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

521–530 of 540 posts

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

#521

Post by bean469 »

WalterBright wrote: post #410
ivan_gammel wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The high level point is idealism not grounded in historical facts and probably not worthy spending time and going deeper with criticism, because full rebuttal isn’t some expert knowledge - ChatGPT can do that for you. America of 1800s is everything but libertarian paradise and is not truly exceptional. Industrialization in Europe increased prosperity while building welfare states at the same time.

Not truly exceptional? Some fun facts: 1. The immigrants came by the boatload from Europe to the US. Not the other way around. The Titanic was built for that purpose. 2. The immigrants were the poor of Europe, not the wealthy. 3. The US middle class and upper middle class and the wealthy came from those poor people. I can't think of any American wealthy families that came from the wealthy of Europe. 4. The height of…

Where did you get these facts? Some are extremely cherrypicked, and some are outright false.

> The Titanic was built for that purpose.

It was built to compete with Cunard's Lusitania/Mauretania. While immigrants did board it, elite travel was prioritized.

> The US middle class and upper middle class and the wealthy came from those poor people

False. Those in the top one percent of wealth holders, approximately 3% are European and Canadian immigrants [1].

> The uniforms of Civil War soldiers look teen sized. You can see them for yourself in the Gettysburg museum.

Exagarated at best. Many of those who fought in the war were as young ar 14 [2].

> In WW1 when the US Army arrived on the scene, the Germans were shocked at their height and high quality plentiful food, and then knew they had lost the war.

Do you have a verified source for this? In Erich Ludendorff's memoirs he attributes defeat to logistics / shortages, but does not note the physical stature of US soldiers.

1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5322981/

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_soldiers_in_the_American...

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

#522

Post by bryanlarsen »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #520
bryanlarsen wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's why I thought they'd cheer it. When the state provides day care, more Moms work and contribute to capitalism more than the cost of the day care.

Yes, but the state providing day care is "socialism", so ...

They economist is capitalist, not right wing. They have previously endorsed some socialist positions.

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

#523

Post by int_19h »

Gud wrote: post #483
int_19h wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as an immigrant: yes, absolutely! Legal immigrants generally have to be quite privileged in their place of origin to have the education level necessary to clear the bar in most places to be considered for any kind of visa that allows permanent residency, and to be financially well off enough to afford both the paperwork and the move itself.

You added the qualifier “legal”. What about illegal?

I added the qualifier "legal" because that's the one I can speak of from experience.

For illegal immigrants, I would say that if successful in crossing the border, they are in a more privileged position compared to their compatriots who did not. Not more privileged than citizens or legal immigrants here, though, that's for sure.

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

#524

Post by int_19h »

WalterBright wrote: post #475
int_19h wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is true, but your reply generalized far more broadly, and you were rightly called out on that.

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

#525

Post by int_19h »

Aurornis wrote: post #501
int_19h wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually did the math for US once, calculating how much more tax it would take to give everyone minimum wage. The resulting tax rate would certainly be fairly high, but not excessively so; several European countries have higher brackets today, and their economy doesn't collapse. But also, are you accounting for all the means-tested welfare that such a program would replace ?

> But also, are you accounting for all the means-tested welfare that such a program would replace? Multiply the US population by the poverty level annual income ($15.6K) and the resulting number is higher than all US federal tax revenue combined . In other words, tax rates would have to more than double across the board. Subtracting out existing social programs barely moves the needle. Are you sure you did the math,…

Yes, I did the math. Wish I still had the spreadsheet.

It's not as simple as multiplying the population. The point is that if everyone gets that check, then you can raise the nominal tax rate much higher but still get the effective tax rate (i.e. income - tax + UBI) in reasonable territory. As I recall I actually went all in and also made it a flat income tax to see how much the UBI offset would work at making it effectively progressive, and that also works out.

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

#526

Post by int_19h »

abustamam wrote: post #486
int_19h wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Raising children is basically a full time job. Why not compensate it as such?

I'd be on board with that. That was Andrew Yangs whole proposition with UBI. https://2020.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/ Sure it goes to everyone, but I think that's okay. Some parents would still choose to both work, and use their monthly check to pay for daycare. I think the important thing is freedom to choose.

I do think we need to encourage raising children specifically, but if UBI is assigned regardless of age, then that effectively works out to the same thing - parents will just use those checks for childcare costs, and having more children would translate to more checks.

