16 ms·
In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All
- HarryHirsch 10mo agoIt's not an unmitigated positive, instead it's a transparent move to paper over the high cost of housing by getting both parents to work. Of course housing prices will adjust accordingly, the supply remains the same, and the demand side has more money to spend.
- kiba 10mo agoLand price will adjust accordingly in response to any positive economic news. If you want an unalloy good to come out of these programs, tax lands. Otherwise, any welfare program will just get some of its value captured by landlords.
- blfr 10mo agoLand value tax is interesting because it encourages/forces more efficient use but you can do a lot more by cutting demand through limiting immigration and financialization opportunities.
- Avicebron 10mo agoI'm not sure why people don't immediately get serfdom vibes whenever they mention a land tax.
- balamatom 10mo agoProbably because most of us are already unlanded serfs, except we also get vibes now. Yay, 1000 years of progress!
- Aarostotle 10mo agoIt’s the same reason people don’t get serfdom vibes when a government proposes to take over childcare. Governments buying goods for people with tax money turns them into dependents, sometimes permanently. It’s easy to overlook that.
- SoftTalker 10mo agoLand value tax won't help unless you greatly reduce the zoning and regulation over what can be built on the land. Putting the land to its most efficient use isn't possible if all you're allowed to build is a two-story detached single family house.
- ecshafer 10mo agoGeorgism is the way to prosperity.
- Tanoc 10mo agoYou don't reduce the regulation, you increase it's flexibility. Such as allowing dynamic zoning where an area that is zoned as medium density residential automatically becomes hybrid high density residential/low commercial once the districts zoned around it as low density residential are filled. The issue is we zone something and it stays that way until it's manually reviewed and rezoned. The district has no ability to change itself according to the circumstances. It has to rely on a third party that acts without due haste and with great reluctance.
- storf45 10mo agoOur property taxes are already crazy high and continue to go up every year. How does this help?
- ransom1538 10mo agoExactly. Now landlords will charge more. The owner of assets get all the money.
- ryandrake 10mo agoBy your and OP's logic, nothing should be done to subsidize anything or make people's lives more affordable because the excess will be sucked up by landlords. On the flip side, if we did things to make people's lives less affordable, would that translate into landlords giving back by lowering rents? I don't think so.
- OGEnthusiast 10mo ago> By your and OP's logic, nothing should be done to subsidize anything or make people's lives more affordable because the excess will be sucked up by landlords. That seems pretty reasonable to me actually? When housing is so supply-constrained, any subsidies/incentives/bonuses/etc. will be captured by the owner of the scarcest asset (real estate). Building more housing at this point seems like it should be a P0 priority before anything else.
- Eextra953 10mo agoAcross the US, the majority (2/3-ish) of children already live in families where both parents are employed. I don't see free childcare moving that statistic more than a few percentage points at best. I'm skeptical that this policy would encourage more parents to work and further raise housing costs, especially since this would mostly affect families with children who are pre-K. It is a big policy change but the number of families it will affect is quite small I think. If it does have any effect on housing cost I would expect to see it at the very low-end since it would help low-earners the most.
- usaar333 10mo agoIn Quebec it was a 20% jump in mother employment: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-31/affordable-daycare-and-working-moms-the-quebec-model https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-31/affordabl... And had all sorts of negative outcomes for the kids: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/long-term-study-of-universal-preschool-in-quebec-yields-sobering-outcomes/2018/12 https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/long-term-study-of-...
- diogenescynic 10mo agoMedicare should cover children. Then we'd be covering children and the elderly. I think that seems fair--children deserve healthcare (just like education) as a fundamental right. It shouldn't be dependent on their parents.
- ghaff 10mo agoBe aware that Medicare is a long way from free. At least if you've had a well-paying job in the past few years, Medicare premiums are pretty similar to exchange costs (or COBRA).
- diogenescynic 10mo agoHealth insurance isn't free either and it's way more expensive than Medicare. We're all also already paying for Medicare...
