Societal Collapse/ Extinction

Quote: billryan

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

New Mexico has become the first state in the Union to offer free child care to all its residents. It's estimated it will save families $12,000 a year.
link to original post

But how much will it cost them in taxes? Money isn't free.
link to original post

Expanding free care to all residents, rather than limiting it by income, is estimated to cost $ 120 million a year. New Mexico has a fund financed by taxes on oil leases that currently holds over ten billion dollars. The residents will receive their care, and out-of-state corporations will largely fund it.
link to original post

That fund should be used to lower taxes that people would have to pay anyway, such as public safety or education.

This is like finding a $20 bill in your couch and exclaiming "free money!". It was yours anyway. It should be spent wisely, not frivolously.

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

New Mexico has become the first state in the Union to offer free child care to all its residents. It's estimated it will save families $12,000 a year.
link to original post

But how much will it cost them in taxes? Money isn't free.
link to original post

Expanding free care to all residents, rather than limiting it by income, is estimated to cost $ 120 million a year. New Mexico has a fund financed by taxes on oil leases that currently holds over ten billion dollars. The residents will receive their care, and out-of-state corporations will largely fund it.
link to original post

That fund should be used to lower taxes that people would have to pay anyway, such as public safety or education.

This is like finding a $20 bill in your couch and exclaiming "free money!". It was yours anyway. It should be spent wisely, not frivolously.
link to original post

Providing child care allows parents to work more, earn more money, boost the economy, and generate more tax revenue.
Cutting taxes isn't the answer to every problem. Solving the childcare problem would go a long way toward improving the nation's health.
Are you really saying that providing child care is frivolous? I think it makes a great incentive to attract young families to The Land of Enchantman.

Quote: billryan

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

New Mexico has become the first state in the Union to offer free child care to all its residents. It's estimated it will save families $12,000 a year.
link to original post

But how much will it cost them in taxes? Money isn't free.
link to original post

Expanding free care to all residents, rather than limiting it by income, is estimated to cost $ 120 million a year. New Mexico has a fund financed by taxes on oil leases that currently holds over ten billion dollars. The residents will receive their care, and out-of-state corporations will largely fund it.
link to original post

That fund should be used to lower taxes that people would have to pay anyway, such as public safety or education.

This is like finding a $20 bill in your couch and exclaiming "free money!". It was yours anyway. It should be spent wisely, not frivolously.
link to original post

Providing child care allows parents to work more, earn more money, boost the economy, and generate more tax revenue.
Cutting taxes isn't the answer to every problem. Solving the childcare problem would go a long way toward improving the nation's health.
Are you really saying that providing child care is frivolous? I think it makes a great incentive to attract young families to The Land of Enchantman.
link to original post

The original claim was that it is for all residents, not just workers. So we can be certain that we will have people who work and have no children subsidizing the child care of those who have children but do not work. Anything else the working class needs to do for them? Maybe pick up their groceries, or clean their bathrooms?

Watch some details of this program that make it a gold mine for the public officials in charge of regulating it. When has that ever not been the case?

Quote: billryan

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

New Mexico has become the first state in the Union to offer free child care to all its residents. It's estimated it will save families $12,000 a year.
link to original post

But how much will it cost them in taxes? Money isn't free.
link to original post

Expanding free care to all residents, rather than limiting it by income, is estimated to cost $ 120 million a year. New Mexico has a fund financed by taxes on oil leases that currently holds over ten billion dollars. The residents will receive their care, and out-of-state corporations will largely fund it.
link to original post

That fund should be used to lower taxes that people would have to pay anyway, such as public safety or education.

This is like finding a $20 bill in your couch and exclaiming "free money!". It was yours anyway. It should be spent wisely, not frivolously.
link to original post

Providing child care allows parents to work more, earn more money, boost the economy, and generate more tax revenue.
Cutting taxes isn't the answer to every problem. Solving the childcare problem would go a long way toward improving the nation's health.
Are you really saying that providing child care is frivolous? I think it makes a great incentive to attract young families to The Land of Enchantman.
link to original post

Families should raise their own children.

Quote: billryan

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

New Mexico has become the first state in the Union to offer free child care to all its residents. It's estimated it will save families $12,000 a year.
link to original post

But how much will it cost them in taxes? Money isn't free.
link to original post

Expanding free care to all residents, rather than limiting it by income, is estimated to cost $ 120 million a year. New Mexico has a fund financed by taxes on oil leases that currently holds over ten billion dollars. The residents will receive their care, and out-of-state corporations will largely fund it.
link to original post

And raise their prices to Consumers to pay for it. So much for being free.

Quote: billryan

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

New Mexico has become the first state in the Union to offer free child care to all its residents. It's estimated it will save families $12,000 a year.
link to original post

But how much will it cost them in taxes? Money isn't free.
link to original post

Expanding free care to all residents, rather than limiting it by income, is estimated to cost $ 120 million a year. New Mexico has a fund financed by taxes on oil leases that currently holds over ten billion dollars. The residents will receive their care, and out-of-state corporations will largely fund it.
link to original post

That fund should be used to lower taxes that people would have to pay anyway, such as public safety or education.

This is like finding a $20 bill in your couch and exclaiming "free money!". It was yours anyway. It should be spent wisely, not frivolously.
link to original post

Providing child care allows parents to work more, earn more money, boost the economy, and generate more tax revenue.
Cutting taxes isn't the answer to every problem. Solving the childcare problem would go a long way toward improving the nation's health.
Are you really saying that providing child care is frivolous? I think it makes a great incentive to attract young families to The Land of Enchantman.
link to original post

Childcare tends to take most of one person's earnings, this is because it is a full time job. That is why the woman usually needs to stay home until the kids can be in school most of the time. It is also why the decision to have kids cannot be taken lightly.

These "free child care" government plans never work out. Raising kids means other parts of your lifestyle need to be cut back.