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

#527

Post by wakawaka28 »

Spivak wrote: post #242
hammock wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. If we could fund universal child care so that the ratio of caregiver to child was more like 1 to 2 or 1 to 5 or even 1 to 8 in extreme cases, then the lack of attentiveness would not be a problem. Wait a minute… that sounds like…

Okay but you do understand that what you're suggesting costs the full salary a woman (because of course it would never be men asked give up their careers) could earn for the family and the economic gains that come with it. Back of the napkin calculation is three trillion dollars of value lost annually . And that's before the knock-on effects of such a massive recession. Household income will drop by 30-40% across the…

>Okay but you do understand that what you're suggesting costs the full salary a woman (because of course it would never be men asked give up their careers) could earn for the family and the economic gains that come with it.

Women do not generally want men to stay at home and take care of kids. Women also demand that men make more money than themselves. For women, the period between the kids being born and going to school full-time is like a kind of sabbatical. If they're lucky enough to be able to not work a job during that period, that is.

>Back of the napkin calculation is three trillion dollars of value lost annually. And that's before the knock-on effects of such a massive recession.

That sounds absurdly high. I think you need to revisit your calculations. Even if it was the real number, perpetuating the species is worth more than corporate bullshit meetings or whatever.

>Then there's the small issue that women's liberation happened and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't happen again given the conditions would be the exact same. Women won't be put back into financial captivity without a fight. In some ways I understand why men idealize this era of the past, but women were not having a good time.

There were some unfortunate circumstances in the past but they are way overblown. Most people with a little sense know that it would be preferable to be able to live on one income, and that men and women alike wish for that kind of prosperity to return. It might come along with occasional problems, but what we face now with ever-increasing costs of living and awkward questions about finances and family roles is not great either.

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

#528

Post by dragonwriter »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #527
Spivak wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay but you do understand that what you're suggesting costs the full salary a woman (because of course it would never be men asked give up their careers) could earn for the family and the economic gains that come with it. Back of the napkin calculation is three trillion dollars of value lost annually . And that's before the knock-on effects of such a massive recession. Household income will drop by 30-40% across the…

>Okay but you do understand that what you're suggesting costs the full salary a woman (because of course it would never be men asked give up their careers) could earn for the family and the economic gains that come with it. Women do not generally want men to stay at home and take care of kids. Women also demand that men make more money than themselves. For women, the period between the kids being born and going to sc…

> Women do not generally want men to stay at home and take care of kids. Women also demand that men make more money than themselves. For women, the period between the kids being born and going to school full-time is like a kind of sabbatical.

Domestic labor and being primary caregiver for children is not, in any way, like a sabbatical.

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

#529

Post by wakawaka28 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #528
wakawaka28 wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Okay but you do understand that what you're suggesting costs the full salary a woman (because of course it would never be men asked give up their careers) could earn for the family and the economic gains that come with it. Women do not generally want men to stay at home and take care of kids. Women also demand that men make more money than themselves. For women, the period between the kids being born and going to sc…

> Women do not generally want men to stay at home and take care of kids. Women also demand that men make more money than themselves. For women, the period between the kids being born and going to school full-time is like a kind of sabbatical. Domestic labor and being primary caregiver for children is not, in any way, like a sabbatical.

It actually is like a sabbatical, especially with all the modern conveniences of appliances and cars. When I hear women whine about domestic labor I have to mention that single men and women do practically the same labor, for themselves alone, and washing clothes or cooking is much easier to do for multiple people than for one person. It isn't 3x as much work to keep house for 3+ people as it is to keep house for 1. Women who stay home for kids invariably watch lots of TV and maybe do three hours of actual recognizable work per day max. I'm sure there are some who insist on maxing out everything they do, cooking fancy meals and doing elaborate activities that they truly hate for the sake of the kids, but this seems rare.

Kids can be annoying, but they can also be a lot of fun. Having the luxury of being able to spend months on end with them, without worrying about money, is a luxury that unfortunately is on the decline. But it is still more attainable that most realize.

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

#530

Post by danorama »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #529
dragonwriter wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Women do not generally want men to stay at home and take care of kids. Women also demand that men make more money than themselves. For women, the period between the kids being born and going to school full-time is like a kind of sabbatical. Domestic labor and being primary caregiver for children is not, in any way, like a sabbatical.

It actually is like a sabbatical, especially with all the modern conveniences of appliances and cars. When I hear women whine about domestic labor I have to mention that single men and women do practically the same labor, for themselves alone, and washing clothes or cooking is much easier to do for multiple people than for one person. It isn't 3x as much work to keep house for 3+ people as it is to keep house for 1.…

“Women who stay home for kids invariably watch lots of TV and maybe do three hours of actual recognizable work per day max”

As a parent, I believe I speak for many when I say [citation needed].

Post reply on HN