34 pointsby darth_avocado2 hours ago6 comments
  • mindok2 minutes ago
    “Free”. Presumably tax payer funded in actuality.
  • tobi_bsf3 minutes ago
    nice to see the city supporting the lower class.
  • bsimpson23 minutes ago
    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.

    • rconti4 minutes ago
      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?
      • jeltz2 minutes ago
        I think he is talking about the threshold effects. E.g if one partner earns 200k then it could make more 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.
    • jeltz4 minutes ago
      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.
    • simonw11 minutes ago
      The subheading says "Officials to offer 50% subsidy up to $310,000" which hopefully addresses your point there.
    • 12 minutes ago
      undefined
  • NooneAtAll332 minutes ago
    a year, I assume
  • wotsdat11 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • pickelwix2 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
    • ares6232 hours ago
      I chuckled