Hacker News Reader

Comment by akavi | Hacker News Reader

Universal Childcare at the margin means some people who would rather take care of their own children are pushed to take a job and have someone else watch their child.

I fail to see why that's superior to a universal childcare subsidy, which can be used for childcare or retained if someone wishes to care for their child themself. Or better yet, a universal child allowance that parents can use to defray whatever child raising costs they see fit.

And I say that as someone whose current plan is to be a stay-at-home dad while my (female) partner continues to work.

View on HN

That’s a fine implementation but the flipside is a constant subsidy regardless of geography is basically the same as forcing a parent to not work in HCOL areas,

If it was a childcare voucher that was guaranteed to get your child a seat that could be maybe exchanged for cash if you don’t want to go to work, that would be fine.

It’s the same problem with UBI. I don’t need a basic income or childcare subsidy.

I need a basic purchasing power.

> That’s a fine implementation but the flipside is a constant subsidy regardless of geography is basically the same as forcing a parent to not work in HCOL areas,

Compared to the existence of HCOL areas without a subsidy, no, its not even incentivizing, much less forcing that.

Compared to a hypothetical system which accelerates existing price divergence by adding extra subsidies in already high-cost areas, sure, but drawing people out of HCOL areas also mitigates HCOL.

“ drawing people out of HCOL areas also mitigates HCOL.”

With a net reduction in agglomeration effects and resultant productivity. Pointless experiment,

I’d rather the government unleash infrastructure building in HCOL to make it cheaper and incentivize child-care workers (and other essential functions) to move there.

With growth every LCOL will become an HCOL if we don’t solve the problem now. See: Real-estate prices in Boise, Idaho.

> Universal Childcare at the margin means some people who would rather take care of their own children are pushed to take a job

What is the evidence for this in the countries with universal childcare [1]?

I believe the missing ingredient is the additional production of women who were forced out of their careers by having kids. Those women are more productive working. That additional production may singularly offset the system's marginal cost.

[1] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/01/which-co...

> some people who would rather take care of their own children are pushed to take a job and have someone else watch their child

You could say the same about the taxes used to pay for public schools.

> fail to see why that's superior to a universal childcare subsidy

For one, it doesn't free up labor. Two, most systems I'm aware of let one take a childcare subsidy and use it at home. Paying providers by default makes administration easier by reducing the number of payees. (There is also an oversight cost with private payments.)

> You could say the same about the taxes used to pay for public schools.

Absolutely, because it is true. Especially considering how much we overpay for public schools (costs having been rising faster than inflation for decades with no improvement in student outcomes).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com