Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 138 posts

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#101

Post by Tichy »

gaius wrote: post #45
Tichy wrote: post #31

Why is daycare so expensive? Seems to me you need a room and two to three people to watch over the children. If you have 10 children in the room, and everyone costs 40000$, that would mean it costs 400000$ per year to rent a room and pay the salary for three people? It seems child nurses earn a LOT more than the average IT person?

Consider any school. They have teachers, sure. And they have caterers, and cleaners, and contractors to maintain the infrastructure... There are a lot more people involved than just the direct service providers.

Caterers are not a must I think - we didn't have any at school. Maintaining the infrastructure: isn't that usually included in the rent for a building? Maybe somebody should check where all the money for the schools goes ;-) But I think most teachers earn more than childcare nurses.

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#102

Post by cpr »

e40 wrote: post #43
cpr wrote: post #18

I know one shouldn't question orthodoxy, but it seems insane to me to have children and then dump them all day, from a young age, with strangers. What's the point of having them if you're not raising them?

I'm guessing you don't have children. Children being alone at home vs. being with lots of other children in daycare has many benefits. First, over the years I've seen a lot of kids that stayed at home with mom that were not socialized well at all. Being in a group is how we evolved. It's natural and normal. Being at home with one parent all day is not normal at all. Aside from socialization, being in the "home bubble…

Actually, we have eight, ranging from 7 to 25. (I'm an old guy, 53.)

Our kids are among the best "socialized" (as if that were the ultimate goal of life!) I've run across.

Yes, having a single child would be tough on that child in terms of learning to deal with others and their needs.

We educate them at home, or, rather, give them the tools & guidance to educate themselves, which is the only way it's ever going to happen.

It's been good that I've been working from home for 18+ years, running a "lifestyle" small software business (5 people distributed around the country).

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#103

Post by esja »

hugh wrote: post #100
gaius wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article - Google's daycare has fancy organic food.

Can I just take this opportunity to say that the term "organic foods" bugs me? I mean, of course it's organic -- it's food! With the possible exceptions of water and salt (one could argue about whether they're really food) surely all food is organic.

True, but can you think of a better single word (not a phrase) to convey non-industrial-as-currently-practiced? "Natural" has the same weakness you identify, so that's out also.

It's a bummer that there's no commonly accepted definition for organic, but it's probably because at least for now, the fight is against current practices (which explains the many alternatives that have sprung up), instead of being for a particular practice, which could be named more accurately and concisely.

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#104

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

robg wrote: post #7
diego wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are a young couple with an infant in the Bay Area you don't have much of a choice. A friend of mine and his wife decided that they would be better off if she quit her job and took care of their two kids for a few years, as her take-home salary wasn't enough to pay for day care.

Is the limiting factor good quality observers/teachers? Why don't they open their own daycare? It's a lot of work, but if a parent has quit their job any ways, what's a few more kids?

Quite simply: it's insurance and state-mandated minimum child-provider ratios! The least we ever paid for childcare was $820/month and that was a very good preschool that had extremely low staff turnover -- we were lucky. When my son was younger, the costs were higher: infants cost over $1000/month.

That said, many people here in MN do in-home daycare which is usually much less expensive. Usually it's a parent who has decided to stay home with her baby and gets the training and insurance to care for other children as well to cover the cost of her leaving her job. However, as you get to the preschool years, the quality varies radically. They may give good childcare, but the learning experiences can be slim to none. My son entered Kindergarten extremely well prepared and immediately outdistanced most of the other kids. Odds are that in-home daycare would not have prepared him for school as well.

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#105

Post by jedberg »

davidw wrote: post #23
cpr wrote: post #18

I know one shouldn't question orthodoxy, but it seems insane to me to have children and then dump them all day, from a young age, with strangers. What's the point of having them if you're not raising them?

As the parent of a 2 month old, it's a difficult question we're facing right now. Who? How? When? Should my wife, with a doctorate in biochemistry, abandon her career completely and stay home? Should I? I'm not enthusiastic about those options. Should we hire someone? Not wild about that either. I think the best would be to kind of try and switch off, but it's going to require a lot of flexibility, and perhaps earnin…

One of my old bosses had a similar problem. When she has her twins, both her and her husband had excellent carrers. What they decided was that she would stay home with the kids for two years, while the other worked. The idea was that should would be "out of touch" for a short enough time that she could get back in without much loss.

Then when it was her turn to work, her husband arranged to work part time from home. The kids were self sufficient enough that he could focus on his programming for short stints during the day and for longer periods at night when his wife got home. He was able to do enough work to "stay in the game." In fact, he liked it so much he decided to do it for another 2 years.

At that point the girls were in pre-school, so had about 3 hours each day to get work done while they were gone, could then play with them the rest of the day, and finish his work at night when his wife was there.

