Remote work may have fueled a baby boom among U.S. women • Hacker News Board

Re: Remote work may have fueled a baby boom among U.S. women

#141

Post by underdeserver » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

rajin444 wrote: post #131

poulsbohemian wrote: post #72

It's election season and I've been out talking to voters, who share their life stories... what I would say is that there are many women who are choosing WFH because they either can't afford or can't find day care, which may lead to deciding that hey, they might as well have another baby if they are now committed to this employment model. I've spoken to several women who were over-qualified for the jobs they had taken…

> women have stepped up for their families often to the detriment of their own careers Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society. Women are the only humans that can produce children and they have to do it during a relatively short time window - especially if we want to reproduce at replacement level. Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do because th…

There's a difference between having children (which only women can do) and raising them (which both parents can do).

Re: Remote work may have fueled a baby boom among U.S. women

#142

Post by UncleOxidant » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

time_to_smile wrote: post #114

UncleOxidant wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not having kids I didn't realize how insane childcare costs had gotten. Someone posted an article to a local reddit that says people are pre-registering unborn children for childcare because there are so few slots available. Others responses indicated that it's running around $1500 to $2000/month for childcare. Add in housing costs and no wonder people are hesitant to have kids now.

What's really insane is that the actual people providing childcare get paid pretty horrendously given that they are the ones that are going to be taking care of your kid potentially 8 hours a day (and it is a really challenging job). This also means that there is concerningly high variance in the quality of individual care providers, since it's a difficult job and pays awful you get the usual mix of "passionate about…

On my street about 10 years ago there was a house where childcare was being offered, but at some point the kids were just out wandering around. Turns out the lady running the daycare had taken to drinking and was drunk much of the day. Fortunately they shut her operation down pretty quickly after that.

Re: Remote work may have fueled a baby boom among U.S. women

#143

Post by bombcar » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:40 PM UTC

hollywood_court wrote: post #118

lotsofpulp wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically, infants are at 1:4 ratio and toddlers 1:7 and at 3 year olds, 1:10. (Massachusetts has a 2:7 infant ratio). Having managed 1 infant myself, even 1:4 seems like a lot of responsibility. I would not want my infant or toddler to be watched over by more lenient ratios.

The ratio is part of the reason we pulled our son from daycare so early and kept him at home until he was the proper age for pre-k. In his daycare class there was one adult looking after up to 9 children. One adult that didn’t earn a living wage and didn’t have any kind of benefits. There is no way a reasonable person could possibly trust that adult to be both content and provide a decent quality of care. The adults…

To be fair to the workers, nine daycare age kids would likely frustrate even someone being paid Musk-sized salary. Kids are entirely unreasonable which can be exceedingly frustrating.

Re: Remote work may have fueled a baby boom among U.S. women

#144

Post by maxbond » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:41 PM UTC

rajin444 wrote: post #131

poulsbohemian wrote: post #72

It's election season and I've been out talking to voters, who share their life stories... what I would say is that there are many women who are choosing WFH because they either can't afford or can't find day care, which may lead to deciding that hey, they might as well have another baby if they are now committed to this employment model. I've spoken to several women who were over-qualified for the jobs they had taken…

> women have stepped up for their families often to the detriment of their own careers Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society. Women are the only humans that can produce children and they have to do it during a relatively short time window - especially if we want to reproduce at replacement level. Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do because th…

> Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do because they’re the only ones that can do it.

This seems pretty reductionist to me. Men can absolutely raise children. Husbands in heterosexual couples should absolutely be raising their children and not leaving the entire task of raising them to their wives. Gay men can also raise children. I don't think you meant to be disrespectful, but when you essentialize like this you end up putting women in a box where their role in society is defined by their biology, and you put men in a box where they feel like they can't and shouldn't participate in certain kinds of labor, leading to women shouldering an unfair proportion.

An anecdote that helped this hit home for me was a story this father told about a neighbor of his. He'd be running errands at the grocery store or whatever, with his kids in tow, and he'd run into his neighbor (also a father) who'd say something like, "Oh, you're stuck babysitting again?" And he didn't have the words to tell him, "I'm not babysitting, I'm raising my kids." The neighbor viewed it as his wife's responsibility to be looking after the kids, and if he was participating in this, it was some sort of exception; and furthermore, a chore.

Personally, that's not the sort of father or husband I intend to be.

