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

121–130 of 138 posts

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#121

Post by calambrac »

davidw wrote: post #120
calambrac wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're broadening the scope of the debate again. I said you should have a plan in place for issues like who compromises their career. How does that balloon into "put off having kids until things are perfect"? Of course, there are extenuating circumstances which can waylay any planning; I never intended to imply that there weren't. Go back and read my post, and you'll see that my criticism was conditional. If you did…

The debate is very broad in scope because many things are interconnected. My umbrage was anything but false: the idea that we had taken the arrival of a child so lightly as to not consider and plan for the future most certainly implies negative things about me and my wife, especially considering that people here really don't have that much knowledge of our situation. pg's response was quite astute: we thought and pla…

I haven't said anything outside of "If you had no plans for post-baby career changes, then you were being irresponsible." If the debate is any broader than that, it's only because you are taking that simple, focused statement and falsely taking it to mean something else. And I don't need (or want) any more information about your oh-so-unique situation, or kids of my own, in order for my simple statement to be true.

If you and your partner didn't make plans for your careers before having a child, then suck it up and accept that you were irresponsible. If you did make those plans, then put your reading comprehension hat on and stop with the broken-heart act. Christ.

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#122

Post by comatose_kid »

menloparkbum wrote: post #96
nickb wrote: post #21

The big issue that Google has (incidentally the same issue that MS went through) is the two classes of employees that they now have and the resentment and disconnect between the two groups. The two groups, of course, are those who are millionaires and are 'fully vested' and those new googlers who are not millionaires (and probably never will become millionaires). The latter group relies on a salary to live in a very…

Mountain View is indeed expensive but $110K is $50K more than the average household income in the Bay Area. Aside from packing 3 people to a cube, Google pampers its employees above and beyond almost any other company in the area. There is free food, health insurance, free gym, free laundry, free haircuts and so forth. Taking this into account, a Google employee doesn't have to spend much money on anything other than…

Interesting observation, and I agree with much of what you say, except that there are few places where someone smart enough to get through the Google Gauntlet has to settle with renting an apartment for their growing family. And indeed, making ends meet is exactly what happens if they ever try to buy a house (forget about owning > 1400 sq. ft. in a good school district with even double that income).

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#123

Post by comatose_kid »

robg wrote: post #3

I'm saddened, but not shocked, that very smart people think you need to spend $40k/year in daycare for children. Misplaced parental guilt?

I spend about 2500/month for two children. I call it the macbook pro a month program :) So, about 30k/year, and about 5k of that is tax deductible (iirc). Misplaced parental guilt? Not really - it's just tough to find good care in the bay area for a low price without enduring a huge waiting list.

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#124

Post by gaius »

esja wrote: post #103
hugh wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 part…

"Organic" can also mean "does not require external assistance".

For example, the Marines describe a unit as "organic" if it can operate without assistance from the other services (e.g. this is why the Marines have their own aviation and don't rely on the Air Force the way the Army do)

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#125

Post by Create »

pg wrote: post #61
xlnt wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My post is simply about logic and who said what. Nothing more. Why can't you read it rationally? And, BTW, if you and other parents can't read it rationally, why should I believe you handle parenting matters rationally? Parenting matters are more difficult and more emotional than reading a simple forum post.

Here is the rational answer you seem to want. (a) This problem is so hard you can probably never solve it satisfactorily, and (b) you can't know what it's going to be like to have kids before you have them, or what your kids will be like. So however much thought you expend on the question before having kids, you're still going to be working on it afterward.

Society has a response to (a) and (b). It is called a social net, based on solidarity: it works like insurance schemes should (not speaking of fraudulent market schemes, e.g. the US health insurance). I think the biggest problem is, that you despise pooling resources into social systems purportedly designed to help in (a) and (b). "Old" Europe has suffered enough in WWII to recognize the importance of it, and erect such a system, which is frowned upon by "risk tolerant entrepreneurship" (they have enough personal wealth to fall back on). This social net you are missing is being therefore dismantled in the EU as well, since it is regarded as uncompetitive compared to the US or China. It is a race to the bottom (if you compete with slaves, you become a slave*), of which the GOOG kindergarten is just a sign.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#126

Post by Create »

Create wrote: post #28
davidw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Who? How? When? You. The way you made her. The Famous 20% time?

I seriously do not understand you.

Who else is in a better position to take responsibility and care, than you (& partner)?

How else could you do it if not with love?

Your partner + you: 20% off is 1+1 days a week. Make grandparents happy, that makes +1+1 days. Each of you can take 2 days off a month. And this is even without parental leave for three years.

After that, daycare is your answer: socializing is an essential need for humans.

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#127

Post by steveplace »

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?

Everyone is a good parent until they become one.

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#128

Post by [deleted] »

Create wrote: post #125
pg wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the rational answer you seem to want. (a) This problem is so hard you can probably never solve it satisfactorily, and (b) you can't know what it's going to be like to have kids before you have them, or what your kids will be like. So however much thought you expend on the question before having kids, you're still going to be working on it afterward.

Society has a response to (a) and (b). It is called a social net, based on solidarity: it works like insurance schemes should (not speaking of fraudulent market schemes, e.g. the US health insurance). I think the biggest problem is, that you despise pooling resources into social systems purportedly designed to help in (a) and (b). "Old" Europe has suffered enough in WWII to recognize the importance of it, and erect s…

[deleted]

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#129

Post by dgabriel »

dzorz wrote: post #94

Someone mentioned 2-7 kids per "overseer". Where I went to kindergarden, ratio was 20-30:1. Even later in elementary/high school, the ratio was 25-35 kids per teacher.

There are guidelines and laws about child/caretaker ratios. Infants need a lot more one-on-one time than older children.

Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble

#130

Post by gruseom »

steveplace wrote: post #127
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?

Everyone is a good parent until they become one.

Great line. It is, however, orthogonal to the subject of institutionalized child care.

Smart people I know who don't have children are often a source of great observations about child rearing in general and even specific parenting situations. That's the positive side of your point, and I've used it many times to get a read on what I might be missing.

The mistake they make is not in their observations, which as I said are often very rational, but in assuming that they themselves would do better. What makes parenting hard is that your emotions are involved in a way that is far deeper and more complicated than anything you've experienced before. It's easy to be a "good" parent when that condition is absent, for the same reason it's easy not to get hypothermia in Florida.

Post reply on HN