Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco to offer free childcare to people making up to $230k

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 151 posts

Re: San Francisco to offer free childcare to people making up to $230k

#91

Post by lurking_swe »

throwfaraway135 wrote: post #55

In a lot of 3rd world and less well off countries, childcare is done by the grandparents(mostly grandmothers), I'm always surprised why this isn't true in the west. Here we have an aging population, so grandparent/grandchild ratio should be very high.

i’m about to have my first child soon. My mother died in June. She loved little kids so it’s pretty tragic that she won’t get to experience being a grandmother. My dad is still around but he will likely be useless as a support system.

The man can barely cook anything and tends to make a mess. i also expect he’ll have a tough time changing diapers or holding a delicate baby, one of his hands has lots of numbness from a past stroke.

Thank god i have the BEST in-laws, who are also in great health. I can’t imagine what someone would do in my situation with bad in-laws.

Re: San Francisco to offer free childcare to people making up to $230k

#92

Post by wiether »

throwfaraway135 wrote: post #55

In a lot of 3rd world and less well off countries, childcare is done by the grandparents(mostly grandmothers), I'm always surprised why this isn't true in the west. Here we have an aging population, so grandparent/grandchild ratio should be very high.

Is it common for women to work in those countries?

What I'm seeing here in Europe is that mothers are working, so when they have grandchildren they are either still working or retired. If they're working, they don't have time to do childcare. If they're retired, they are either worn out and don't have the energy/physical ability to do childcare, or they just want to enjoy the few years of freedom they have.

So grandparents can do some childcare, during weekends or holidays mostly, but they are not the one who would take care of the children during the parent's 9-to-5.

On the other hand, I know some families where the mother staid at home to raise her children and she naturally assumed the same role for her grandchildren. But the chain is broken because their mother is working and will not stop working to do childcare for her grandchildren.

Re: San Francisco to offer free childcare to people making up to $230k

#93

Post by em-bee »

kalleboo wrote: post #78
throwfaraway135 wrote: post #55

In a lot of 3rd world and less well off countries, childcare is done by the grandparents(mostly grandmothers), I'm always surprised why this isn't true in the west. Here we have an aging population, so grandparent/grandchild ratio should be very high.

My guess would be that in developed countries, people are having kids older and older, so the grandparents are accordingly also older and more tired. That combined with multi-generational households being all but gone so now you're picking up and leaving off and all the kind of cooking and general housekeeping is also doubled.

there is also the sentiment of people in their 50s that they are done with taking care of kids. they want to enjoy their freedom now. it's just an anecdote, but for example my dad tried to marry again, but was unable to find a partner willing to marry someone with kids. i don't know if that translates to taking care of grand kids, but i think it is related.

in developing countries there are no pensions for many people and the young parents provide the support the grandparents need, taking care of the grandkids is one way to ensure that this support keeps coming.

Re: San Francisco to offer free childcare to people making up to $230k

#94

Post by walthamstow »

physicsguy wrote: post #89
walthamstow wrote: post #40

Income cliffs, even phased, are generally stupid. See Britain's 100k cliff for free childcare. If both parents make 99k, you get it. If one earns 101k and the other earns zero, you don't get it. The workaround (pension stuffing) is widely known and actually means the govt comes off worse than if they'd just given the childcare away. There are all kinds of other perverse effects like people turning down promotions or…

Right in the middle of this now. I have another two years of stuffing pension and making a few choice charity donations (like buying a National Trust Lifetime Membership - a gift aidable donation) and then out of that phase. And then I'll probably be able to retire 10 years earlier too.

I've got it all to come later this year, my first was born in the autumn

I haven't heard of the charity workaround, sounds really useful, how much does buying the membership reduce your income by?

Re: San Francisco to offer free childcare to people making up to $230k

#95

Post by pfannkuchen »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #86
pfannkuchen wrote: post #84

Does anyone else feel like we are moving in the wrong direction? Like every discussion I’ve seen about childcare takes the 1950s as the baseline for some reason. Like being a housewife in the 1950s sucked and it was unfair that the women had to do it and the men didn’t have to. Like people don’t explicitly say this, but this is what it boils down to. And being a housewife in the 1950s (or 1970s or whatever) did suck.…

There is probably a soup kitchen in your town. Nothing obligates you to use it. That doesn’t make it repressive on your diet. It’s fair to reject state-provided childcare. It’s mean to deny that to everyone else.