How is Arizona raking it in with oil money anyway? Do I have the wrong state?

googled,

"Details on Arizona's Oil Production
Low Reserves and Production:

Arizona has virtually no significant proven crude oil reserves and its production is minimal, yielding only around 6,000 barrels in 2024.

Quote: odiousgambit

How is Arizona raking it in with oil money anyway? Do I have the wrong state?

googled,

"Details on Arizona's Oil Production
Low Reserves and Production:

Arizona has virtually no significant proven crude oil reserves and its production is minimal, yielding only around 6,000 barrels in 2024.
link to original post

New Mexico has the second highest crude output, although they'll tend to brag more about the chili peppers.

why was I thinking he said Arizona?

Quote: odiousgambit

why was I thinking he said Arizona?
link to original post

Understanding the machinations of your mind is a task beyond Hercules, let alone your humble narrator.

Best of luck! -D

Quote: odiousgambit

why was I thinking he said Arizona?
link to original post

Because in New Mexico you have to deal with Skylar White?

Quote: odiousgambit

why was I thinking he said Arizona?
link to original post

I live in Arizona, but I spend much of the summer in New Mexico, where the temperatures are usually in the high 80s. I'd consider moving to NM if it didn't snow so much. There is an interesting movement occurring in SW New Mexico that hasn't gotten a lot of attention nationally yet.

Fred Delgado is a sheriff in Lincoln County, earning about $45,000 a year, including overtime. He is a devoted husband and father of two. His wife, formerly a part-time teacher's aide making $13 an hour, faced challenges when her mother could no longer provide free babysitting. Transitioning to daycare, which cost $120 weekly against her $260pre-tax weekly earnings, led her to make the tough choice to leave her job, impacting both their family and her students.

However, if she could access free healthcare, her return to work could add an additional $180 to $200 weekly to the family , significantly improving their standard of living and strengthening the local economy. The ripple effect could be remarkable; if numerous families experienced similar support, the entire community could experience revitalization.

New Mexico has the opportunity to address its challenges head-on. Currently ranked last in education and struggling in various social and economic indicators, this presents a chance for meaningful change.

One compelling estimate suggests that a new initiative could generate approximately 10,000 childcare positions within just a few years, along with several hundred new commercial storefront businesses. This surge would undoubtedly boost the occupancy rates of commercial real estate, revitalizing the local economy.
This isn't trickle-down economics.
Over the past decade, New Mexico has made eight cuts to personal taxes, reaping substantial benefits from the booming revenues of oil companies. The state has already implemented systems to provide free childcare to a large portion of the population and has established a bureaucracy to verify eligibility, including a department dedicated to verifying program eligibility and another for investigating fraud. Eliminating the verification process and transferring the staff and investigators will save hundreds of thousands of dollars, which can be used to support hundreds of children.
NM has a very skewed economy. Overall, it ranks in the thirties for income among the states, but ranks 49th for the percentage of the population in the bottom 20% of national income.
With its natural beauty, it is trying very hard not to turn into a rich mans playground, as Montana is said to have become.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: billryan

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

New Mexico has become the first state in the Union to offer free child care to all its residents. It's estimated it will save families $12,000 a year.
link to original post

But how much will it cost them in taxes? Money isn't free.
link to original post

Expanding free care to all residents, rather than limiting it by income, is estimated to cost $ 120 million a year. New Mexico has a fund financed by taxes on oil leases that currently holds over ten billion dollars. The residents will receive their care, and out-of-state corporations will largely fund it.
link to original post

That fund should be used to lower taxes that people would have to pay anyway, such as public safety or education.

This is like finding a $20 bill in your couch and exclaiming "free money!". It was yours anyway. It should be spent wisely, not frivolously.
link to original post

Providing child care allows parents to work more, earn more money, boost the economy, and generate more tax revenue.
Cutting taxes isn't the answer to every problem. Solving the childcare problem would go a long way toward improving the nation's health.
Are you really saying that providing child care is frivolous? I think it makes a great incentive to attract young families to The Land of Enchantman.
link to original post

Childcare tends to take most of one person's earnings, this is because it is a full time job. That is why the woman usually needs to stay home until the kids can be in school most of the time. It is also why the decision to have kids cannot be taken lightly.

These "free child care" government plans never work out. Raising kids means other parts of your lifestyle need to be cut back.
link to original post

This was child care when I was a kid in the 1950s. My brother was born when I was 7 years old and my mother quit work until he was about 3 months old and then I got released from second grade an our early so I can go home to babysit my brother while my mother went to work second shift. So you have a 7-year-old watching a 3-month-old and it was completely approved by everybody. Try that now you go to jail. I loved it because come on, a 7 year old all alone in the house with no supervision for a whole hour. It was unending snack time everyday in front of the TV which was only 2 years old. I had reached the Holy Land.

Quote: billryan

Fred Delgado is a sheriff in Lincoln County, earning about $45,000 a year, including overtime. He is a devoted husband and father of two. His wife, formerly a part-time teacher's aide making $13 an hour, faced challenges when her mother could no longer provide free babysitting. Transitioning to daycare, which cost $120 weekly against her $260pre-tax weekly earnings, led her to make the tough choice to leave her job, impacting both their family and her students.

However, if she could access free healthcare, her return to work could add an additional $180 to $200 weekly to the family , significantly improving their standard of living and strengthening the local economy. The ripple effect could be remarkable; if numerous families experienced similar support, the entire community could experience revitalization.

New Mexico has the opportunity to address its challenges head-on. Currently ranked last in education and struggling in various social and economic indicators, this presents a chance for meaningful change.