- dmoy 10mo agoGP is pointing out that Medicare costs for the individual are about the same as ACA or cobra. It's not cheaper, unless you have the work credits to cut down on part A premiums. So Medicare as-is for kids wouldn't be significantly cheaper than ACA for kids. To make it cheaper, you'd need to either substantially increase the subsidy on Medicare, or decrease US medical costs (administration costs, drug costs, doctor salaries, etc)
- nradov 10mo agoCommercial health insurance is more expensive than Medicare because original Medicare Part A/B doesn't cover prescription drugs, and because commercial plans effectively provide a hidden cross subsidy to Medicare. Under a "Medicare for All" scheme, people would still need to purchase prescription drug coverage (Part D). And because Medicare reimburses providers at very low rates (often below their costs) they have to make up the difference by charging commercial health plans more.
- godelski 10mo agoEveryone knows Medicare isn't "free". Medicare and COBRA are not similar costs. My parents pay half what I would pay if I took COBRA and they have a better plan. Neither of them were struggling before they retired and I'll put it this way, they bought a second home in retirement.
- yndoendo 10mo agoUS actually provided child care to mothers employed during WWII. [0] Richard Nixon vetoed the bill that would have expanded it out to all families. [1] Funny how we keep forgetting the past and reject what benefited us as a whole with a moved to pure individualism built around selfishness. AKA The rich keep getting richer. [0] https://www.wwiimemorialfriends.org/blog/the-lanham-act-and-universal-childcare-during-world-war-ii https://www.wwiimemorialfriends.org/blog/the-lanham-act-and-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Child_Development_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Child_Developmen...
- softwaredoug 10mo agoThe US will kick into gear at certain emergency times (WW2, Covid, etc) but not so great outside of then.
- ryandrake 10mo agoI don't see how the US's feeble and lackluster response to COVID counted as "kicking into gear".
- zeroonetwothree 10mo agoWe developed vaccines in record time, saving millions of lives. If that’s “feeble” then I guess I’ll take it every time.
- softwaredoug 10mo agoWe put massive public funding into vaccine. We also seemed to fund healthcare a great deal (now being pulled back as ACA subsidies expire). Covid was the basis for a lot of short term emergency measures in early Biden, even late Trump I, admins.
- anon191928 10mo agoit's because people dont operate with facts and truth. they just want lies instead, sad reality
- 10mo ago
- seneca 10mo ago[flagged]
- ollysb 10mo agoFree at the point of use is how it's usually expressed.
- seneca 10mo agoSure, but that hides most of the facts about how it works. There are a lot of parties involved in this, including people paying for it and being paid for it, and those paying probably out number those getting it for free at point of use. Sweeping that under the rug is just a sales ploy, which shows what the outlet wants you to believe about this program.
- justin66 10mo agoThat taxpayers pay for government programs isn't the big revelation you seem to believe it is.
- baumy 10mo agoYes, it actually is, to many people. Poll a random subset of people with the question "are you in favor of free childcare?". X% will say yes. Poll another set with the question "are you in favor of taxpayer funded childcare?". Y% will say yes. I would bet any amount of money that X>Y, and (X-Y)% of people did not think about the fact that a free government service is not actually free. Exactly how big X and Y are, I couldn't say. But identifying propaganda and deceptive language is never something that should be discouraged, even when it's advocating for a cause you agree with.
- n4r9 10mo agoWhat else could it mean for a state-provided service to be "free"?
- jeromegv 10mo ago
- chaostheory 10mo agoGiven the negative world wide trend with birthrates, this should be a priority with every developed country even if it eventually comes at the expense of elderly socialized healthcare.
- seneca 10mo agoWe would be even better off subsidizing parents staying home with their own children. Unfortunately most subsidies have proven ineffective at nudging up birth rates.
- mritterhoff 10mo agoWhy would that be better? I think you'd miss out on economies of scale and end up paying more.
- runako 10mo agoThose subsidies tend to be €X00 per month. I am not aware of any scheme that even attempted to replace 80% of forfeited wages. A subsidy that ends up with you having to move impoverish yourself is not going to have the desired effect.
- chaostheory 10mo agoNo, we wouldn’t. This subsidy directly benefits the survival rate of children while universal basic income is too broad. healthcare is more affordable than UBI.
- Avshalom 10mo agoIn an emotional development sort of way: maybe. Subsidized childcare however provides two jobs to the economy for the price of one and every single person worried about birth rates is either a white supremacist or the sort of emotionless economist that 2:1 is appealing to.
