of most of my ne…

> I know that's mostly my fault for not meeting my neighbors. But also, most families aren't even home during the day anymore because they have to work.

You still can. I managed to make friends with a few neighbors just by asking a few innocuous questions every time we meet. Some are friendlier than others. I don't talk to everyone I meet, just those I think could be friendly. I'm usually wrong though and the ones I'd never think would be friendly turns out the most talkative. I met my next door neighbor on afternoon and we talked for 6 hours. Take a chance, odds are good you'll find someone who wants to reach out as much as you.

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

#479

Post by TimorousBestie »

tbrownaw wrote: post #308
TimorousBestie wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand the conjunction of “the state should not subsidize childcare with taxes” and “the church should subsidize childcare with underpaid labor and tithes.”

Church membership is voluntary.

Being atheist, GP is presumably not a member (or at worst, is a member in bad faith, pun intended).

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

#480

Post by TylerE »

nradov wrote: post #409
omikun wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yes it’s about time the US enters another war so we can justify even more military spending and less spending to improve the livelihood of the people. Just kidding we are already doing that with Venezuela.

You're really missing the point. If we're going to have a military at all then we have to constantly keep building new combat aircraft (and other weapon systems). The old ones wear out and become obsolete. Ironically this is the best way to prevent a major war, through deterrence. (I do think that attacking Venezuela would be stupid and pointless.)

I don’t really dispute that, to loop around to the start of debate, you’re not building an F-35 with unskilled labor. This isn’t automotive workers riveting B-17s together.
Post reply on HN