It's easy to promise things, but hard to deliver them. How can the state "guarantee no-cost universal child?"

Will the state provide the child care itself? Or will the attempt to provide funding, relying on the private market to provide the service. Are there a bunch of underworked child care providers just waiting around for new customers? Or would they expect the child care industry to go on a hiring spree?

Regardless who provides it, more workers would be required to deliver the service, and new facilities as well. What industries will those workers come from, who will now see reduced services and higher prices as a result? What doesn't get built while the construction workers are building new child care facilities?

Child care tends to be highly regulated. Is the government doing anything (aside from funding) to make it easier to open and run a child-care facility?

It's so easy to spend money. The hard part is the real-world actions and tradeoffs required. Everything comes at the cost of something else we could have had instead.

What you will see is: The funding will go to the people who are already receiving child-care services today, along with big price increases immediately and over time as government money chases supply that is slow to grow.

I drive on roads, I use libraries, I have police and fire protection. My children go to school. My city and state provide services to me and fellow citizens. This is no different, and we pay for it with taxes.

I like taxes, with them I buy civilization (which I also am fond of).

(The evidence also shows economic benefits of enabling parents to work when they want to by providing childcare)

https://illumine.app/blog/how-much-childcare-costs-by-state-...

https://childcaredeserts.org/

https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064...

> How can the state "guarantee no-cost universal child?"

How can any state “guarantee no-cost schooling for all children”? Well, they do, so it’s clearly possible. Why would early childhood be any different?

> everything comes at the cost of something we could have had instead

Of course. That’s the nature of spending money. Your talking points here don’t really amount to much beyond “better things aren’t possible”.

> Regardless who provides it, more workers would be required to deliver the service, and new facilities as well. What industries will those workers come from, who will now see reduced services and higher prices as a result?

Paid for child care frees up some stay at home parents to enter the labor force; it's kind of circular, but some of those parents will work in child care. This won't fill the whole gap, but it will fill some of it.

New Mexico government does things very very poorly compared to other states I've lived in. Corruption at various levels of government is very common.

I actually really like this idea (even though I'm red leaning) but hope they are able to effectively administrate it. I have my doubts they are.

We're likely 5-10 years out from a world where tappy-tap computer keyboard jobs are in a death spiral and caregiving jobs are one of the only fields untouched by automation.

> What industries will those workers come from

Tech.

Outside of US there is whole world and maybe they are already doing something like that.

Damn you're right, let's just not do anything good and useful for people

You could've answered 80% of these questions for yourself by just reading the linked press release.

Edit: other user called what you're doing here concern trolling and I agree. If you disagree on principle with government assistance for childcare you're free to make the case, but this gish-galloping faux-naive JAQing off adds no value.

you could sub in universal k-12 schooling and your concern trolling points would not need to be change. I applaud the versatile argument.

I’m so sick of seeing people justify why we cannot have nice things, as though it were a fact of nature.