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

501–510 of 695 posts

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

#501

Post by thinkingtoilet »

ndriscoll wrote: post #479
thinkingtoilet wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Right after I get all my tax money back from all the userless wars we've fought in the last 20 years because I was against them.

Weird to assume people who support an increased child credit aren't also against devoting resources to pointless wars.

That's clearly not the assumption at all. The idea that we can pick and choose what we pay taxes for is not a reality. That's not how this works. There are tons of subsidies, pork, and other ways my tax dollars get used that don't benefit me at all. Just because you don't have a kid or choose not to use the new system, doesn't mean you shouldn't pay your share of taxes, just like everything else in this country.

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

#502

Post by yencabulator »

surfmike wrote: post #228

If AI does actually lead to large economic gains but also high unemployment, then we should be able to invest most in social programs like this and let people make a good living providing them. (as well as all other workers, through wage subsidies) That said, if you don’t have a job… do you need childcare? But I’m assuming there will still be enough demand from those employed

If you don't have childcare, how will you get a job?

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

#503

Post by WalterBright »

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…

My mom was a full time mom and I wouldn't trade that for anything.

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

#504

Post by ciconia »

resters wrote: post #84

Imagine if we saw mostly headlines like this rather than things like "Trump threatens war on Chicago" or "Supreme Court approves racial profiling", or "Columbia students deported for protesting" or "Trump delays tariffs for 90 more days".

Chances are you'll soon see something like "Trump threatens nuclear war against communist New Mexico".

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

#505

Post by orthoxerox »

Loudergood wrote: post #150
colechristensen wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with more people entering the workforce is that the people never end up better off. Prices just go up and people end up working more for the same result. Changing the definition of full-time hours to 30/week would do far more for families and children than giving free childcare so mothers can work more. Making mortgages with a > 20 year term illegal, putting limits on the total principal allowed to loan a…

That last part is just going to make more housing cheaper for landlords and force more people into renting.

Not if the tax rate is base_rate*phi^n where n is the ordinal number of property the person owns.

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

#506

Post by ryandrake »

slg wrote: post #469
vlovich123 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's two things I think you've overlooked. One thing is that politically it's easier for benefits to remain sticky if everyone benefits from it vs a subpopulation. That's why universal income has stronger support than welfare benefits. Additionally, when you don't have means testing, the bureaucracy is a lot more straightforward and politicians can't mess with it by effectively cutting the program by increasing th…

> One thing is that politically it's easier for benefits to remain sticky if everyone benefits from it vs a subpopulation. That's why universal income has stronger support than welfare benefits. It is funny to say this in this specific conversation. The exact logic you are using to support rebates for stay at home parents applies to childless people. So why are you drawing the line exactly where you are drawing it an…

If the logic was applied even more generally, it would read: "If any Group X gets Benefit Y, then everyone must also get Benefit Y." Applied universally, it totally defeats the point of subsidies.

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

#507

Post by yoyohello13 »

jp42 wrote: post #132

Slightly tangent. At some point in future I can imagine humanoid robots will be doing this job. Of course, the robots need to be super reliable before we hand over the our kids

What a disturbing dystopia where the robots are at home taking care of the kids so the parents can go work in the factory.

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

#508

Post by hereme888 »

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.

Absolutely.

Nothing is free. This means less resources for something else, marketed as "compassion".

Mothers generally take much better care of their own children than childcare. Childcare was already previously available for low-income families. To incentivize women to work when they can afford to care for their children is very bad for a country in the long term.

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

#509

Post by jajuuka »

SilverElfin wrote: post #420
jajuuka wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is buying into the idea of rugged individualism when it comes to parenting. That all a child needs is their parents and that time away from children is a failure of parents. This couldn't be further from the truth. Many studies show that children raised in a cooperative environment where they are exposed to various people and practices from extended family, professionals, teachers, etc help reinforce social conn…

This feels like a strawman. I didn’t say that “all a child needs is their parents”. I am saying however, that parents in most cases will provide higher quality care and more attention to their child than what a daycare can provide. Have you tried watching 3 kids simultaneously? It’s just not possible even in the controlled environment of a daycare room. Kids that are raised by parents aren’t in a bubble - they’re sti…

Saying "that parents in most cases will provide higher quality care and more attention to their child" and that it's not possible to watch 3 kids simultaneously is reinforcement of "all a child needs is their parents". It's laughably false and shows your ignorance on this subject. Putting parents on a pedestal is not good for children or parents. Please take a look at research on this subject.

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

#510

Post by mothballed »

stickfigure wrote: post #475
mothballed wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Irrespective of how it technically works, the fairness principle is "you paid in therefore you are paid out". Childless people aren't getting a better or worse deal than anyone else.

But you are missing the inputs.

Social security requires two inputs

1) "Paying in"

2) Raising up the next generation to pay it back out.

Without both, the entire system collapses and goes insolvent.

If I do (1) but barely do (2) I am subsidized by the people that do both (1) and (2), if my payout isn't linked to (2).

The genius of social security argument about the childless "paying in" is they rightly identify their pay out is fairly proportional to (1) but nearly completely decoupled to (2). Thus it poses an argument on the surface that makes sense but is actually incredibly false.

Post reply on HN