Re: Remote work may have fueled a baby boom among U.S. women

#145

Post by 1auralynn » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:42 PM UTC

rajin444 wrote: post #131

poulsbohemian wrote: post #72

It's election season and I've been out talking to voters, who share their life stories... what I would say is that there are many women who are choosing WFH because they either can't afford or can't find day care, which may lead to deciding that hey, they might as well have another baby if they are now committed to this employment model. I've spoken to several women who were over-qualified for the jobs they had taken…

> women have stepped up for their families often to the detriment of their own careers Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society. Women are the only humans that can produce children and they have to do it during a relatively short time window - especially if we want to reproduce at replacement level. Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do because th…

The Earth is overpopulated, and also you're completely disregarding that women may not want to do the insanely hard work of growing, birthing, and raising a child in lieu of other work they find fulfilling and which could potentially have an overall greater impact on humanity. Speaking as someone who just had a baby 1 year ago - it's great and I love my little guy, but is it the most important thing I've ever done? Debatable.

Re: Remote work may have fueled a baby boom among U.S. women

#146

Post by bombcar » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #108

lotsofpulp wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NY, it is 1:3 up to 6 weeks and 1:4 after 6 weeks for day care centers. See page 22: https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/418-1... The 1:2 ratio is for “family daycare”, whatever that means. That is on page 19 of this document: https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/417-F...

It has to do with facility type, I believe. I think operations run out of homes are “family daycare,” but I’m not 100% sure.

> Family day care home shall mean a program caring for children for more than three hours per day per child in which child day care is provided in a family home for three to six children.

From 413: https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/413-D...

In general it usually refers to a family taking on a few extra kids vs a schoolroom/office taking on kids. Requirements are usually different for the family care ones, not necessarily less.

Re: Remote work may have fueled a baby boom among U.S. women

#147

Post by black_knight » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

rajin444 wrote: post #131

poulsbohemian wrote: post #72

It's election season and I've been out talking to voters, who share their life stories... what I would say is that there are many women who are choosing WFH because they either can't afford or can't find day care, which may lead to deciding that hey, they might as well have another baby if they are now committed to this employment model. I've spoken to several women who were over-qualified for the jobs they had taken…

> women have stepped up for their families often to the detriment of their own careers Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society. Women are the only humans that can produce children and they have to do it during a relatively short time window - especially if we want to reproduce at replacement level. Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do because th…

In civilised societies, women still give birth, but after they are born both parents are given the possibility to stay at home with their child. This usually takes the form of the birth-giving woman staying at home for the first few months, while the child is dependent on frequent breastfeeding, after which the other parent stays at home with the child for a few months until they are ready to to start kindergarten around the age of twelve months.

In such societies kindergartens are affordable and in the course of little over a year both parents have had a break from work, with full salary compensation, to get to know the new human.

Re: Remote work may have fueled a baby boom among U.S. women

#148

Post by bombcar » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:44 PM UTC

hollywood_court wrote: post #115

ndriscoll wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it's a matter of social networking, but I would think essentially any stay-at-home mom could still take in a few kids. It wouldn't even occur to me to check whether that's "allowed".

In addition to taking “in a few kids” they would also take on a great amount of liability and risk. I’m a stay at home dad or at least I was until my son started pre-k a few months ago. There’s no amount of money that would make me feel comfortable also taking care of someone else’s children in my home. Just not worth the trouble or the risk.

Yeah, I'd be leery of it even from friends and family, because nothing blows up like injury to children.

Of course, the poorer people have no choice and make it work, but I'm certain they get "caught" now and then.

Re: Remote work may have fueled a baby boom among U.S. women

#149

Post by crysin » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

foobarian wrote: post #97

UncleOxidant wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not having kids I didn't realize how insane childcare costs had gotten. Someone posted an article to a local reddit that says people are pre-registering unborn children for childcare because there are so few slots available. Others responses indicated that it's running around $1500 to $2000/month for childcare. Add in housing costs and no wonder people are hesitant to have kids now.

I can't wrap my head around this insane US model that takes grandparents out of the picture. Maybe it's because moving is so easy? But grandparents love grandkids and they do it for free - it's a win-win.

Given that every grandparent I know who is in their 50s or 60s are also still working full-time in the US midwest, grandparents aren't always an easy win. My mother would love to spend more time with my son but her job and her health make that an impossibility unfortunately.

Re: Remote work may have fueled a baby boom among U.S. women

#150

Post by em-bee » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #129

Analemma_ wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s genuinely not legislation. Labor is expensive, which combined with the reality that anything beyond a 4:1 child-caretaker ratio is pretty bad for children pretty much guarantees that child care can never be cheap in a rich country with rich country labor costs. EDIT: I should've said "infants" and not "children" here, where the necessity of a 4:1 ratio really applies. As children get older this ratio can get hig…

UK is as expensive as it gets, but full time nursery(5 days a week) is "only" £800 a month for us. American costs seem to be completely absurd, despite much worse employment protections and benefits.

government subsidized?