[deleted]
On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble
51–60 of 138 posts
Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble
#52Why is daycare so expensive? Seems to me you need a room and two to three people to watch over the children. If you have 10 children in the room, and everyone costs 40000$, that would mean it costs 400000$ per year to rent a room and pay the salary for three people? It seems child nurses earn a LOT more than the average IT person?
Consider any school. They have teachers, sure. And they have caterers, and cleaners, and contractors to maintain the infrastructure... There are a lot more people involved than just the direct service providers.
Caterers: preparing food for ten children isn't a big job, all they need is sandwiches and drink boxes which can be prepared in advance and taken out of the fridge.
Cleaners: It's only a room, it only needs to be cleaned once a day. Shouldn't be that expensive either.
Contractors to maintain the infrastructure: again, it's only a room, maintenance really shouldn't be that difficult.
It's obvious that there's a lot of money flowing into childcare, and it's not obvious where it's all going. It's certainly not going to the people who are doing the caring -- they make almost no money at all. Is it all going to into insurance and compliance with various regulations?
Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble
#53"employer-provided day care, at affordable prices, ought to be like health insurance, a benefit that every company provides as a matter of course."
If only this were true in more companies nowadays.
Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble
#54The 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…
I agree. And really, this is supposed to be how Google tackles that issue: to maintain a high-perk atmosphere.
Google's atmosphere is similar to America's regulated airline era, where fares were set by a government body. Being unable to compete on price, they competed in other dimensions -- who had the newest planes, the best food, the friendliest flying atmosphere, the most trusted brand and the best service to their customers.
The best engineers are not more motivated by a somewhat higher salary, since they are passionate about their work, right? Indeed, all the perks in the world can't keep some of their employees from heading for the exits in the, er, face of more exciting opportunities. So why offer lavish perks at all?
The always-implied reasons are for its signaling effect and ability to increase the all-important worker productivity. But I would contend that the best reason for them to do so at this point is to reduce effects of the company's relative wealth disparity, which, should they rear their heads, clearly have the potential to be very corrosive. Highly democratic perks are a tonic for a de-facto aristocracy.
But the two risks of establishing a millionaire atmosphere are clear from this example. Firstly, of course, they're way expensive to the company, and that's hard to sustain. Secondly, workers, who may not have even cared about these things before arriving, have been conditioned to expect them.
So that sets up a bind, since the company needs to maintain the illusion that these benefits create. If you try to shunt some of the expense onto your workers, say to the 20% of employees that use 80% of some benefit, you run the risk of breaking the spell. Because the antediluvian class will take it in stride while the post-IPO gleaners will scream. So, Google: buck up and pay up.
Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think he meant to be so offensive. He may just not realize how hard this problem is. The fact is, finding a perfect solution for taking care of small children in an industrial society is probably an insoluble problem. And if so it's not one you can solve before having kids, or after them.
> I don't think he meant to be so offensive. Looking at it again, I hope that he wrote quickly without really thinking about what his words meant.
You still haven't thought about what his words meant.
You said you were facing a certain problem "now", 2 months after the child was born.
You could have made your decision about how to handle it prior to the child being born. If you'd done that, you would not be facing the problem now, it would be decided. But you didn't.
He asked about why you didn't decide in advance. You got offended by the implication that you hadn't decided in advance. That was something you said yourself, so it's unreasonable to be offended by it, or to blame him for noticing you said it.
Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble
#56Parents who had been paying $1,425 a month for infant care would see their costs rise to nearly $2,500 "$1,425" was the subsidized price? If someone told me day care cost that much, I'd fall on the floor, but that's the good price. A woman where I work pays 30 dollars a day, and that's far, far too much. Unbelievable waste. Absolutely unbelievable. $1,425 is more than my total monthly expenses. I could theoretically…
Unfortunately, this industry isn't very scaleable: how many children should one overseer watch, and still provide quality childcare? 2-7, IMHO, depending on the age of the children...
Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think he meant to be so offensive. Looking at it again, I hope that he wrote quickly without really thinking about what his words meant.
You still haven't thought about what his words meant. You said you were facing a certain problem "now", 2 months after the child was born. You could have made your decision about how to handle it prior to the child being born. If you'd done that, you would not be facing the problem now, it would be decided. But you didn't. He asked about why you didn't decide in advance. You got offended by the implication that you h…
Do you have any kids? Do you realize how unpredictable it is to plan things for your child, for example, how sick the child is going to be, or how well-tempered?
Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
You still haven't thought about what his words meant. You said you were facing a certain problem "now", 2 months after the child was born. You could have made your decision about how to handle it prior to the child being born. If you'd done that, you would not be facing the problem now, it would be decided. But you didn't. He asked about why you didn't decide in advance. You got offended by the implication that you h…
Do you have any kids? Do you realize how unpredictable it is to plan things for your child, for example, how sick the child is going to be, or how well-tempered?
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.
Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble
#59I 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?
In preindustrial societies, children don't spend every moment with their parents. They roam around the village, and the adults and older children collectively keep an eye on them.
The problem now is, there's no village. The older children are segregated in separate schools, and most of the adults are at work. Daycare is, in effect, the closest substitute we've been able to invent for a village on this axis. It may not be the final answer. Which is why lisper's comment is so funny; it's not a problem society has even solved, let alone individuals.
Re: On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
His tone was harsh, but I don't think that indignation is a fair response to the question. Did something change in your lives that made this problem unpredictable? Were one of you planning on staying home with the children, only to have finances shift such that you both have to work? Obviously, you don't have to answer him in detail, but you could do more than simply scold the guy for asking. I know plenty of couples…
> Obviously, you don't have to answer him in detail I don't mind talking about my own job situation, but don't really feel comfortable talking about my wife's. To keep it brief, my wife and I could live in any number of countries and both of us could find jobs in most of them. With choice comes a lot of thinking and a great weight of responsibility. Live in Italy, make less money, and have the grandparents nearby to…
Ah...that's a more difficult problem than your original post made it seem. I can see how you'd be upset by the response, since you know the details of the situation.
For what it's worth, I don't think he was questioning your commitment to your children, so much as the forethought you put into the process. He just didn't do it in a diplomatic way.