281–290 of 522 posts
Women's introduction to the workforce was the right thing to happen but it fundamentally hurt labor and the "middle class". You can't double the supply without changing anything in the system and inflationary effects of dual income are ridiculous.
It really comes down to the ratio. Our state has a 4-1 ratio for infants (which is entirely reasonable). You are basically paying for 1/4 of a person's time. If you want to put them into a daycare where the worker is adequately paid, that's $6000 a year alone, let alone overhead costs for facilities/admin. No matter who pays for it, raising children is time consuming. And time is becoming more valuable.
Exactly right. People also forget that while the parent works 8 hours a day, the kid is dropped off before and after commute time which means the kid may be in daycare for 9 or 10 hours. So if you get infant care at $175/week for four infants divided by 50 hours, you get $14/hour and that is gross revenue to the business. If you happen to lose an infant to a parental move, now you are losing money for that class. You…
Childcare costs more than twice as much as our mortgage. We live in a blue state where many businesses feel compelled to pay $15/hour for unskilled labor. We interviewed child care providers who wanted $18-$22 per hour with no certifications, degrees, or training. We looked at au pairs, but the agencies all wanted $8k-$10k up front with no guarantees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure . In a very large share of people work either in bullshit jobs or unnecessary jobs or are replacablable. On the other hand, if children would get more love,maybe more of them would grow to be exceptional?
The problem is there is no easy way to know in large swaths what jobs are BS or unnecessary. And of course someone could have a BS job and then later move on to a job that does have an impact! Trying to evaluate the worth of people is pretty much futile, and whenever it has been attempted there have been huge negative outcomes. And even during less extreme historical circumstances, it is just expensive to do, the rec…
Heck, even when we talk about Newton's discoveries , other people on similar stuff at the time and would have gotten there.
And if it's 99%, why not let the family choose which parent stays with the kid ?
Combine that with paying really well to trully important jobs.
You'll get reasonably good results with that.
It doesn't have to be this way. Québec has had subsidized daycare for almost 25 years, and the program literally pays for itself (and more!) via increased income taxes from parents that would have otherwise chosen to stay at home. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/12/affordable-daycare-su... > In Montreal, Quebec’s largest city, a day of child care cost on average $10 in 2016 > Quebec’s program, which introduced lo…
“It would allow more women to enter the workforce”. I understand what the quote means but, honestly, this is one of the big wrong points of our society: that caring for the children full-time is NOT being part of the workforce. This is one of those cultural ideas embedded in XXI Century logic which only does harm and transmits the wrong message: people’s life is as valuable as the money the work or the “job” they hav…
I don’t really see the moral panic in having children being raised together in groups rather than by a dedicated or househusband.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is subsidized daycare necessary in these cases though? In America if daycare costs X and you earn Y much greater than X, then obviously you'll make more money going to work and sending your kid to daycare than being a stay at home parent. The people who choose to stay at home often either have multiple kids (higher X) or earn little enough (lower Y) that it's not an economic advantage for them to work. But those…
100%. We shouldn't be creating perverse incentives. Subsidizing a low-wage job is a net loss for everyone. For taxpayers, it's just more money out of their pocket and for the parents, you're being encouraged to leave your children with strangers so you can go and work a job that doesn't pay enough to cover the cost of paying those strangers. We need to get past the ridiculous idea that staying home with one's childre…
Why then don't one of the parents choose to stay at home or work at home (excluding single parents of course)? Either childcare is not a big expense , or there's some kind of societal taboo against raising your own kids at home? Is this part of the bigger bubble that makes raising kids so effortful and costly in time, that people just end up not having them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In other words, the extra money may not be making it into the general economy much and it may instead just be supporting higher home prices. This was the topic of conversation this weekend between my wife and I and 4 other couples that we are friends with, each of us with young children. We live in SoCal. We have young kids. We basically can afford to live here, despite having high-paying, dual-income households. T…
You have a house and multiple cars but you can’t go to Disneyland as often as you’d like? Such hardship... barely living...
The main point is that these are presumably upper-middle class families. You would expect that with their higher-than-average incomes they would have greater amounts of discretionary income that they would be spending and that their expenses would be spread out across more of the economy, supporting many other businesses and services. Instead the high salaries are being captured by housing costs. Sure they're not hurting, but it is surprising that dual-income, high-earning families are basically breaking even.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be very careful about making that large a generalization (that all else being equal, women would prefer to stay home over working). Childcare is mind numbing work, especially with young kids. Sure, some women (and men) would prefer that, but a LOT of women prefer office work over raising children. "why not to enjoy life instead of spending 50-60 hours at the office?" is really selling short how much work rais…
> Childcare is mind numbing work > It is NOT enjoying life to stay home with toddlers. > I was so happy to be able to go back to work > the weekends are way more stressful than the weekdays I have to say, this kind of perspective on being a parent puzzles me, even though it's pretty widely held. Honestly, many parents I encounter seem almost as if they'd prefer to be their child's aunt or uncle than their mom or dad.…
I think attitudes toward parenting are completely impossible to rationalize, so your puzzlement isn't at all surprising.
Consider that many (most?) people who have kids don't do so out of a 100% independent choice, with 100% foreknowledge as to what it will entail and be like.
People have kids because their parents pressure them to give them grandchildren. People have kids because their peer group is having them. People have kids because their religion wants them to. People have kids because they don't know enough about contraception to avoid getting pregnant, and then their religion or moral code prohibits an abortion.
People have kids because they really really do want to have kids. But they vastly underestimate the work required to raise a kid, and feel completely natural amounts of regret, even if they truly love their kids and want the best for them. But it's still a bit of a taboo to suggest out loud any regrets about becoming a parent, so they keep it bottled up.
So just remember that every parent arrived there due to different circumstances. And regardless, every person -- parent or not -- has different likes, dislikes, desires, and levels of patience. What gives you a sense of purpose could easily be someone else's tedious drudgery. That shouldn't diminish your happiness, or demonize their boredom; it just means that you and some other people are different. Which is basically what being human is about, no?