One compelling estimate suggests that a new initiative could generate approximately 10,000 childcare positions within just a few years, along with several hundred new commercial storefront businesses. This surge would undoubtedly boost the occupancy rates of commercial real estate, revitalizing the local economy.
This isn't trickle-down economics.
Over the past decade, New Mexico has made eight cuts to personal taxes, reaping substantial benefits from the booming revenues of oil companies. The state has already implemented systems to provide free childcare to a large portion of the population and has established a bureaucracy to verify eligibility, including a department dedicated to verifying program eligibility and another for investigating fraud. Eliminating the verification process and transferring the staff and investigators will save hundreds of thousands of dollars, which can be used to support hundreds of children.
NM has a very skewed economy. Overall, it ranks in the thirties for income among the states, but ranks 49th for the percentage of the population in the bottom 20% of national income.
With its natural beauty, it is trying very hard not to turn into a rich mans playground, as Montana is said to have become.
link to original post

Where does it end? How about free clothing... just think of all the newly opened storefronts where people can get their free stuff. And instead of having to spend their own money on clothes, they can spend it on something else, revitalizing the local economy.

How about free food... instead of paying administrators to verify eligibility, just give everyone a food stamps card. People can spend more money on something else, revitalizing the local economy.

If the economy of New Mexico is in such dire shape that they need to give away the store to people so that more businesses will open, solely due to government support, then something is seriously wrong.

This is just another welfare program that its promoters wrap in "revitalizing the local economy" and "helping families". The welfare state has no bounds on its size, other than how much taxpayer money can they extract from other people to spend on the administrative state and its dependents.

What will lead to a societal collapse is when everyone depends on the state for their happy existence and the state runs out of OPM.

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

Fred Delgado is a sheriff in Lincoln County, earning about $45,000 a year, including overtime. He is a devoted husband and father of two. His wife, formerly a part-time teacher's aide making $13 an hour, faced challenges when her mother could no longer provide free babysitting. Transitioning to daycare, which cost $120 weekly against her $260pre-tax weekly earnings, led her to make the tough choice to leave her job, impacting both their family and her students.

However, if she could access free healthcare, her return to work could add an additional $180 to $200 weekly to the family , significantly improving their standard of living and strengthening the local economy. The ripple effect could be remarkable; if numerous families experienced similar support, the entire community could experience revitalization.

New Mexico has the opportunity to address its challenges head-on. Currently ranked last in education and struggling in various social and economic indicators, this presents a chance for meaningful change.

One compelling estimate suggests that a new initiative could generate approximately 10,000 childcare positions within just a few years, along with several hundred new commercial storefront businesses. This surge would undoubtedly boost the occupancy rates of commercial real estate, revitalizing the local economy.
This isn't trickle-down economics.
Over the past decade, New Mexico has made eight cuts to personal taxes, reaping substantial benefits from the booming revenues of oil companies. The state has already implemented systems to provide free childcare to a large portion of the population and has established a bureaucracy to verify eligibility, including a department dedicated to verifying program eligibility and another for investigating fraud. Eliminating the verification process and transferring the staff and investigators will save hundreds of thousands of dollars, which can be used to support hundreds of children.
NM has a very skewed economy. Overall, it ranks in the thirties for income among the states, but ranks 49th for the percentage of the population in the bottom 20% of national income.
With its natural beauty, it is trying very hard not to turn into a rich mans playground, as Montana is said to have become.
link to original post

Where does it end? How about free clothing... just think of all the newly opened storefronts where people can get their free stuff. And instead of having to spend their own money on clothes, they can spend it on something else, revitalizing the local economy.

How about free food... instead of paying administrators to verify eligibility, just give everyone a food stamps card. People can spend more money on something else, revitalizing the local economy.

If the economy of New Mexico is in such dire shape that they need to give away the store to people so that more businesses will open, solely due to government support, then something is seriously wrong.

This is just another welfare program that its promoters wrap in "revitalizing the local economy" and "helping families". The welfare state has no bounds on its size, other than how much taxpayer money can they extract from other people to spend on the administrative state and its dependents.

What will lead to a societal collapse is when everyone depends on the state for their happy existence and the state runs out of OPM.
link to original post

Okay.
Oh, wait, you're being serious?

You try to be glib, but the question seems a reasonable one.

Where does it end? Have you a limit or baseline to the social safety net?

Quote: Calder

You try to be glib, but the question seems a reasonable one.

Where does it end? Have you a limit or baseline to the social safety net?
link to original post

I think the current system is so broken it can't be fixed in small increments. If we are going to try social experiments, a small state with an unexpected windfall seems like the place to do it. Who decided that the state would provide free childcare from five years until they finish school, but not before? Will children who take part in the state-funded child care be better prepared for school and perform better?
The state has a windfall of $10 billion. If they took that money and distributed it among all two million residents, it would be a one-time payment of $5,000. Using one percent of the windfall for this program will save the average family $12,000 annually.

Quote: billryan

Quote: Calder

You try to be glib, but the question seems a reasonable one.

Where does it end? Have you a limit or baseline to the social safety net?
link to original post

I think the current system is so broken it can't be fixed in small increments. If we are going to try social experiments, a small state with an unexpected windfall seems like the place to do it. Who decided that the state would provide free childcare from five years until they finish school, but not before? Will children who take part in the state-funded child care be better prepared for school and perform better?
The state has a windfall of $10 billion. If they took that money and distributed it among all two million residents, it would be a one-time payment of $5,000. Using one percent of the windfall for this program will save the average family $12,000 annually.
link to original post

Do you see the math problem there? If the average family has more than 1.4 people in it, then they are getting screwed.

And that is the point of this program!

Math is hard. I've explained that I'm not mathematical, but I don't see how a family of four is better off receiving a one-time $20,000 payout rather than saving $12,000 a year and having a $ 9.88 billion discretionary fund.

Please explain your statement.

Quote: billryan

Math is hard. I've explained that I'm not mathematical, but I don't see how a family of four is better off receiving a one-time $20,000 payout rather than saving $12,000 a year and having a $ 9.88 billion discretionary fund.

Please explain your statement.
link to original post

No problem! If it costs families $12000 a year to pay for day care, it is going to cost the government the same. That is, unless they are throwing the kids in the prisons for the day and letting the prisoners babysit. Whoever is physically providing this care has to be paid. I call that a "Thirteenth Amendment problem" because in order to do it any other way, we would have to implement that practice banned by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Therefore they are not just "saving them money," they are spending this $10B to pay for it. OK. But if they are only going to have this windfall for one year, then they can only pay for the day care for one year. Then what?