- jameslk 10mo agoThe arguments for more humans always sound like a Ponzi scheme to me: we need more people so we can support existing people. There’s plenty of downsides of having more people on the planet. And tech seems to be making it so there will be less and less a need for more people anyway, for better or worse
- trashface 10mo agoWell, crossing new mexico off my list of possible retirement states lol
- mythrwy 10mo agoThere's objectively a lot of reasons to do that (New Mexico citizen here) but I'm surprised this is the one you chose.
- sudosteph 10mo agoCan't read the whole article, but am curious about how it will impact unlicensed childcare operations. I imagine that the number of parents using these is much higher than many people realize. Will be interesting to see how many parents end up using the state program.
- terminalshort 10mo agoUntil very recently in human history 100% of childcare operations were unlicensed, and this was better in every way than a government bureaucracy run system.
- mariusor 10mo agoEven with the terrible state of education in most nations, that is a patently untrue sentence at least in the fact that poor people can have access to education at all.
- terminalshort 10mo agoI didn't say anything about school. This article is about childcare for children below school age. But basic education is also actually quite cheap and easy to provide. Abraham Lincoln was educated in a one room school house. We have made it expensive by turning it into a bureaucratic nightmare with administrators, school boards, lawyers, and PTAs, when all you really need is a few good teachers who are given the authority to set and enforce high standards.
- mariusor 10mo ago"until very recently" includes pre-industrial times to my understanding when education did not exist in an organized fashion for the poor. [edit] And in what world is Abraham Lincoln considered "the poor" for his times? I am sure you can come up with some less fortunate people during the same times which didn't really get the experience of that one room schoolhouse.
- gfiorav 10mo agoThis is one of my pet peeves. If you believe in the welfare state concept, you should never refer to anything that’s subsidized as “free.” It’s a recipe for disaster. As a European who was uprooted and settled in the US, I’ve become painfully aware of how little we Europeans comprehend the workings of the economy. I believe this is partly due to the propaganda surrounding the welfare state as “free.” Of course, nothing is truly “free.” It comes at a significant cost that must be carefully understood and balanced for the future. It hinders market dynamism and credit flow, which can easily stifle innovation over time. Calling it “free” is a mere emotional appeal, not a rational justification for its long-term sustainability. It’s no wonder that business in Europe, despite being more regulated and restrained than any other part of the world, is so vilified by the youth. We must stop conflating prosperity with corporate misgivings if we are to progress at all.
- watwut 10mo agoLooking at USA right now, I just do not see how is that superior.
- id 10mo agoIt works handsomely for the 1%. The rest, well, ...
- gfiorav 10mo agoI’m not sure. If we compare the US to Europe (and I say this with a heavy heart), I wouldn’t be confident that the EU has a positive balance. There hasn’t been any growth in the EU in the last 25 years. What’s Europe’s future? What's its current relevance? Sure, the US could eliminate all other expenditures and provide every American with the best subsidized healthcare in the world. But what would that achieve? A few decades of chess-thumping to the world? Then bankruptcy? Who will fund the next innovation in healthcare? Is this what Europe did only now those decades of runway are coming to an end? When you look at the US, you should note that the poorest state here has about the same per-capita GDP as Germany. And the disposable income for people is 50% higher than even Germany. If you don't consider Germany, the poorest state is richer than every EU country and has a disposable income 80% higher. You want to feel free? You need disposable income. You want to start a company and have clients? You better hope those clients have disposable income. You want a welfare state? You better have a strong economy. EU isn't trending too hot in that department. Many of the usual suspects that defend social welfare "just because" also say things like "face the data!" I suggest you do. Just my thoughts.
- bilsbie 10mo agoIf it’s free then you’re the product …
- jeffbee 10mo agoReally? You're the product of, say, your local fire department?
- petcat 10mo agoLocal fire department isn't free
- smileysteve 10mo agoYour house not spreading fire to the neighboring houses or forest is most of the actual dollar value in a fire department, from a fire perspective. Saving people and a local healthcare force are fringe benefits, accounting wise.
- smileysteve 10mo agoThat's a interesting way to say creating a healthy contributing member of society that leads to future gdp.
- benregenspan 10mo agoHow would this apply to, say, public libraries?
- Eextra953 10mo agoYes, in the case of a business giving out free services or things. But, government is not and has never been a business so this doesn't apply in this case.
- tehjoker 10mo agoThat's true of private enterprise that has a profit motive. The "product" here is healthy well-adjusted citizens that can one day be workers. The public sector is not the same. Although, you could also say the "product" are additional parents that can work.
