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

#151

Post by bregma » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:45 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…

You seem to confuse giving birth with raising children. Being a woman is not a prerequisite to rearing children.

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

#152

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

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #140

rajin444 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Or we could just make sure women have careers by having good social support?

Where does the social support come from if everyone is working?

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

#153

Post by ethbr0 » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:47 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…

It's been amazing to me that developed countries have bemoaned birth rates... and then done nothing effective about it.

You know what says "This country values parents who choose to have children?" Actual replacement of lost income potential and career progression.

Yes, in the US there are tax credits, SNAP, etc. None of these even come close to replacing the life income changes.

If we were serious about it, we'd have something approaching equivalent income replacement, GI Bill-style college funding, and child care cost support in every state*.

Having children should be an income neutral choice, not a burden.

* Side note: On all of these programs, I'd be in favor of supply-side support, rather than demand side reimbursement, given how inflationary reimbursement has been in the education market.

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

#154

Post by kridsdale2 » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #62

mym1990 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I took a 1:1 with my manager and he was holding his newborn right there. Its a slightly different world of work now, I was just glad I wasn't in his position.

A newborn that has been fed and slept and lays around is easy, but it is not long before the kid wants to play with keyboard and mouse and headphones and unplug things, etc. I setup my brother MFC printer on the ground so they can mess with the display and open and shut the flatbed scanner and whatnot. The device can apparently take quite a beating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjsSr3z5nVk

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

#155

Post by bombcar » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #120

setr wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Childcare (specifically thinking of daycare) strikes me as a low-skill job, so labor volume should be fairly high -- excluding I guess things like extra-filtering for background. And as far as I can think of, there's no substantial upfront costs outside of the normal elements -- building, room setup, initial training, etc. It also strikes me as something that can be done with some scalability -- a decent sized group…

Why are you assuming a job that is presumably low skill has a high supply of people willing to sell their time to perform that low skill job? > Unless there's some overhead per-child I don't understand I would start with liability costs, it must be massive for a professional daycare facility given how emotionally invested people are with their kids. Next would be redundancy of employees. Babies and toddlers transmit…

Low effort certainly not!

Low skill, yes - perhaps not for the life-saving training needed, but I suspect most any able-bodied adult can be trained how to care for an infant or toddler in a week or so (after all, parents get zero training beyond "you need a car seat" when sent home from the hospital).

Whether there are people able and willing at the price listed, I don't know. It seems a job that could be done by teenagers (at least as assistants, supervised) but I suspect they are prohibited.

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

#156

Post by citilife » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

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…

> overlooking the way women have stepped up for their families often to the detriment of their own careers.

My favorite question to ask is: "why you want a career?" to pretty much anyone who speaks in this manner.

Serious question to people, I don't get it. I love learning, I'm highly qualified in the academic space and enjoy picking at problems. I've written papers, patents, well paid, etc. Highly successful by most metrics.

That said, I don't work for a "career", I work to afford me opportunity.

A family is an investment in the future, it provides you happiness, but more importantly purpose. Sure, there's a lot of stress, and you have to invest a lot of time. That said, it pays off an order of magnitude in terms of life satisfaction and having future opportunities. Who's going to take you on vacation when you're 65 and have a bad hip -- if not your children? My proudest achievement are things my children have done, not the accolades, promotions, bonuses, etc I've received in my career.

If I work hard, slave at night to get my presentation(s) done, will our product be better? Maybe, but in all likelihood that just makes me look good enough to get promoted, but 5 years later I wont have anything but a pay check to show for it. Wealth without purpose is worthless.

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

#157

Post by martythemaniak » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:49 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…

[flagged]

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

#158

Post by jcadam » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

BWStearns wrote: post #41

bombcar wrote: post #11

I wonder what percentage was fueled by a dual income household being forced to single income and realizing that they could handle it well enough - and the non-working spouse deciding to not bother returning to the workforce?

That's apparently one big driver in the labor shortage. Childcare costs were so high that when everyone was home people realized the second job wasn't actually that useful and now there's one stay-at-home parent (seems weighted towards mothers[0]). [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/01/14/some-gender...

My wife worked in daycare when we first got married. It is low-paying, high-stress work with high turnover. Parents drop off sick kids, kids with behavioral problems, kids in the middle of custody disputes, etc.

I'll bet most of the workers went and found other jobs and won't be coming back.

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

#159

Post by poulsbohemian » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:49 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…

I get the sense that you are trying to be needlessly provocative...

>Forcing 2 household incomes was/is awful for a healthy society

Who is doing the forcing here? Many women wanted to enter the workforce. Some didn't want to enter the workforce. Some were forced by their situation or by economic changes, but it isn't like someone on HN was holding a gun to their head telling them to get a job, so I'm a little unclear on your lamentation here.

>Raising children should be regarded as one of the most important things a woman can do

Um, say what? Yeah, biology is amazing stuff. I'm in awe of women on every level. But your comment here is a bit dogwistling - are you intending for this to sound as misogynistic as many of us are reading it? Women who choose to not have children are just as amazing when they choose whatever path they choose.

>I’m not sure how western society will continue if we view raising a child instead of having a career as “stepping up”. It’s certainly disrespectful to all the mothers of our future.

Dude, what? Read back what I wrote - my point, which is well documented in many places - is the way women in our modern era are not only the predominant child-care givers, but also most likely to attend to household duties (cooking, cleaning, etc), and more and more are also the primary breadwinners. If that isn't stepping up in a big way, I don't know what else to call it. Is being a stay-at-home-mom not also commendable and deserving of respect? Absolutely. But your message seems to be one of dog whistling for the bad-old days of the past.

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

#160

Post by rdtwo » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 5:50 PM UTC

Pasorrijer wrote: post #104

rs999gti wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wife was resigned to her career already being destroyed Really? She traded one job for another or does corporate life really matter that much to her?

A fairly significant amount of women have dedicated a decent amount of time, and money, academically, socially, etc. To their careers. Why, some women have even found working to be more enjoyable to being at home with kids. All joking aside, my wife is extremely worried about the impact her career will take from having children and her life goals include executive level leadership as part of her career. So you could,…

I don’t think you can be a executive and be a good mom/dad at the same time. At least not in most companies.