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

Fred Delgado is a sheriff in Lincoln County, earning about $45,000 a year, including overtime. He is a devoted husband and father of two. His wife, formerly a part-time teacher's aide making $13 an hour, faced challenges when her mother could no longer provide free babysitting. Transitioning to daycare, which cost $120 weekly against her $260pre-tax weekly earnings, led her to make the tough choice to leave her job, impacting both their family and her students.

However, if she could access free healthcare, her return to work could add an additional $180 to $200 weekly to the family , significantly improving their standard of living and strengthening the local economy. The ripple effect could be remarkable; if numerous families experienced similar support, the entire community could experience revitalization.

New Mexico has the opportunity to address its challenges head-on. Currently ranked last in education and struggling in various social and economic indicators, this presents a chance for meaningful change.

One compelling estimate suggests that a new initiative could generate approximately 10,000 childcare positions within just a few years, along with several hundred new commercial storefront businesses. This surge would undoubtedly boost the occupancy rates of commercial real estate, revitalizing the local economy.
This isn't trickle-down economics.
Over the past decade, New Mexico has made eight cuts to personal taxes, reaping substantial benefits from the booming revenues of oil companies. The state has already implemented systems to provide free childcare to a large portion of the population and has established a bureaucracy to verify eligibility, including a department dedicated to verifying program eligibility and another for investigating fraud. Eliminating the verification process and transferring the staff and investigators will save hundreds of thousands of dollars, which can be used to support hundreds of children.
NM has a very skewed economy. Overall, it ranks in the thirties for income among the states, but ranks 49th for the percentage of the population in the bottom 20% of national income.
With its natural beauty, it is trying very hard not to turn into a rich mans playground, as Montana is said to have become.
link to original post

Where does it end? How about free clothing... just think of all the newly opened storefronts where people can get their free stuff. And instead of having to spend their own money on clothes, they can spend it on something else, revitalizing the local economy.

How about free food... instead of paying administrators to verify eligibility, just give everyone a food stamps card. People can spend more money on something else, revitalizing the local economy.

If the economy of New Mexico is in such dire shape that they need to give away the store to people so that more businesses will open, solely due to government support, then something is seriously wrong.

This is just another welfare program that its promoters wrap in "revitalizing the local economy" and "helping families". The welfare state has no bounds on its size, other than how much taxpayer money can they extract from other people to spend on the administrative state and its dependents.

What will lead to a societal collapse is when everyone depends on the state for their happy existence and the state runs out of OPM.
link to original post

There is a practical upper bound to the cost. I can't imagine one child consuming more than one day of childcare per day.

There is an old adage about a village being needed to raise a child; this seems like one approach to that problem.

Quote: Calder

You try to be glib, but the question seems a reasonable one.

Where does it end? Have you a limit or baseline to the social safety net?
link to original post

I think the free food is fine as long as everyone agrees to get spayed and neutered.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: billryan

Math is hard. I've explained that I'm not mathematical, but I don't see how a family of four is better off receiving a one-time $20,000 payout rather than saving $12,000 a year and having a $ 9.88 billion discretionary fund.

Please explain your statement.
link to original post

No problem! If it costs families $12000 a year to pay for day care, it is going to cost the government the same. That is, unless they are throwing the kids in the prisons for the day and letting the prisoners babysit. Whoever is physically providing this care has to be paid. I call that a "Thirteenth Amendment problem" because in order to do it any other way, we would have to implement that practice banned by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Therefore they are not just "saving them money," they are spending this $10B to pay for it. OK. But if they are only going to have this windfall for one year, then they can only pay for the day care for one year. Then what?
link to original post

So many things wrong here. Let's start with this. New Mexico has oil and mineral rights with multiple companies. The leases promised the state X amount a year, and if the revenue from the leases exceeded a certain dollar amount, the state received part of the windfall. The revenue from these windfalls has now surpassed $10 billion. The state plans to allocate $120 million of that amount this year to provide free child care. New Mexico has cut state taxes, partially as a result of excess income from oil production, eight times in the last decade. The state next to NM proposed using part of its windfall to put a Bible in every classroom. Different strokes and all of that.
If the state funds this to the tune of $120 million, that leaves them $9.88 billion plus whatever windfall income they receive this year.
As far as savings go, I think that one entity negotiating prices for 400,000 children would be more cost-effective than 200,000 families competing with each other. The state will also generate revenue as more daycare licenses are issued.
It's a $120 million line item for a state with a $10 billion annual budget and a larger windfall fund.

What I don't understand is how someone can obsess over the falling birthrate but be against childcare. If you want families to contribute positively to society, shouldn't they expect society to do the same for them?

Quote: billryan

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: billryan

Math is hard. I've explained that I'm not mathematical, but I don't see how a family of four is better off receiving a one-time $20,000 payout rather than saving $12,000 a year and having a $ 9.88 billion discretionary fund.

Please explain your statement.
link to original post

No problem! If it costs families $12000 a year to pay for day care, it is going to cost the government the same. That is, unless they are throwing the kids in the prisons for the day and letting the prisoners babysit. Whoever is physically providing this care has to be paid. I call that a "Thirteenth Amendment problem" because in order to do it any other way, we would have to implement that practice banned by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Therefore they are not just "saving them money," they are spending this $10B to pay for it. OK. But if they are only going to have this windfall for one year, then they can only pay for the day care for one year. Then what?
link to original post

So many things wrong here. Let's start with this. New Mexico has oil and mineral rights with multiple companies. The leases promised the state X amount a year, and if the revenue from the leases exceeded a certain dollar amount, the state received part of the windfall. The revenue from these windfalls has now surpassed $10 billion. The state plans to allocate $120 million of that amount this year to provide free child care. New Mexico has cut state taxes, partially as a result of excess income from oil production, eight times in the last decade. The state next to NM proposed using part of their windfall to put a bible in every classroom. Different strokes and all of that.
If the state funds this to the tune of $120 million, that leaves them $9.88 billion plus whatever windfall income they receive this year.
link to original post

Those numbers are a little different than originally cited. Actually even worse! But I can work with those too.

