New Mexico is first state in US to offer universal child care • Hacker News Board

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

#511

Post by 9rx » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 6:18 PM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #123

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…

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…

> 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.

You want to change what now? The dictionary definition does not specify any particular time. There is no legal definition for full-time. The IRS uses the term full-time, but they actually use it exactly like you wish: 30 hours per week.

People out on the street often casually use full-time to refer to 40 hours per week. I anticipate that is what you are referring to. But that usage is simply used to refer to how many hours they are working. 40 hours under that usage is an observation, not a commandment.

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

#512

Post by chlodwig » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 6:18 PM UTC

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…

because it will show how much an economy can grow when women are allowed to work to their full potential.

Disagree. Everyone needs to realize that having two parents who both have "greedy jobs" is a path to misery. Giving out childcare does not change the situation. One parent will always need to step back from their career or there will be misery, I've seen too many cases. Even if both parents are comfortable putting their kid in daycare 9 to 11 hours a day (to cover both the workday and the commute), which they should not be, they still have to deal with many sick days, needing to be out of work by 6pm every day, not going on business trips, teacher's conferences, school plays, PTA meetings, not getting a good night sleep because baby or toddler is having a sleep regression, etc. etc. There is no world where you provide everyone universal childcare and now both parents can "work to their full potential" and "give the economy their best."

The reality furthermore is that there are few non-greedy jobs that are non-subsidized/non-fake and that contribute to the economy enough to be of more value than childcare. Subsidizing childcare, so the second parent can get a non-greedy job as a neighborbood coffeeshop owner, or working as a strict 9-5 government lawyer, isn't really a win for the economy.

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

#513

Post by hellojesus » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 6:21 PM UTC

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…

This is a great point, and the obvious answer is the government should provide zero subsidies or welfare programs. Every single program creates moral hazard and deadweight loss. Iterate your question to conclusion, and you will arrive there.

What the government should encourage is charitable donations, and when I say that, I mean the mere act of it. There should be no tax incentive for doing so.

Where children are concerned, if anything, perhaps make the sales tax on child-related services zero, and increase sales tax on luxury goods associated with sink or dink households. At least that methodology provides the opportunity to forgo the penalties.

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

#514

Post by robohoe » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 6:22 PM UTC

Nice! Illinois had something similar called AllKids but that was for lower income families [0]. More states need this in US.

[0] https://hfs.illinois.gov/medicalprograms/allkids.html

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

#515

Post by hopelite » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 6:23 PM UTC

“No cost universal child care” Also: “savings of $12,000 per year”

So this will be financed by a voluntary election by those who support it, i.e., voluntary increase in the various taxes people pay in NM?

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

#516

Post by swed420 » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 6:24 PM UTC

chlodwig wrote: post #512

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…

because it will show how much an economy can grow when women are allowed to work to their full potential. Disagree. Everyone needs to realize that having two parents who both have "greedy jobs" is a path to misery. Giving out childcare does not change the situation. One parent will always need to step back from their career or there will be misery, I've seen too many cases. Even if both parents are comfortable puttin…

Agreed. We should have been freed a long time ago:

https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/

Unfortunately late capitalism made sure we went in the opposite direction.

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

#517

Post by programjames » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 6:26 PM UTC

macintux wrote: post #358

programjames wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of two-parent working families do the maths, and realize they would pay more in childcare than the income from a second job. This incentivizes one of them to stay at home. Here, the incentive is gone. This is worse for the economy and probably the family.

I can see arguments that it's worse for the family, but why is it worse for the economy to have two parents working?

Suppose childcare is $15k/year and you work minimum wage making less than $15k/year. Then there's less wealth to go around, just more in your pocket. But actually, you probably don't take home all the wealth you create, so it can actually still be better for the economy. It is still worse for the economy, but not for that reason. Probably because labor has a backward-bending supply curve, and most people are already working more hours than is optimal. As another commenter said, it would probably be better for the economy to make a 30 hour work week.

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

#518

Post by hellojesus » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 6:27 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #506

slg wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, but that should be the point. Public goods are defined as nonrivalous and nonexcludable. Subsidies fail these conditions. On what grounds should we delegate nonpublic goods/services be provided by the government and not the private sector?

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

#519

Post by gedy » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 6:33 PM UTC

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…

I think this just makes it harder for single income families tbh. Not a social or moral commentary, just unfortunate observation

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

#520

Post by programjames » Tue, Sep 09, 2025, 6:33 PM UTC

hnlmorg wrote: post #370

programjames wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me at least, it's a general dislike of the wider educational system. My parents taught me to read, play chess, multiply, and write in cursive before elementary school. I didn't really learn anything at preschool or kindergarten, and I imagine daycare would be worse for my educational development. Maybe it's useful for social development? but at least for me I was always pretty independent (even in kindergarten) f…

This might be a difference between the US and UK? Preschools in the UK have curriculums they have to follow. That includes maths, reading and writing too. I’m not going to comment on preschools in your country, but in the UK the kids who attended preschool are IN GENERAL the stronger students, socially, emotionally, and academically, when it comes to starting infants/ elementary school. Particularly in the less afflu…

In the less affluent areas, I'd expect children not attending daycare to just not be getting anything at home. Presumably their parents are both working and cannot afford daycare. In the more affluent areas, I'd expect children only don't attend daycare if their parents prioritize their children over their jobs, and so they'd be getting much more positive attention than in a daycare. But, of course, we'd have to see a study differentiated by socioeconomic status to see what is actually the case.