- tock 10mo agoCall it a childcare bailout instead of "free". Society will accept it then.
- thelastgallon 10mo agoWhat if a federal law is passed to make this illegal?
- toomuchtodo 10mo agoIgnore the law and tie it up in court until regime change? Something is only real or of concern if there are consequences. Words and opinions without force backing them are just words and opinions.
- dfee 10mo agoWhat are you talking about?
- zeroonetwothree 10mo agoWe have this thing called “federalism” which prevents that hypothetical law from being constitutional. The federal government cannot tell states how to spend their own money.
- venturecruelty 10mo agoThe federal government is illegitimate. Its laws can be ignored without consequence.
- Workaccount2 10mo agoAll for it, but free birth control should also be provided.
- zeroonetwothree 10mo agoChildren are a positive externality so we should actually tax birth control rather than make it free. ;)
- LadyCailin 10mo agoI’ll even begin to entertain this argument only once the burden of having and raising children falls on society as a whole, and not individual women. Until then, absolutely not.
- hammock 10mo ago[flagged]
- venturecruelty 10mo agoSounds like you're volunteering your time and resources to help raise them! Thanks, you can stop by the adoption agency any time today. :)
- tehjoker 10mo agoThat's true that it would be good for more access to birth control, but this is a confusing statement because you benefit economically and socially from each new kid that is born and raised. If child care is socialized, it means that the kids are going to be better taken care of versus the mother is impoverished and (a) doesn't work and stays poor or (b) does work and they aren't taken care of properly. I guess you can make a malthusian argument that the poors will just replicate indefinitely as resources are made available, but I don't think that's believable at all. You should be focused on making sure those future citizens are properly educated and socialized.
- hammock 10mo agoWhy? Do we have too many children?
- siliconc0w 10mo agoMy current theory is that we've basically gotten addicted to importing the world's smartest kids so we have been unwilling to invest in our own children.
- OGEnthusiast 10mo agoIt's also odd how no one ever asks whether the reason child care is necessary and a single-income household isn't earning enough anymore to make a living because Americans are effectively competing with the entire world for housing and jobs.
- mrtesthah 10mo agoProbably because that’s not true.
- hammock 10mo agoWhat makes you say that when New Mexico is now offering free childcare?
- swsieber 10mo agoI would not say that free childcare is an investment in children.
- xboxnolifes 10mo agoFree childcare is an investment in working parents, not the children.
- siliconc0w 10mo agoOne state offering something is a start but we're still far behind maternity, pre-k, childhood nutrition, and primary or secondary education in general for most of the population relative to peer nations. Plus this administration's cuts to Medicare or SNAP which will also hit the poorest kids the most. Plus the national debt they are saddled with. Our children's well being (physical health, mental health, education, etc) is routinely ranked toward the absolute bottom compared peer nations.
- RagnarD 10mo agoFree, paid by whom?
- tvaughan 10mo agoTariffs.
- jameslk 10mo agoIt’s good that it’s a state policy, not a federal one. We need more policies to stay at the state level, regardless of the policy. Federalism is how we can test the effects of competing policies under the same house. If the policy is a problem for you, it’s a lot easier to vote with your feet and move to a different state than to move to a different country
- sudobash1 10mo agoI think it also gives it a better chance as an experiment. The federal government tends to pendulum swing between left and right on a fairly short cycle. Most states seem to be considerably more stable and less prone to trying to revert policies put in place by the "other side" every few years.
- nkrisc 10mo agoFor some things, yes. I think this sort of thing is compatible with being legislated at the state level. Other policies are not. See states with strict gun laws being undermined by neighboring states with very loose laws.
- jameslk 10mo agoTo me that seems like a necessary trade off for the benefits gained. The stricter laws wouldn’t have necessarily been achieved nor maintained had they not been enacted at the state level. What does seem like something the federal government should be doing is mediating issues like this between states, without picking a side (of course, that is easier said than done given polarization in politics currently). Rather than giving us watered down one-size-fits-all policies that nobody likes, or worse yet, deadlocked at no policies or the churn of policies being implemented and then repealed over and over
- int_19h 10mo agoThe churn is largely an artifact of our electoral system IMO. If party seats followed national votes proportionally, the change would be far more gradual without the swings. Of course, it's also not going to happen because proportional popular vote will strongly favor one party...
