When I first read it I thought wait, 3% of 6 is 0.18, but then I realized no I'm a dork because 6 is the age of the kid, whereas the number 100 is written as a word hundred, hence I decided to write "HN poster responds:" with quotes around my first non-coffee aided thought because I thought it was funny. I guess I should have just made that full statement, but I do have a tendency to rather oblique communication strategies.
on edit: basically because I thought hah, this is the kind of mistake I always see poor tired folks make on HN and making the dumb comment and here I am making it!! This is a classic moment!
So now making 231k makes you worse off than someone making 230k? Why even have that threshold when it doesn't even exclude that many people, it just causes weird incentives.
The article also mentions a 50% subsidy up to $310,000. The details aren’t spelled out, but subsidies like this often phase out gradually to avoid a cliff at the threshold.
Probably because in order to get it passed they had to have some cutoff because there was some people who would argue against it being free for everyone.
That sounds like a good way to keep moms out of the workforce.
I know a lot of couples who feel like the wife's job is a hobby, because after taxes it barely covers childcare (especially if you also value spending time with your kids).
Free childcare could free those households up to decide which parent(s) work when. Instead, by capping it below a common dual income, it incentivizes the least earning parent to continue to stay out of the workforce.
You framed this issue in a certain way, but your position could be described as „lower earning families need to pay for childcare, so higher earning families keep producing two incomes”. Not so attractive anymore.
I don't follow. Wouldn't the high cost of childcare make couples less likely to have 2 incomes, because the lower-earning spouse is working for lower marginal pay, just to pay someone ELSE to provide child care?
I think he is talking about the threshold effects. E.g if one partner earns 200k then it could make more sense for the other to stay at home than to work and earn say 50k or 70k. The 50% subsidy above 230k reduces that issue but I would rather see no cap.
> I know a lot of couples who feel like the wife's job is a hobby, because after taxes it barely covers childcare (especially if you also value spending time with your kids).
When described that way ... aren't they right about the wife's job?
this won't cost the city too much, there's only like a hundred kids under 6 in this city and 3% of them are mine.
HN poster responds: "You have 0.18 kids under 6! That seems unlikely!"
Am i missing the joke? ChatGPT tells me 3% of 100 is 3, not 0.18.
When I first read it I thought wait, 3% of 6 is 0.18, but then I realized no I'm a dork because 6 is the age of the kid, whereas the number 100 is written as a word hundred, hence I decided to write "HN poster responds:" with quotes around my first non-coffee aided thought because I thought it was funny. I guess I should have just made that full statement, but I do have a tendency to rather oblique communication strategies.
on edit: basically because I thought hah, this is the kind of mistake I always see poor tired folks make on HN and making the dumb comment and here I am making it!! This is a classic moment!
.18 is 3% of 6. This might mean something, but I don't know what.
You’re missing something if you asked ChatGPT that.
nah, it just means you get 18% of childcare costs paid.
nice to see the city supporting the lower class.
So now making 231k makes you worse off than someone making 230k? Why even have that threshold when it doesn't even exclude that many people, it just causes weird incentives.
The article also mentions a 50% subsidy up to $310,000. The details aren’t spelled out, but subsidies like this often phase out gradually to avoid a cliff at the threshold.
Probably because in order to get it passed they had to have some cutoff because there was some people who would argue against it being free for everyone.
a year, I assume
“Free”. Presumably tax payer funded in actuality.
That’s generally how good governments work yes.
We'll get the super wealthy in California, like Larry Page and Sergey Brin, to pay for it. Oh wait, they just left.
That sounds like a good way to keep moms out of the workforce.
I know a lot of couples who feel like the wife's job is a hobby, because after taxes it barely covers childcare (especially if you also value spending time with your kids).
Free childcare could free those households up to decide which parent(s) work when. Instead, by capping it below a common dual income, it incentivizes the least earning parent to continue to stay out of the workforce.
While I too disagree with the cap I think you are a bit blinded by working in tech. A lot of double income households do not reach 230k.
You framed this issue in a certain way, but your position could be described as „lower earning families need to pay for childcare, so higher earning families keep producing two incomes”. Not so attractive anymore.
I don't follow. Wouldn't the high cost of childcare make couples less likely to have 2 incomes, because the lower-earning spouse is working for lower marginal pay, just to pay someone ELSE to provide child care?
I think he is talking about the threshold effects. E.g if one partner earns 200k then it could make more sense for the other to stay at home than to work and earn say 50k or 70k. The 50% subsidy above 230k reduces that issue but I would rather see no cap.
So basically a return to what was the norm from ~300,000 years ago until 1975?
Sound the alarms.
> I know a lot of couples who feel like the wife's job is a hobby, because after taxes it barely covers childcare (especially if you also value spending time with your kids).
When described that way ... aren't they right about the wife's job?
The subheading says "Officials to offer 50% subsidy up to $310,000" which hopefully addresses your point there.