Maybe we should look at why three sectors of the economy have had insane cost growth for three plus decades (housing, healthcare, education) and fix that instead of trying to band aid the negative consequences?
And they can’t understand why they keep on failing to achieve their policy goals.
PS: I don’t think there were too many <= 19 year olds signing up for hacker news in 2011.
Just to be clear hear, we're talking about parents being able to take care of their newborns and not being forced back to work after "2-4 weeks" as the OP stated.
Be time-idempotent; imagine if you were talking to someone from the 15th century and they were SURE they were right about their crazy opinions.
The meta-stable way to be reasonable is that as long as someone seems to be honestly asking the reasoning for your beliefs, and your principles, you should try to explain yourself, rather than just shut them down by repeating your assertion of correctness.
Otherwise, how will you find out about the likely beliefs you hold right now, which our descendants will consider insane and evil? Forcing yourself to self-introspection is a good practice. I don't expect anyone to change their mind about this, but being able to explain to others your reasoning can also clear up your own views, and help convince your adversary much more effectively than the "just repeat your position" argument style.
For healthcare, the last time I heard about bending the cost curve was during the Obama administration.
For education, I’ve never seen any politician suggests we try to reign in cost growth—-just proposals around who should eat the costs.
For housing, governments at all levels have been pulling every policy lever they can find to increase costs. Falling costs are wildly considered a national emergency.
Why is it that progressives’ solution to everything is to dump money out of the air? Are there no structural improvements to be made anywhere?
Want to fix that? A true multiparty system, IRV, and eliminating gerrymandering as possibilities. The last one would mostly be by eliminating geographic boundaries generally; instead representation would be decided by proportionally voting in representatives from the IRV list, which might be preferenced by area specific politicians first and could then fall back to those who represent other types of interest focus.
Similarly the relative representation power of each voter in a body such as the senate should be resolved by merging similarly leaning smaller bodies until each voter is within relatively the same representation strength as other voters.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_pop...
This is an issue for E.G. California (~20M/senator) and Texas (~15M/senator) compared to Vermont (~310K/senator) and Wyoming (~240K/senator).
In the past the senate started out FAR more balanced by state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
For example in 1820 the top three most populace states were all around 1 million each. A core belle-curve hump ranges from around 600K down to 150K, and about 5 states have less than 100K. Senators representing roughly ~500K, ~250K, and 50K respectively, a weight difference of only a factor of 10 rather than a number approaching almost a factor of 100.
I happen to prefer (Path Vote) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method as a method of performing an election with instant runoffs for one round of ranked ballots.
For the later proposal (where districts are replaced by a mixed bag of candidates and issues) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_STV might be a good way of determining the membership of a body.
It looks like research into proportional voter representation is still ongoing, with important new papers released even this year.
Have the government lend trillions of dollars at low interest with minimal qualifications for housing. Expected outcome is realized.
Same is happening with childcare. Government increases child care credit. No surprise that daycare has raised the rate $30 per week.
It cannot possibly be riding expenses for daycare operators.