- beepbooptheory 10mo agoA few alternate, less paywalled, local articles on the same thing: https://www.kunm.org/local-news/2025-10-13/childcare-universal-children-cost-education https://www.kunm.org/local-news/2025-10-13/childcare-univers... > The state has spent years building early childhood funding — In 2020 it created a $10 billion trust fund using revenue from its booming oil and gas industry. Then, in 2022 voters approved drawing more from the Land Grant Permanent Fund. https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/is-universal-childcare-sustainable-day-care-owners-and-parents-weigh-in/ https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/is-universal-childcare-sustai...
- biff1 10mo agoYou get what you pay for might be one argument against such a policy.
- gwbennett 10mo agoNothing is for free!
- ConanRus 10mo ago[dead]
- jimt1234 10mo agoI've always wondered why on-site child care generally isn't offered as a perk through employment. Many large companies, like the F500 I work for, offer various on-site perks, like subsidized cafeterias, exercise facilities, garden, meditation room, etc., but never the thing that would help (parents) the most: an on-site child care center. My hunch is it comes down to two major obstacles: (1) the liability risk is too high; one accident can result in a major lawsuit to the company, and (2) the cost of the distractions; parents will never get any work done if their kid close by. I'm not even a parent, but I see the struggle parents go through wrt child care.
- georgeburdell 10mo agoCompanies don’t want employees whose time is split between childcare and work. This is why egg freezing is a common perk but childcare is not.
- peanuty1 10mo agoOffering free childcare would be far more expensive than offering subsidized cafeterias, meditation rooms, and a gym.
- trollbridge 10mo agoBecause it’s too expensive. Most people want wages. People who have no children in particular would prefer to be paid wages versus other people getting childcare and them getting less wages.
- OGEnthusiast 10mo agoPretty dystopian to have your employer raise your children for you IMO.
- georgeburdell 10mo agoHam-fisted reactionary policy versus attacking the root cause, which is 1) cost of living has now increased to require two working parents 2) The government values housewives at about $2k per year in tax credits. Let women stay at home and raise their children as they know best, and pay them for the cost of the service they provide.
- russdill 10mo agoSo, what, pay someone a full time salary for caring for 1 or two children? Pretty sure that doesn't scale
- georgeburdell 10mo agoIf governments aren’t willing to value women at what their work at home is worth, they’re not serious about tackling the birthrate problem. Show me a country with universal childcare with a TFR above 2.1. It’s a cheap substitute for the love and attention only a mother can provide young children
- russdill 10mo agoOutside the home childcare is not 24/7. It's for a portion of the day. Also, it's really weird to be making this argument for mothers and not fathers. Having childcare available gives the opportunity for both parents to spend more quality time with their children.
- frumplestlatz 10mo ago> Outside the home childcare is not 24/7. No, but it is during our most productive, aware, and valuable daylight hours. > Also, it's really weird to be making this argument for mothers and not fathers. In the context of human history, it’s not weird at all. > Having childcare available gives the opportunity for both parents to spend more quality time with their children. How? It reduces the time children spend with a parent, and it creates a world in which both parents have to work just to afford having children.
- abustamam 10mo agoIt takes a village. When I was a kid (youngest of four) growing up in a suburb of a small town, my mom would often drop me off at a neighbor's house to watch me while she ran errands or did stuff for my siblings. No payment, just neighbors being neighborly. Now, I can't fathom something like that being feasible in our increasingly individualistic neighborhood. Regretfully, I don't even know the names of most of my neighbors. I wave to them on the street but I wouldn't ask them to take care of my daughter. I know that's mostly my fault for not meeting my neighbors. But also, most families aren't even home during the day anymore because they have to work. Ideally we could go back to being an interdependent society but it has to happen organically. No amount of legislation or budget can fix that.
- mothballed 10mo agoThe main reason I wouldn't enjoy watching my neighbor's kids is that we now have an absolutely paranoid, delusional society that has a mentally ill view of the dangers of children. By signing up to watch kids you incur absolutely massive liability, all it takes is one accusation and your whole life is destroyed and you lose everything, no matter that it was false. You would basically need cameras at every angle at all times before any rational person would want to watch someone else's kids. Thus you end up with daycares nowadays where you pay a gazillion dollars tuition for your child to be taken care of by a minimum wage worker, with most of the money going to overhead and insurance. The real advantage of government childcare is the state can just say "go fuck yourself" if you sue them or accuse them of misconduct and thus do it for cheap like in the old days. In fact the only other economical model is to just dump your kid at an illegal's house, they don't give a shit if they get sued, they can just dump everything and move to the next city.
