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

551–560 of 695 posts

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

#551

Post by chlodwig »

ndriscoll wrote: post #453
ryandrake wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I addressed your second point in another comment. If voters thought there was a societal advantage to financially encourage stay-at-home parenthood with a subsidy, I'd be open to listen to the pros and cons of that, too, but that's kind of a separate issue. This one is about easing the burden for those who already pay for professional childcare, including those on the margin. The first point is just unfortunate human…

It's not a crab bucket mentality. Subsidizing one group that competes in the same markets (e.g. only dual income families, who compete with single income families for housing in desirable areas to raise kids) actually increases costs for the unsubsidized group. It doesn't just make them relatively worse off, but absolutely worse off. It shifts the margin of who can afford a single family lifestyle, all else equal. Si…

Yea, more dual-income families means:

- Bidding up the price of housing

- Fewer parents active in overseeing the schools, volunteering to fix up the community, etc.

- Less general slack for parents to help each other out

- Fewer mom friends around during the day, less social life for existing stay-at-home moms

- Peer pressure and implicit societal pressure to work a career

- Parents sending their kids to camps and aftercare, rather than having kids free-range around the neighborhood and play with friends, so fewer playmates for the non-camp/non-daycare kids.

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

#552

Post by chlodwig »

tempfile wrote: post #535
chlodwig wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was with you til the end, so now I need to ask what you really mean by "greedy jobs". I took it to mean jobs that are all-consuming, no fixed hours, high pressure, high stress. If that is what you mean then I seriously doubt your claim that there are few non-greedy jobs that contribute to the economy. The vast majority of jobs are non-greedy by this definition, unless the US has really regressed so far from Europe…

If that is what you mean then I seriously doubt your claim that there are few non-greedy jobs that contribute to the economy.

What I said is "that contribute to the economy enough to be of more value than childcare" Picking up trash or painting houses are important jobs that contribute to the economy, but they are not more valuable than caring for children nor do they pay more, so there is little point in a second parent going back to work as a house painter and then paying for daycare, or having the state subsidize daycare.

In a medium cost-of-living city in America, two kids in daycare will cost $40k-$45k. There aren't many non-greedy, non-sinecure/subsidized jobs that will pay enough after taxes and commute costs to make entering the workforce worth it. And I don't see the point in actively subsidizing the childcare versus giving all parents some assistance and then letting them choose the more economically efficient path.

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

#553

Post by kelnos »

SilverElfin wrote: post #483
harikb wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 This whole mentality of voucher system is selfish. Even if we consider it as an "efficiency" problem, it is far cheaper for a person to be paid to take care of N children (where N is not too large), rather than have the have the mom, who is probably qualified in some other field, take care of just their children.

It’s not any more selfish than wanting subsidy for childcare. A voucher system is about choice. Parents get to have some financial assistance to make it possible for them to stay at home and be with their kids, or to provide their children with experiences that aren’t just sitting in the daycare center’s room. If they want to do things differently, why shouldn’t they be able to? Why does providing assistance have to…

If I as a taxpayer am going to subsidize someone else's activity, then why shouldn't I get a say in how they perform that activity?

If it costs $100/child at a daycare facility, but $200/child for someone to be a stay-at-home parent, and you're asking me, a random taxpayer, to pay for one of those for someone else, from a financial perspective I will likely prefer to pay for the former.

Now, I personally don't get to decide where tax dollars go, but I could easily imagine there are enough people with this preference that it could influence public policy.

Having said that, if it's actually significantly better for a child to have a SAH parent, I might change my tune. (My mother was a SAHM, and I think that was great for us growing up.)

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

#554

Post by jeromegv »

Muromec wrote: post #180
earlyriser wrote: post #66

We have something similar in Quebec, $7 CAD per day. It's one of the coolest societal things in the province. Yes we pay a lot in taxes, but we have stuff like this. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/24/quebec-unive...

What kind of childcare you can get for 7 CAD a day? Where I'm right now it's something like 10 enlightenment bucks per hour.

The same or almost better than the privately funded one.

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

#555

Post by jjk166 »

SilverElfin wrote: post #316
jjk166 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that stay at home parents should get the same credit as childcare providers because they perform the same service to society. If you're only caring for your own kids, you are providing significantly less to society than those caring for many kids. You want to focus on raising your own kids, that's fine, but do it on your dime.

> If you're only caring for your own kids, you are providing significantly less to society than those caring for many kids. I disagree with this. Perhaps caring for your own kids produces much better kids (and eventually, adults). And that may be more of a benefit to society than a large number of people being incentivized to create large number of kids whose care is just outsourced to childcare centers where they re…

> Perhaps caring for your own kids produces much better kids (and eventually, adults). And that may be more of a benefit to society than a large number of people being incentivized to create large number of kids whose care is just outsourced to childcare centers where they receive less attention.

