[HarryHirsch]

It's not an unmitigated positive, instead it's a transparent move to paper over the high cost of housing by getting both parents to work. Of course housing prices will adjust accordingly, the supply remains the same, and the demand side has more money to spend.

[kiba]

Land price will adjust accordingly in response to any positive economic news. If you want an unalloy good to come out of these programs, tax lands.

Otherwise, any welfare program will just get some of its value captured by landlords.

[SoftTalker]

Land value tax won't help unless you greatly reduce the zoning and regulation over what can be built on the land.

Putting the land to its most efficient use isn't possible if all you're allowed to build is a two-story detached single family house.

[storf45]

Our property taxes are already crazy high and continue to go up every year. How does this help?

[blfr]

Land value tax is interesting because it encourages/forces more efficient use but you can do a lot more by cutting demand through limiting immigration and financialization opportunities.

[Eextra953]

Across the US, the majority (2/3-ish) of children already live in families where both parents are employed. I don't see free childcare moving that statistic more than a few percentage points at best. I'm skeptical that this policy would encourage more parents to work and further raise housing costs, especially since this would mostly affect families with children who are pre-K. It is a big policy change but the number of families it will affect is quite small I think. If it does have any effect on housing cost I would expect to see it at the very low-end since it would help low-earners the most.

[usaar333]

In Quebec it was a 20% jump in mother employment: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-31/affordabl...

And had all sorts of negative outcomes for the kids: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/long-term-study-of-...

[ransom1538]

Exactly. Now landlords will charge more. The owner of assets get all the money.

[ryandrake]

By your and OP's logic, nothing should be done to subsidize anything or make people's lives more affordable because the excess will be sucked up by landlords. On the flip side, if we did things to make people's lives less affordable, would that translate into landlords giving back by lowering rents? I don't think so.