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,…
She can always start her own business. Don't need anyone's approval for that.
Except in (unnecessarily-) boarded industries and ones with predatory non-competes. Pedantic pique, but both annoy the hell out of me.
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.
Yep! We purposefully live within 30 minutes of both sets of parents, but due to covid and their own careers the arrangement didn't help us out as much as we had anticipated.
> 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]
As a dad of three who made serious career sacrifices in order to raise my kids... you are spot on, and I've concluded that the best scenario is when both partners have some life outside the home, whether it is career, volunteerism, etc, and both partners have equal responsibilities inside the home (kids, cooking, cleaning, bill paying, whatever). The roles may be different and at times we might each be carrying more of the load for the other, but over the span of time anger and resentment grow if there isn't balance. I make the point about activities outside the home because when one person is the stay-at-home person, it can become very isolating and become a serious mental health issue. That person needs a social outlet, a part-time job, something, whether they realize it or not.
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 tee…
Teenagers are usually in school at the same time kids are in daycare.
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.
How many hours a week/day?
And yes, it's likely subsidized; around here there's "free 4k" and some of the pre-4k daycares are subsidized in various ways.
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…
>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.
Right - so imagine that you didn't have that opportunity to do that academic work because you have an elderly parent at home who needs care. You've got two little kids at home who aren't yet school age and thus needs care. You wouldn't be content with your work situation in that case, right? Sure, it might just be for a few years - but what if those few years block you from key promotions or research opportunities? Do you get it? I'm certainly not saying that everyone should be focused on their careers, I'm just observing that sometimes people are making tradeoffs between their careers and their personal life, and more often than not it is the female in the heterosexual relationship that is making more of those tradeoffs.
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…
Genuinely wondering how anything beyond a 4:1 ratio is bad? My kids are in daycare in TX with well over a 4:1 ratio and seem like they are doing fine. What sorts of downsides are you referring to?
It greatly depends on age! Having six kids ranging from 1-12 is a lot different than having six infants, who will likely all explode at the exact same time.
Because it's hard to exactly define "daycares shouldn't have more kids than they can take care of" they institute fixed ratios.
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.
Maybe I just think we still live in the 90s, but when I was growing up, I know my mom babysat, and I remember one of the neighbors regularly watching us. Liability probably worked about the same way back then, but I don't think anyone ever really asked or thought about it. I doubt anyone was licensed if that even existed. If one of us got hurt, we'd probably get in trouble for doing something we weren't supposed to.
I guess I assume that if you have a rapport with a neighbor, you can trust that they won't be out to screw you if a kid gets hurt, but maybe that's naive. Or maybe my parents were just lax; I remember my grandparents let us ride around on a moped that could do ~35 mph when I was probably under 10, and we'd go wander around in a forest near their house, or me and the neighbor kids would go play in the desert near my house growing up when I was probably ~6. Probably never more than .5-1 miles away, but still pretty much only "supervised" by older kids.
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 c…
I thought it meant in a home, but wasn't sure if that was the exact delineation.