I have no clue how your response relates to what I said. Either I’m not understanding you or you’re not understanding me. Since my comment is much longer I’m going to wager the latter.

Re: San Francisco to offer free childcare to people making up to $230k

#96

Post by physicsguy »

walthamstow wrote: post #94
physicsguy wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right in the middle of this now. I have another two years of stuffing pension and making a few choice charity donations (like buying a National Trust Lifetime Membership - a gift aidable donation) and then out of that phase. And then I'll probably be able to retire 10 years earlier too.

I've got it all to come later this year, my first was born in the autumn I haven't heard of the charity workaround, sounds really useful, how much does buying the membership reduce your income by?

The whole membership, gift-aided charity donations count as reducing your adjusted net income by the amount for childcare purposes.

There are some quite specific rules about whether things are gift-aidable or not (and as a result a lot of memberships to charities e.g. English Heritage are not gift aidable) but if they are then you add them to your tax return and you also get 25% back. National Trust is, so you pay ~£3k for a family membership (https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/membership/life-membership), get ~£750 back, and the charity gets £3750 in total.

Re: San Francisco to offer free childcare to people making up to $230k

#97

Post by Gibbon1 »

Escapado wrote: post #50
walthamstow wrote: post #40

Income cliffs, even phased, are generally stupid. See Britain's 100k cliff for free childcare. If both parents make 99k, you get it. If one earns 101k and the other earns zero, you don't get it. The workaround (pension stuffing) is widely known and actually means the govt comes off worse than if they'd just given the childcare away. There are all kinds of other perverse effects like people turning down promotions or…

I am also confused by cliffs. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than me could explain why you would ever want them for something like this instead of just having higher progressive tax rates for well off people to make up for it. Naively I would think that that’s significantly easier from and administrative point of view too.

One thing I've become obsessed with is people trying to solve problems in the wrong domain.

I think these sorts of things are because people try to allocate resources according to the 'moral domain' instead of basic need.

Have read that in the 19th century there was constant attempts to means test welfare based on who was deserving. And it was basically full of fail and you'd spend more on enforcement than just paying out by need. You were paying able bodied people to go around and try and determine if the recipients were deserving.

It's one of the reasons everyone gets social security. You were a happy go lucky spendthrift and are now old and broke, here's your money. You were thrifty, wise and lucky enough you'll never need it, here's your money.

The issue of cliff is real and present for low income people. The loss or reduction of benefits takes a big bite out of marginal increases in income. Also the sudden loss for instance when someone goes back to work isn't great when usually they financially stressed and the new job comes with increased expenses.

On topic personally as a childless when I hear someone bitch about paying for someone else's kids I think yeah who's going to change my bedpan when I'm old, you? I doubt it.

Re: San Francisco to offer free childcare to people making up to $230k

#98

Post by beAbU »

normie3000 wrote: post #24
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN poster responds: "You have 0.18 kids under 6! That seems unlikely!"

Am i missing the joke? ChatGPT tells me 3% of 100 is 3, not 0.18.

Off topic: what are you trying to signal by saying chatgpt helped you with arithmetic here?

Is it supposed to give more weight to what you are saying?

Re: San Francisco to offer free childcare to people making up to $230k

#99

Post by lazide »

jnathsf wrote: post #80
socalgal2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"by American standards" is doing a lot of lifting. On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd give SF about a 4 compared to cities like Tokyo, Paris, Berlin, London, Amsterdam, Seoul, Singapore, ...

Caltrain is no slouch - punctual, clean, safe, really good wifi, electric.

It also doesn’t get you around the city (and isn’t near any significant number of schools).

It is good for getting in and out, assuming you already have a way of getting to the Caltrain station which isn’t exactly in the center of the city.

Re: San Francisco to offer free childcare to people making up to $230k

#100

Post by fooker »

throwfaraway135 wrote: post #55

In a lot of 3rd world and less well off countries, childcare is done by the grandparents(mostly grandmothers), I'm always surprised why this isn't true in the west. Here we have an aging population, so grandparent/grandchild ratio should be very high.

> I'm always surprised why this isn't true in the west

Nobody lives with their parents ‘in the west’, so the best bet is arranging two houses or apartments nearby.

That takes an extraordinary amount of resources for child-bearing age parents.

Post reply on HN