- abustamam 10mo agoThat's a good point, but the model could still work. I think it comes down to trust. If something bad happens to my kid when my neighbor or friend is taking care of her, am I gonna sue them? Furthermore, if they give me their kid, would they sue me if something bad happened? Is it worth burning the bridge of friendship over a mistake? There's a number of different factors at play of course, but if I trust my neighbor / friend / parent / sibling enough to take care of my kid, I hope they trust me enough to know that I would try to resolve any issues privately and not get courts involved. Maybe the worst thing that happens is that a certain neighbor doesn't get to watch my kid anymore. Of course if there's actual abuse or something criminal, then yeah by all means get the courts involved. But if it was something minor that blows over quickly then no need to escalate. As an example, my mother in law was helping out for the first two weeks after my daughter was born. One day, my daughter had hiccups. My MIL said "I'm gonna fill a bottle of water to give to her" and I'm like "you will do no such thing, babies cannot have water. It's formula or breast milk." Later, on a cold night, she put a blanket (not swaddle) on my daughter, and a stuffed animal in her crib, and I'm like "babies cannot have loose stuff in their cribs, it's a choking/suffocation hazard." My point is that I'm not gonna sue my MIL for being a bad caretaker, I'm just not gonna trust her to be a caretaker unless she took some infant safety courses. But I would trust a neighbor who I know has taken infant safety courses because they recently had a newborn or something, and trust that they'd do their best with my kid as I would theirs.
- wewewedxfgdf 10mo agoSocialism!
- throwaway6734 10mo agoIt's a shame that there's not the option of providing parents with the choice of free child care or some kind of cash subsidy. A bit tangential, but the overall problem is that cost of having children is privatized while the benefit is socialized. I'd love to see age and number of children progressively factored into the income tax bracket people pay. Something like a 60-80% tax rate for all income >150k for those >40 without children so those that benefit the most from future generations being born are helping to shoulder the cost
- bilsbie 10mo agoUnpopular opinion but leaving your kids with strangers not invested in their development during their most critical years is a terrible idea.
- sib301 10mo agoPerhaps if you take them to a dump. The wonderful people at my daughter’s day care are absolutely invested in their development and spend 6 uninterrupted hours per day with them focused exclusively on that. It’s stupid expensive though.
- mythrwy 10mo agoThat depends on who you are as a parent though. It could be the strangers are lifeline and positive force on the child's development compared to what you are. A lot of times people assume in these conversation the parents are put together individuals who think about their child's future or even care. And from what I've observed I don't think that is universally the case.
- venturecruelty 10mo agoPopular opinion but raising the price of everything just because you can so people can't even afford kids anymore and then blaming poor people for that is a terrible idea.
- marysminefnuf 10mo agoAt most high schools in our district we offer childcare to the teachers for free. I think thats really the model we should be moving to. Just add pre-k and daycare to the public school system. We have the space already.
- frumplestlatz 10mo agoGive the state your kids and get to work, comrade? https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/17/archives/in-soviet-union-day-care-is-the-norm.html https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/17/archives/in-soviet-union-... > The vast majority of Soviet families require the salary of a working wife to make ends meet. Repeatedly, Soviet citizens express astonishment when they learn that an American father can support a family of two, three or four children without his wife's working. Many are also surprised that American women would willingly have more than one child.
- venturecruelty 10mo agoMan, even the Soviet Union was able to provide free childcare. Really makes you think, doesn't it.
- frumplestlatz 10mo agoWe had it better. We threw that away. Instead of figuring out why and fixing that, you’d apparently prefer that we take a page from the soviets and further embed our social and economic regression into law.
- venturecruelty 10mo agoWe did figure it out: you give poor people money and services, and they stop being poor. This isn't magic, and your desire to endlessly hurt the people you hate will not change that.
- frumplestlatz 10mo ago
- EasyMark 10mo agoIt will be very interesting to see how this experiment pans out. I just don't see how the economics of it can work out knowing how much some of my friends pay for childcare while they're at work.