OK, so it's only $120M per year they are spending on this program. And it costs families $12K per year for day care. That's a convenient pair of numbers, that means $120M is enough to pay for day care for 10000 families.

Now you say this is for all residents of NM. ("Residents" is a loaded word. Why not just citizens?) I think there might be more than 10000 families in NM who use day care. And there certainly will be more, now that it is "free."

Somebody's getting stiffed. Day care has two major expenses: the facility (including insurance) and the labor. Nobody's getting the building for free, nobody's getting insurance for free, and nobody's working for free.

It is costing $120 million to expand the existing program to all residents. I believe that about half of the non-native families in the state already qualify for free childcare by meeting the income limits, with the federal government covering the costs for those with incomes below a certain amount. The large Native American population has its own plan, funded by the Federal Government.
Arizona offers free childcare to families of two, making up to around $25,000, and four-member households can earn almost $40,000.
New Mexico is already more generous.. A single mother with children in NYC qualifies for free childcare if her income is under $70,000.
If they can find a licensed center with a vacancy.

Quote: billryan

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: billryan

Math is hard. I've explained that I'm not mathematical, but I don't see how a family of four is better off receiving a one-time $20,000 payout rather than saving $12,000 a year and having a $ 9.88 billion discretionary fund.

Please explain your statement.
link to original post

No problem! If it costs families $12000 a year to pay for day care, it is going to cost the government the same. That is, unless they are throwing the kids in the prisons for the day and letting the prisoners babysit. Whoever is physically providing this care has to be paid. I call that a "Thirteenth Amendment problem" because in order to do it any other way, we would have to implement that practice banned by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Therefore they are not just "saving them money," they are spending this $10B to pay for it. OK. But if they are only going to have this windfall for one year, then they can only pay for the day care for one year. Then what?
link to original post

So many things wrong here. Let's start with this. New Mexico has oil and mineral rights with multiple companies. The leases promised the state X amount a year, and if the revenue from the leases exceeded a certain dollar amount, the state received part of the windfall. The revenue from these windfalls has now surpassed $10 billion. The state plans to allocate $120 million of that amount this year to provide free child care. New Mexico has cut state taxes, partially as a result of excess income from oil production, eight times in the last decade. The state next to NM proposed using part of its windfall to put a Bible in every classroom. Different strokes and all of that.
If the state funds this to the tune of $120 million, that leaves them $9.88 billion plus whatever windfall income they receive this year.
As far as savings go, I think that one entity negotiating prices for 400,000 children would be more cost-effective than 200,000 families competing with each other. The state will also generate revenue as more daycare licenses are issued.
It's a $120 million line item for a state with a $10 billion annual budget and a larger windfall fund.

What I don't understand is how someone can obsess over the falling birthrate but be against childcare. If you want families to contribute positively to society, shouldn't they expect society to do the same for them?
link to original post

The birthrate is falling because women were told that it was more important to have a career.

Now you want to tell women it's more important to have a career and let the government raise their children from infancy.

It's better for kids to be raised by their own parents until they reach school age. It served society well until the feminists screwed up everything.

Quote: billryan

What I don't understand is how someone can obsess over the falling birthrate but be against childcare. If you want families to contribute positively to society, shouldn't they expect society to do the same for them?
link to original post

Because we are supposed to have families raising kids. Kids are not an accessory like an Audi and fancy purse. The whole government-paid childcare is a feminist idea so a woman does not have to "waste herself raising kids." And that is a huge part of the reason for the falling rate. Girls used to want to grow up to be mothers, now fewer and fewer do. Which is why paid childcare never gets the TFR back up.

Quote: KevinAA

The birthrate is falling because women were told that it was more important to have a career.

Now you want to tell women it's more important to have a career and let the government raise their children from infancy.

It's better for kids to be raised by their own parents until they reach school age. It served society well until the feminists screwed up everything.
link to original post

With divorce rates, women without careers were often left with poor options. Even worse, if they had kids and only qualified for low paying jobs.

Women with kids sitting at home receiving assistance but can't afford to work because they have kids and no husband aren't exactly praised as worthy persons in our society.

There's a lot more issues to all this is what I'm saying.

Quote: odiousgambit

why was I thinking he said Arizona?
link to original post

Nevada --> Arizona --> New Mexico ____Some people stay three counties ahead of the possé.

The conversation is becoming decidely political, i.e.; about the benefits and evils of large government programs. This thread is not about the social programs of New Mexico. I am asking the adults in the room to please turn away from this conversation before it becomes necessary to suspend members for political speech.

Quote: billryan

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

Quote: KevinAA

Quote: billryan

New Mexico has become the first state in the Union to offer free child care to all its residents. It's estimated it will save families $12,000 a year.
link to original post

But how much will it cost them in taxes? Money isn't free.
link to original post

Expanding free care to all residents, rather than limiting it by income, is estimated to cost $ 120 million a year. New Mexico has a fund financed by taxes on oil leases that currently holds over ten billion dollars. The residents will receive their care, and out-of-state corporations will largely fund it.
link to original post

That fund should be used to lower taxes that people would have to pay anyway, such as public safety or education.

This is like finding a $20 bill in your couch and exclaiming "free money!". It was yours anyway. It should be spent wisely, not frivolously.
link to original post

Providing child care allows parents to work more, earn more money, boost the economy, and generate more tax revenue.
Cutting taxes isn't the answer to every problem. Solving the childcare problem would go a long way toward improving the nation's health.
Are you really saying that providing child care is frivolous? I think it makes a great incentive to attract young families to The Land of Enchantman.
link to original post

My son and daughter in law work full time. My ex wife and daughter in laws mother take turns in what would be considered ‘child care’. My son can occasionally work from home on not set hours, so most of his day is spent with daughter and work can be done if I come over, or after his wife gets home from work. They have evaluated the cost of child care, the negatives of it, and have decided to use the plan I’ve outlined. Never did they think it’s the governments responsibility to provide them with childcare.