We're not talking about some vague value to society of kids. We're talking about the concrete value of the service being provided - an adult physically present in the vicinity of children to take care of issues, freeing up adults for other, more productive utilizations of their time. A stay at home parent who looks after only their own children does not free up any adults.

> Is this really an argument for anything? One could just say “if you want to raise kids you can’t afford, do it on your own dime” and undermine your perspective.

That doesn't undermine my perspective at all. Again the argument is that division of labor is more efficient. It costs society less to have one person raise multiple kids than it does for lots of people to raise their own kids. Even if you say only those who could afford to stay at home and raise their kids should have kids, they should still be utilizing this system to reduce total cost. If they choose not to participate in the cost reduction, they ought to shoulder the burden of the higher costs on their own. Recognizing that society kind of needs kids for the whole survival of the species thing, selfish actions that reduce cost savings for everyone ought not to be incentivized.

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

#556

Post by ryandrake »

tempfile wrote: post #540
ryandrake wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't understand this mentality. My wife is a stay-at-home mom. We are lucky that we can afford to do this. Most of our kid's friends have both parents working and they pay for child care. If suddenly they were able to have that childcare paid for, that would be wonderful! It doesn't affect our situation at all. Why would we oppose it? I don't need to have my own "waiver" payment in order for me to be in favor…

> We are lucky that we can afford to do this. > It doesn't affect our situation at all. Why would we oppose it? This is rather noble of you, but the reason is obvious. If the playing field were "levelled" then you wouldn't have to be lucky . It is all well and good that you are lucky, but there is a certain population who want to emulate your choice but are unable to, because they are missing precisely the marginal a…

I never said I opposed a subsidy to encourage stay-at-home parenting. By all means, we should propose it and study its pros and cons.

But the lack of that subsidy should not cause someone to oppose a paid-childcare subsidy.

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

#557

Post by bryanlarsen »

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…

1 greedy job + 1 non-greedy job + daycare is surely better for the economy than 1 greedy job + no job, isn't it?

If the economy is what you're trying to optimize for.

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

#558

Post by xp84 »

SilverElfin wrote: post #345
xp84 wrote: post #178

Apparently until now they've been providing this only to families below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. FPL is $32,150 for a 4-person family, so $128,600 combined family income (2 people working for $64,300 each -- and that's before fed and state taxes are deducted). Since that is far from being wealthy enough to "just" spring for expensive care, I'm glad to see this. My only question is who the heck is going to b…

Providing such benefits to those below poverty level doesn’t make sense to me. People are that level of economic value need to improve their situation before taking on the burden of children. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing the poorest to have large families they can’t take care of. The opposite should be happening - we should subsidize households with demonstrated capability to be successful (which in our societ…

That might sound attractive at first[1], but when we consider that there isn't a practical way to stop those poor people from having children anyway, what such a policy amounts to is that we punish such kids[2] for their parents' "sins" -- which is a great way to breed a generation of sociopathic miscreants bent on destroying your society.

[1] (if you can avoid thinking of the class-based eugenics that such a policy would amount to, if it were actually obeyed)

[2] punish by impoverishing them further, or by making it more likely they'll be neglected by those parents that you already suspect aren't responsible

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

#559

Post by evantbyrne »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #482
evantbyrne wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation, my man. Doesn't require fitting into the existing framework that was invented to as a stopgap for dangerous factory working conditions. The barrier is people's preconceived notions on what work day, weeks, and lives have to look like.

Can you expound on this? What regulation? What "preconceived notions on what work day, weeks, and lives have to look like"? Unions and higher wages enable people to afford families, and I am an aggressive proponent of a 4 day work week at 100% pay considering productivity gains over the last half century, but I'd be interested in your thoughts.

There are infinite ways to do this and we could riff all day on it. The simplest as I see it would simply be giving individuals with young children the autonomy to dictate their work schedules, allowing them the option to make up the hours later, or even choose not to. In a way this already happens informally in nicer companies.

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

#560

Post by CGMthrowaway »

anothermathbozo wrote: post #341
CGMthrowaway wrote: post #269

Sounds great. >average annual family savings of $12,000 per child. How is NM paying for this? They currently have a 'D' grade from Truth in Accounting[1] with a $9.8 billion debt burden driven by unfunded obligations of pension and retiree health care [1] https://www.truthinaccounting.org/library/doclib/NM-2020-2pa...

child care policy frees labor capacity for work that is more likely to earn a slice of the national income. It’s almost certainly going to result in greater economic activity for the state. In the immediate it is funded from two existing funds.

State + local tax burden in NM is 10.2%[1]. Revenue neutral would mean those taking the child care would instead take a job with average salary $120,000. But as another comment points out this policy attracts new jobs to the state, which complicates the math

[1]https://taxfoundation.org/location/new-mexico/

Post reply on HN