The girls are now 6 and in school for most of the day. He's looking at going back to work full time, but given how much he enjoys working from home, he may just keep doing that for a while.

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#106

Post by jedberg »

pmorici wrote: post #42
diego wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are a young couple with an infant in the Bay Area you don't have much of a choice. A friend of mine and his wife decided that they would be better off if she quit her job and took care of their two kids for a few years, as her take-home salary wasn't enough to pay for day care.

40k seems excessive. say you paid the teacher very well they would get what like 100k a year? So you are saying that 1 teacher can only watch 3 kids? There are entire families with more kids than that.

Heh. If the teacher was REALLY well paid, even for the Bay Area, they would get maybe 80k a year. The starting salary in Palo Alto (the highest in the bay area) is under 50k. A teacher with 10 years of experience will probably be making about 75k.

http://www.pausd.org/community/employment/teachers/teacher_s...

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#107

Post by greendestiny »

pg wrote: post #59
cpr wrote: post #18

I know one shouldn't question orthodoxy, but it seems insane to me to have children and then dump them all day, from a young age, with strangers. What's the point of having them if you're not raising them?

In preindustrial societies, children don't spend every moment with their parents. They roam around the village, and the adults and older children collectively keep an eye on them. The problem now is, there's no village. The older children are segregated in separate schools, and most of the adults are at work. Daycare is, in effect, the closest substitute we've been able to invent for a village on this axis. It may no…

If you want your kids to experience freedom, daycare centres are not a good choice. Its a really restrictive environment, your kids will get to play a lot of games but they won't have much depth in their lives. I don't mean that play is superficial, but they'll be shunted through different activities to keep them occupied and not be trouble for the staff.

My wife ran a daycare centre, and she's staying home to raise our kids. The best solution is to find the social activities in other places. Daycare is far from the end of the world, but I dont see it as the preferable option, just an easy and not the worst option.

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#108

Post by dangoldin »

pg wrote: post #59
cpr wrote: post #18

I know one shouldn't question orthodoxy, but it seems insane to me to have children and then dump them all day, from a young age, with strangers. What's the point of having them if you're not raising them?

In preindustrial societies, children don't spend every moment with their parents. They roam around the village, and the adults and older children collectively keep an eye on them. The problem now is, there's no village. The older children are segregated in separate schools, and most of the adults are at work. Daycare is, in effect, the closest substitute we've been able to invent for a village on this axis. It may no…

Have you ever read Bill Bryson's The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid: A Memoir (http://www.amazon.com/Life-Times-Thunderbolt-Kid-Memoir/dp/0...)?

He talks a good amount of growing up in Des Moines, Iowa where all the kids used to just go out Saturday morning to a nearby field, meet new kids, and spend the entire day there before coming back home to dinner. Right now it seems the kids are too focused on their tvs and computers to go out and actually partake in the backyard baseball games.

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#109

Post by Afton »

soundsop wrote: post #84
gruseom wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it seems insane to me to have children and then dump them all day, from a young age, with strangers It surprises me how rarely this gets said. It seems kind of obvious to me. In Canada a few years ago one party announced billions of funding for government-run daycare centers, while the other party (who won in the end) wanted to give the money as tax credits to parents. Seemed like a no-brainer to me, but I recall qui…

Seemed like a no-brainer to me, but I recall quite a controversy about how the latter proposal was "anti child care". The controversy was that the latter proposal was anti public child care. The rival proposals were pushing in different directions the economics of the decision of staying home with children vs. working and putting them in daycare.

It was also 'anti child care' because it was a pittance in terms of child-care expenses. No one can find anything like adequate daycare for $100 a month.

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#110

Post by wallflower »

dangoldin wrote: post #108
pg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In preindustrial societies, children don't spend every moment with their parents. They roam around the village, and the adults and older children collectively keep an eye on them. The problem now is, there's no village. The older children are segregated in separate schools, and most of the adults are at work. Daycare is, in effect, the closest substitute we've been able to invent for a village on this axis. It may no…

Have you ever read Bill Bryson's The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid: A Memoir ( http://www.amazon.com/Life-Times-Thunderbolt-Kid-Memoir/dp/0... )? He talks a good amount of growing up in Des Moines, Iowa where all the kids used to just go out Saturday morning to a nearby field, meet new kids, and spend the entire day there before coming back home to dinner. Right now it seems the kids are too focused on their…

I agree. I'm scared that societal norms and pressures discourage unscheduled time and/or letting kids do something on their own.

Based on my own observations, I think that what the kids spend their time doing is largely a function of the parent's need to have them do something.

I fondly recall spending escapist afternoons digging into the dirt underneath a bush with my Star Wars action figures and creating my own world.

Post reply on HN