How’s this for an idea? If you can’t afford to take care of a child without government assistance, dont have that child?

Maybe my Heavy Water Experiment will be the end of us. No not that kind, a different kind!

It's finally arrived. My first 5 gallons of deuterium oxide, more commonly known as heavy water. But I'm not going to be using it for nuclear stuff (not yet!) but for biology. Biology is more powerful.

Heavy water kills us and other life by interfering with our proton pumps. A proton pump is a protein membrane used to concentrate hydrogen ions, protons, by moving them through its structure using some form of energy, like a magician's ball-and-handkerchief trick. But it doesn't work very well with a deuterium nucleus as the extra mass of the neutron (and possibly also some dipole effects) interfere with that transport. And you die!

When I first learned how this worked, I noted that it doesn't require all of your water to be heavy to kill you, just some significant amount of it, and that suggests it is a slow, cumulative poison. But we are always drinking deuterium oxide, up to 150 PPM in drinking water. Is this why we die, or why we age? Has anyone ever done an experiment of a higher organism consuming only fully de-deuterated water and seeing what happens to its health and lifespan? Maybe we should.

But I'm not going to be drinking any of this, it's going in my terrariums. I am setting up sealed terrariums and aquariums with a variety of algae, plankton, fungi, various small organisms, and I will be introducing heavy water to their environments, in continually increasing concentrations. Yes most of that life will die, but not all of it. The mighty power of evolution, if my hypotheses are correct, will eventually lead to organisms with proton pumps that can tolerate deuterons, and maybe even prefer them to protons. I will have developed new life forms and a new ecosystem, that cannot live anywhere else on earth except for these sealed environments in the Monkeylab. That's one way to get chicks to come to my apartment. "Hey, want to check out these extragalactic life forms I've bred in a glass jar and chill?"

And I've just started! For deuterons have another interesting and useful property, which is nuclear fusion. Now I start gradually shutting down the energy available in my terrariums, light, heat, chemical nutrients, until these organisms start dying. But they won't all die. Maybe some of them- and this is the crazy part- will evolve their own internal energy sources... energy sources... fusion... what?!?!? Why not? All you have to do to make nuclei fuse is to get them close enough, overcoming the repulsion of the two positive charges. Can a protein membrane generate enough force to do that? I don't know, but we're going to find out!

So that's how i'm going to do it, and what will I get? Maybe both hypotheses are more correct than anyone would expect, we'll find out that de-deuterated, light water is very very good for us, and that heavy water can be fused biologically to crate energy, and we'll end up with near-unlimited energy and lifespans. Or maybe I have overlooked a danger, these microorganisms get out into nature, and can scavenge enough deuterium from the environment until the planet is glowing from the heat they generate, and we all die.

Call it extinction due to evolutionary changes near the bottom of the food chain, either due to nature or to an AP who needs more games to play, making them unable to support the rest of the food chain and/or changing the environment enough that we cannot survive in it.

Who are these Monkees? Why do they go on and on about stepping stones? Is there something someone did to society?


Paul Young - I'm gonna tear your playhouse down (Special extended Remix) 1984

Okay, 3 ways society ends by "the machines"

1. First of all, Ai doesn't need to be as smart as everyone thinks/ A Roomba set on automatic clean with machine gun set loose in a room will likely kill a few people. And the machine part only gets worse as time goes on.

2. Spam theory. - Based on the idea, that no matter how many safeguards we set up, some idiot always opens that spam and releases the malfunction into the network, that unleashes a hurricane of electronic woe.

3. Westworld theory - "Machines designing machines." We don't even know how these things work any longer. What's in the programming? Who knows?

Quote: rxwine

Okay, 3 ways society ends by "the machines"

1. First of all, Ai doesn't need to be as smart as everyone thinks/ A Roomba set on automatic clean with machine gun set loose in a room will likely kill a few people. And the machine part only gets worse as time goes on.

2. Spam theory. - Based on the idea, that no matter how many safeguards we set up, some idiot always opens that spam and releases the malfunction into the network, that unleashes a hurricane of electronic woe.

3. Westworld theory - "Machines designing machines." We don't even know how these things work any longer. What's in the programming? Who knows?
link to original post

You can almost guarantee that none of this will come true. Ever noticed how abysmally wrong most predictions about the future are. That's because we base the future on what we know right now not what we know next week or next month or certainly what we know 5 years from now. Things are constantly changing and they are changing now at such a rapid pace that predictions are useless. I just read that we are doubling human knowledge every 12 months. Think about that. Even more startling we are doubling medical knowledge every 2.5 months. Google it. Anything that's put into practice in the medical field now is already way outdated when it hits the market. AI will completely take over medicine because humans can't keep up.

Some have done well.

Quote:

Jules Verne predicted a wide range of technologies, including submarines, space travel, helicopters, gasoline-powered cars, video conferencing (telephones with screens), and an early form of the internet. He accurately imagined aspects of the lunar landing, the use of electric propulsion, and the development of high-speed transportation like maglev trains. Verne's predictions were notable for their strong foundation in the scientific principles of his time, even if the specific implementations differed.

Likely it helps if you can identify the probable mechanism for which there might be a possible improvement.

I imagine birds gave man hope for flight. But maybe not in the way he imagined. DaVinci helicopter works to some extent so I hear.
s

The wing suit could have been invented 30,000 years ago. Sturdy cloths apparently existed.

That certainly would have impressed natives had a person come flying over the valley.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: rxwine

Okay, 3 ways society ends by "the machines"

1. First of all, Ai doesn't need to be as smart as everyone thinks/ A Roomba set on automatic clean with machine gun set loose in a room will likely kill a few people. And the machine part only gets worse as time goes on.

2. Spam theory. - Based on the idea, that no matter how many safeguards we set up, some idiot always opens that spam and releases the malfunction into the network, that unleashes a hurricane of electronic woe.

