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

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

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 432 posts

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

#251

Post by maxbond »

Supermancho wrote: post #246
planetsprite wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People's role in society shouldn't be determined by their biology, but the manner in which their biology manifests in their life outcomes is determined by their biology.

> People's role in society shouldn't be determined by their biology, Why not (even if only partially)? Biology at the individual level has physical consequences, which necessarily affects the available roles and roles chosen. It makes no sense to expect that this relationship is different in aggregate.

Because your biology doesn't determine your destiny within society and the interests of liberty is not in tying you to it. For instance; a woman is entitled to choose not to have children, for any reason or for no reason at all. While it is a biological fact that only women can have children (or indeed can breastfeed), it does not follow, as a fact about how we conduct our society, that women are uniquely capable of raising children, or that it is their role within our society to birth & raise children. When we structure our society in an essentialising way, we create injustices for both men and women (to say nothing of trans and nonbinary people, who are erased by these essentialized framings, which for instance can lead to them being discriminated against in the adoption process), though women bare the vast majority of them.

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

#252

Post by lotsofpulp »

DSingularity wrote: post #211
dilap wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're breastfeeding, it's gotta be the woman. And ideally, you are breastfeeding. Beyond that, most women strongly want to be with their babies. There was a NYT article a few years back about the boom of internet baby monitors, and it was kind of heartbreaking -- a bunch of women sitting at their desks glued to their baby monitors wishing they could be with their babies. I think we've really fucked up as a societ…

Not only that. We are all ready to go to war to protect the right to abort a pregnancy. But where is the passion wrt rights for mothers to not have to feel like they are abandoning their children after shortly after birthing them because they ran out of (or never had) parental leave? Our priorities as a society have been inverted in this area.

> Our priorities as a society have been inverted in this area.

No, they have not. The states that protected abortion rights are also the states that offer paid parental leave and paid disability leave to new moms. And the states that restricted abortion rights are the states that offer zero parental leave.

A significant portion of US society supports helping new parents, and especially mothers. It does not have enough votes in the Senate though.

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

#254

Post by lotsofpulp »

jimbokun wrote: post #201
black_knight wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

This is one of those policies I believe is broadly popular with voters in both US political parties, but never gets implemented because capital has more say in our government than voters.

I do not see how it can be popular with Republican voters.

The proof is that every state with paid parental leave and extended parental leave is led by Democrats.

And federal Republicans voted against paid parental leave in 2021’s build back better bill.

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

#255

Post by chasd00 »

vineyardmike wrote: post #109
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.

> people are pre-registering unborn children for childcare because there are so few slots available. Shit I have to do this too? I’ve already started saving for the unreasonable cost of college, and the cost of childbirth, and the unreasonable cost of a large (enough) house in my metro. But now this?!

yes, but take a breath because you'll figure it out. New parents and parents-to-be are probably the most taken advantage of people on the face of the earth. You'll get it figured out, don't let the horror stories on the inet keep you up at night and, no, using a generic brand of diapers won't turn your baby into a serial killer like the ads want you to believe.

/parent of two and went through it all

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

#256

Post by notch656a »

hollywood_court wrote: post #215
ndriscoll wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don't plan on making any of the mistakes that my own mother made. At age 5, I was driving my BMX around Montgomery Co, Alabama with a single shot Remington .410 bungee strapped to the handle bars. I was a latch key kid from the day I started kindergarten. I was cooking for myself and dressing myself starting then as well. I won't allow my own child to experience any of that.

Might depend on the kid. I had almost that much freedom, including unchecked access to firearms, and I absolutely fucking loved it and felt the freedom helped set me up for success as an adult. Other kids would be inside playing with mom and dad and I'd be "lets make a map of the whole fucking county by exploring everything." I feel like the future of my kid is mostly limited by ever more dystopian standards of CPS rather than the kind of freedom I'd like them to have.

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

#257

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

fortylove wrote: post #227
xnyan wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pumping and storing breast milk is extremely common. You can absolutely give your child breast milk and work, and I know many professionals who do.

This is really overlooking the complications that MANY women have with pumping: supply drops, increased mastitis (the pumps are not nearly as effective as the real thing), and most of all, lack of real time response to the babies needs. Just handwaving "but pumps!" really undermines how much effort this takes for women.

This is an excellent point to bring up, and something that cannot (or rather, should not) be ignored.

Still, the approach presumably should be more, not less, support for women who want (need?) to try this?

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

#258

Post by tenpies »

black_knight wrote: post #147
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…

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 ar…

It's quite odd that these "civilized societies" then have to rely on importing the best and brightest young people from "uncivilized" societies to keep their "civilized society" from suffering a demographic collapse.

Almost makes one think that they're not quite civilized, they just put economics above all and rely on exploiting other nations to prop the whole thing up.

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

#259

Post by lotsofpulp »

chasd00 wrote: post #234
abnry wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A SAH spouse is not an equal partner with a 50% contribution. More of an oldest child with extra responsibilities and a higher allowance. This is a really depressing way of looking at things.

>> A SAH spouse is not an equal partner with a 50% contribution. More of an oldest child with extra responsibilities and a higher allowance. > This is a really depressing way of looking at things. No, it's not depressing, it's total BS. Anyone who's ever been in a remotely serious relationship knows keeping score like "percent contribution" leads to the end of that relationship.

It is not BS. Financial independence is real freedom. See any and all societies where women do not have financial freedom. People may not keep score, but the women will act differently based on the fact that at the end of the day, they are dependents. And men will act differently, because they know they are independent.

So given the fact that financially independent women do not have kids at similar rates as financially dependent women, perhaps it is an important part of a relationship.

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

#260

Post by yamtaddle »

ethbr0 wrote: post #153
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…

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 hav…

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

Our three kids are gonna cost us at least half a million dollars by the time they're all 18, between lost income, daycare costs, higher housing costs (not just a bigger house to maintain a similar comfort level, but also one in a much more expensive area than we might otherwise live in, since we have to care about school quality—an uncomfortably small house in a good school district still costs more than a huge house in a merely so-so district, let alone an actually-bad district, in our city), healthcare costs, transportation costs, plus all the smaller stuff like clothes, food, et c. And e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g optional is also far more expensive, like vacations.

And that's if we don't chip in for their post-secondary education or, like, give them a few grand to get their feet under them when they leave. Or buy them cars or any of that (we're not there yet, thank god). It could easily end up being closer to a million than a half-million, without even going nuts.

The tax credits don't even come close to covering it. Worse, because many of those expenses are front-loaded and so hit in our relatively-young years, the opportunity cost of that money ends up being enormous. The shadow cast on our future savings is way bigger than what we spend on them directly. We'd be retiring by 50, 55 at the latest if not for having kids, and also be able to spend more freely. As it is IDK if we're gonna be able to retire until we just can't work anymore.

Kids are basically financial suicide unless you're crazy-rich. Like they're great and all but god damn do I understand why people choose not to have them, even if they like the idea of having kids.

Post reply on HN