10 ms·
US 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
by yndoendo 11mo ago
US 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 11mo agoThe US will kick into gear at certain emergency times (WW2, Covid, etc) but not so great outside of then.
- ryandrake 11mo agoI don't see how the US's feeble and lackluster response to COVID counted as "kicking into gear".
- zeroonetwothree 11mo agoWe developed vaccines in record time, saving millions of lives. If that’s “feeble” then I guess I’ll take it every time.
- softwaredoug 11mo 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 11mo agoit's because people dont operate with facts and truth. they just want lies instead, sad reality
- SoftTalker 11mo agoIt was done so mothers could work building tanks and airplanes, not out of any concern for the children.
- tock 11mo agoThen do it today so mothers can continue to work and help the economy.
- jagged-chisel 11mo agoThey would need to be building tanks and airplanes.
- TylerE 11mo agoWhy? We don’t need tanks and planes. We have plenty.
- echelon 11mo agoMain battle tanks are probably less useful in the future of armed conflict due to the effectiveness of drones. Spending on childcare means we need to offset those debts with other revenues. We have close to full employment, so I'd argue that freeing up labor isn't as strategic as other categories of spending. It all depends on what you want to prioritize. For the long term health of the nation, these areas seem key for continued economic resiliency: - pay down the debt so it doesn't spiral out of control (lots of strategies here, some good, some bad: higher taxes, lower spending, wanton imperialism, inflation, etc.) - remain competitive in key industries, including some catch-up: robotics, batteries, solar, chip manufacture - if we're going for a multipolar world / self-sufficiency play, we need to rebuild the supply chain by onshoring and friendshoring. This means the boring stuff too, like plastics and pharmaceutical inputs. - lots of energy expansion and infrastructure
- TylerE 11mo agoI think we should act with empathy and care for each other. The government does not need to be run like a fucking business.
- add-sub-mul-div 11mo agoOur politicians are unpopular because they do nothing to help us, and when they explicitly help us it's framed as lazy poor people looking for handouts. It makes no sense.
- ryandrake 11mo agoDon't forget: When they help billionaires and trillion dollar business, it's framed as driving prosperity and stimulating the economy.
- watwut 11mo agoMaybe people should stop voting for the party that does that then. And for politicians that do that then.
- macintux 11mo agoIt turns out that the promise to hurt other people more is a winning strategy.
- zeroonetwothree 11mo agoTurns out most people apparently don’t actually want that. Or at least not that strongly to overcome other factors. Weird how people seem to think democracy only works when their side is winning.
- loeg 11mo agoNeither major US political party has a great track record here. On balance, I prefer one over the other, as I'm sure you do too. But they're both pretty far off from my ideal set of policies.
- macintux 11mo agoDon't forget the "1% of the recipients are fraudulent, therefore the other 99% must spend 10 hours on paperwork and 6 months waiting for the benefits to start, with a 30% chance of rejection" approach.
- darknavi 11mo agoWhat's the Matter with Kansas? (2004) by Thomas Frank explores some of this, but centered around Kansas. Pretty interesting (and frustrating) stuff.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- czhu12 11mo agoFor what its worth, the Economist recently wrote about how universal child care can harm children, citing a study from Quebec. > The trio published their first study in 2005, and the results were damning. Shifting to universal child care appeared to lead to a rise in aggression, anxiety and hyperactivity among Quebecer children, as well as a fall in motor and social skills. The effects were large: anxiety rates doubled; roughly a third more kids were reported to be hyperactive. Indeed, the difference in hyperactivity rates was larger than is typically reported between boys and girls. They basically make the case that childcare is extremely difficult and requires a lot of attentive care, which is hard to scale up in a universal way. [1] https://archive.is/ScFRX https://archive.is/ScFRX
- outside1234 11mo agoThis is probably because they are actually measuring hyperactivity when there is universal care versus 40% of it going unmeasured.
- reliabilityguy 11mo agoI suspect that if the sample pre universal care was big enough, then the measurement of 40% is still good.
- vlovich123 11mo agoNot if the samples are skewed. For example, the people who get the care are from stable environments with financial means. After universal childcare is implemented, we start measuring these things in the broader population that has fewer access to resources generally.
- reliabilityguy 11mo agoThe assumption here is that only people with means got care and were surveyed. I am not sure that this is the case. Moreover, you can correct for those factors, and, I assume, any statistician worth their salt are.
- WalterBright 11mo ago> a moved to pure individualism built around selfishness The US was founded on individual rights and freedoms, not community sacrifice. Meanwhile, during the 1800s, scores of millions of people moved up from poverty into the middle class and beyond. (Immigrants to the US arrived with nothing more than a suitcase.) > Funny how we keep forgetting the past and reject what benefited us as a whole Oh the irony!
- selimthegrim 11mo ago> The US was founded on individual rights and freedoms, not community sacrifice. You clearly didn’t grow up in an immigrant neighborhood in the city
- sdsd 11mo agoI disagree with Walter here but the US wasn't founded by urban immigrants. There's a difference between pioneers, like the Mennonites in Mexico, and immigrants, like digital nomads in Mexico. The former are almost always more popular than the latter.
- selimthegrim 11mo agoEven so, do you think the Mennonites or Mormons in Mexico would agree with no community sacrifice as as part of their narrative?
- WalterBright 11mo agoI grew up next to the Hispanic neighborhood in Arizona, and the schools I attended were about 30% Hispanic.
- sdsd 11mo agoI mildly disagree with your take but it's still mindblowing how I can read some random political flame on HN and it's WALTER FUCKING BRIGHT. Your one of my tech heroes, so cool to spot you on here. If this were real life I'd ask for a selfie to prove that this happened but maybe you could, idk, sign a message with your PGP key so I can prove I interacted with you
- xnx 11mo ago> Funny how we keep forgetting the past The remembering/forgetting what "made America great" is very selective. Factory jobs: yes! Labor unions: (silence)