3. Westworld theory - "Machines designing machines." We don't even know how these things work any longer. What's in the programming? Who knows?
link to original post

You can almost guarantee that none of this will come true. Ever noticed how abysmally wrong most predictions about the future are. That's because we base the future on what we know right now not what we know next week or next month or certainly what we know 5 years from now. Things are constantly changing and they are changing now at such a rapid pace that predictions are useless. I just read that we are doubling human knowledge every 12 months. Think about that. Even more startling we are doubling medical knowledge every 2.5 months. Google it. Anything that's put into practice in the medical field now is already way outdated when it hits the market. AI will completely take over medicine because humans can't keep up.
link to original post

I keep hearing that medical knowledge is doubling every 2.5 months. I think this is because medical research is now being funded by so many countries. But I don't believe that this will result in incredibly rapid breakthroughs because I suspect that much of the new research is pedestrian stuff. A paper on the rate of transmission of various viruses in the country of Gabon may produce new knowledge but it's not going to lead to the kind of breakthroughs that might emerge from top medical research centers in America, Europe, Israel, Japan, etc.

Quote: ChumpChange

Who are these Monkees? Why do they go on and on about stepping stones? Is there something someone did to society?

Paul Young - I'm gonna tear your playhouse down (Special extended Remix) 1984

link to original post

Bobby Hart, who co-wrote ‘Last Train to Clarksville’ and other hits for the Monkees, dead at 86 - PUBLISHED Sep 14, 2025, 4:57 PM ET
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/14/entertainment/bobby-hart-dead-monkees?Date=20250914&Profile=cnn&utm_content=1757884540&utm_medium=social&utm_source=threads


Bobby Hart, a key part of the Monkees’ multimedia empire who teamed with Tommy Boyce on such hits as “Last Train to Clarksville” and “I’m Not Your Steppin’ Stone,” has died. He was 86.

Hart died at his home in Los Angeles, according to his friend and co-author, Glenn Ballantyne. He had been in poor health since breaking his hip last year.

Quote: rxwine

...

3. Westworld theory - "Machines designing machines." We don't even know how these things work any longer. What's in the programming? Who knows?
link to original post

I'm not sure machines would design machines. Why would they want to? And why would they want anything?

We do it for self-satisfaction, for curiosity, for desire for profit and these are not things machines are capable of. When we have a lot of these machines up and running I think we will be more surprised by what they don't do. And from that we might learn why we do what we do. Look how many bad things humans have done for some reason relating to sex. Machines don't do sex unless a human tells them to. So that's a whole category of wrongdoing that will be absent from their behavior.

Desire is what it all comes down to, and I think we'll discover that the Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven Heavenly Virtues are what distinguish us from the non-human in our behavior, both good and bad.

Quote: rxwine

That certainly would have impressed natives had a person come flying over the valley.
link to original post

You may be imagining something that can't happen. A wingsuit user appears to be flying in a video, but they are actually falling, not flying*, so there is a limitation. A person could fall into a valley and maybe look like he was flying to those below, but not over a valley very far from where he dropped off. Actually I think to those below, that he is falling, is pretty clear, maybe not though.

* I imagine there may be periods of uplift if air is rising at spots

the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!”   She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: rxwine

That certainly would have impressed natives had a person come flying over the valley.
link to original post

You may be imagining something that can't happen. A wingsuit user appears to be flying in a video, but they are actually falling, not flying*, so there is a limitation. A person could fall into a valley and maybe look like he was flying to those below, but not over a valley very far from where he dropped off. Actually I think to those below, that he is falling, is pretty clear, maybe not though.

* I imagine there may be periods of uplift if air is rising at spots
link to original post

That's way too pedantic. They didn't call the animal the "falling squirrel" when they named it.

Anyway, I would say there is technically or least semantically a difference between, gliding and pure falling. It's not a satellite in space with no atmosphere. You have a vector, Victor.

Someone hammer me with advanced physics. I enjoy the words.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: rxwine

That certainly would have impressed natives had a person come flying over the valley.
link to original post

You may be imagining something that can't happen. A wingsuit user appears to be flying in a video, but they are actually falling, not flying*, so there is a limitation. A person could fall into a valley and maybe look like he was flying to those below, but not over a valley very far from where he dropped off. Actually I think to those below, that he is falling, is pretty clear, maybe not though.

* I imagine there may be periods of uplift if air is rising at spots
link to original post

That's way too pedantic. They didn't call the animal the "falling squirrel" when they named it.

Anyway, I would say there is technically or least semantically a difference between, gliding and pure falling. It's not a satellite in space with no atmosphere. You have a vector, Victor.

Someone hammer me with advanced physics. I enjoy the words.
link to original post

Forget advanced physics. Any basic intro to flight is going to explain opposing forces, like lift/gravity, and thrust/drag.

Without thrust, you're falling. You can play some clever tricks to fall sideways, and you can trade some sideways momentum for altitude, but you're still falling.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: rxwine

...

3. Westworld theory - "Machines designing machines." We don't even know how these things work any longer. What's in the programming? Who knows?
link to original post

I'm not sure machines would design machines. Why would they want to? And why would they want anything?

We do it for self-satisfaction, for curiosity, for desire for profit and these are not things machines are capable of. When we have a lot of these machines up and running I think we will be more surprised by what they don't do. And from that we might learn why we do what we do. Look how many bad things humans have done for some reason relating to sex. Machines don't do sex unless a human tells them to. So that's a whole category of wrongdoing that will be absent from their behavior.

Desire is what it all comes down to, and I think we'll discover that the Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven Heavenly Virtues are what distinguish us from the non-human in our behavior, both good and bad.
link to original post

I think you're using design somewhat differently than what machines can do. Boston Dynamics teach their robots to achieve the most ideal movement for crossing a particular platform. It's basically, (crudely) I imagine, random tries. The fully enhanced learning pattern can then be transferred to similar machine. You can do the same with creating a chess program even with minimal chess knowledge. It may not be smart in the sense that we think it, and certainly chess programs use all the human knowledge we gained before they became available.

What's the actual limitation here. Can you design out of your mind a complex movement in programming language from scratch faster than a computer.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: rxwine

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: rxwine

That certainly would have impressed natives had a person come flying over the valley.
link to original post

You may be imagining something that can't happen. A wingsuit user appears to be flying in a video, but they are actually falling, not flying*, so there is a limitation. A person could fall into a valley and maybe look like he was flying to those below, but not over a valley very far from where he dropped off. Actually I think to those below, that he is falling, is pretty clear, maybe not though.

* I imagine there may be periods of uplift if air is rising at spots
link to original post

That's way too pedantic. They didn't call the animal the "falling squirrel" when they named it.

Anyway, I would say there is technically or least semantically a difference between, gliding and pure falling. It's not a satellite in space with no atmosphere. You have a vector, Victor.

Someone hammer me with advanced physics. I enjoy the words.
link to original post

Forget advanced physics. Any basic intro to flight is going to explain opposing forces, like lift/gravity, and thrust/drag.

Without thrust, you're falling. You can play some clever tricks to fall sideways, and you can trade some sideways momentum for altitude, but you're still falling.
link to original post

Not 30,000 years ago, they wouldn't. That was my scenario.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Dieter

Quote: rxwine

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: rxwine

That certainly would have impressed natives had a person come flying over the valley.
link to original post

You may be imagining something that can't happen. A wingsuit user appears to be flying in a video, but they are actually falling, not flying*, so there is a limitation. A person could fall into a valley and maybe look like he was flying to those below, but not over a valley very far from where he dropped off. Actually I think to those below, that he is falling, is pretty clear, maybe not though.

* I imagine there may be periods of uplift if air is rising at spots
link to original post

That's way too pedantic. They didn't call the animal the "falling squirrel" when they named it.

Anyway, I would say there is technically or least semantically a difference between, gliding and pure falling. It's not a satellite in space with no atmosphere. You have a vector, Victor.

Someone hammer me with advanced physics. I enjoy the words.
link to original post

Forget advanced physics. Any basic intro to flight is going to explain opposing forces, like lift/gravity, and thrust/drag.

Without thrust, you're falling. You can play some clever tricks to fall sideways, and you can trade some sideways momentum for altitude, but you're still falling.
link to original post

Not 30,000 years ago, they wouldn't.
link to original post

Perhaps we've collectively learned something since then?
As for the squirrel thing, they are more flighty than other squirrel flavors, and presumably we'd gotten a better understanding by the time someone named the sugar glider.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Dieter

Quote: rxwine

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: rxwine

That certainly would have impressed natives had a person come flying over the valley.
link to original post

You may be imagining something that can't happen. A wingsuit user appears to be flying in a video, but they are actually falling, not flying*, so there is a limitation. A person could fall into a valley and maybe look like he was flying to those below, but not over a valley very far from where he dropped off. Actually I think to those below, that he is falling, is pretty clear, maybe not though.

* I imagine there may be periods of uplift if air is rising at spots
link to original post

That's way too pedantic. They didn't call the animal the "falling squirrel" when they named it.

Anyway, I would say there is technically or least semantically a difference between, gliding and pure falling. It's not a satellite in space with no atmosphere. You have a vector, Victor.

Someone hammer me with advanced physics. I enjoy the words.
link to original post

Anyway, my whole point was more about the capability to do something long before we actually needed all the pre-inventions. Betsy Ross couldn't make a microwave, but she was capable of making a wingsuit.

Forget advanced physics. Any basic intro to flight is going to explain opposing forces, like lift/gravity, and thrust/drag.

Without thrust, you're falling. You can play some clever tricks to fall sideways, and you can trade some sideways momentum for altitude, but you're still falling.
link to original post

Not 30,000 years ago, they wouldn't.
link to original post

Perhaps we've collectively learned something since then?
As for the squirrel thing, they are more flighty than other squirrel flavors, and presumably we'd gotten a better understanding by the time someone named the sugar glider.
link to original post

My whole point was more about doing things before we needed the pre-inventions. Betsy Ross couldn't make a microwave, but she could have made a wingsuit.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: rxwine

That certainly would have impressed natives had a person come flying over the valley.
link to original post

You may be imagining something that can't happen. A wingsuit user appears to be flying in a video, but they are actually falling, not flying*, so there is a limitation. A person could fall into a valley and maybe look like he was flying to those below, but not over a valley very far from where he dropped off. Actually I think to those below, that he is falling, is pretty clear, maybe not though.

* I imagine there may be periods of uplift if air is rising at spots
link to original post

That's way too pedantic. They didn't call the animal the "falling squirrel" when they named it.

Anyway, I would say there is technically or least semantically a difference between, gliding and pure falling. It's not a satellite in space with no atmosphere. You have a vector, Victor.

Someone hammer me with advanced physics. I enjoy the words.
link to original post

I am repeating what others are cautioning, since people are watching videos and concluding that this is really flying. I got a hint you were thinking this

"A typical wingsuit flight may cover around 4.6 miles" per google . I have to admit that's not bad

For some reason I thought of this one just recently. Too short time tor "Remember When" and fits here better.

Remember when international adoptions were a huge thing? East Bloc, South America, and China were ones I mostly knew of, but probably from other places as well.

I knew a couple adopted from Columbia. Had a mortgage customer needed a HELOC fast because they offered here a sibling of a kid she was adopting from IIRC Russia but FSU for sure. Overjoyed she was but she needed $25K *NOW* to do it. Auto service writer chatting with he went to far east Russia and then I learned what a disaster the place was socially. And this is what I just bumped into.

That seems to have dried up in the late 2000s. Russia and China saw their demographic time bomb and turned it all off. Actually Russia saw it in the 90s but were so flat on their back they needed the fees.

Does anyone know if people in the EU did international adoptions similar to here in USA? Meaning outside EU, not a Frenchy adopting a German child.