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

#61

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

dleslie wrote: post #56

lotsofpulp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot imagine that, babies and toddlers require attention frequently and randomly. Unless you have zero meetings, loose deadlines, and very asynchronous contact with the rest of the business, it would be a very difficult balance. Might work for first 6 months when all they do is sleep, eat, and lay around, but as soon as they are moving or aware that they can get things they want, predictability goes out the windo…

As a parent of, IMHO the first six months are when they need the most attention, not when they're the easiest. Infants desire constant affection, feeding, cleaning, and some never stop crying. Once they can crawl it's off to the races. Basically anything can hold their attention for half an hour while you take a short meeting. I've worked from home with two infants, then toddlers, and now kids. Infants were the harde…

In my experience, once they start crawling, they are putting things in their mouth, or falling, or getting a finger stuck, or making a mess, or wanting to feed…and confining them to a kid safe zone just makes them want to be out of the zone.

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

#62

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

mym1990 wrote: post #58

lotsofpulp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot imagine that, babies and toddlers require attention frequently and randomly. Unless you have zero meetings, loose deadlines, and very asynchronous contact with the rest of the business, it would be a very difficult balance. Might work for first 6 months when all they do is sleep, eat, and lay around, but as soon as they are moving or aware that they can get things they want, predictability goes out the windo…

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.

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

#63

Post by chatterhead » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:16 PM UTC

jimbob45 wrote: post #47

chatterhead wrote: post #36

Quoted post unavailable.

You get $3,600 yearly for having a kid. That’s just not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, let alone fund the changes in your own life from getting to raise a child. It should be no surprise that women need some extra financial assistance when it comes to raising children.

Where did you get that number from? You get $4800 here just for being unemployed and on welfare; and it goes up with each kid up to 4. Plus, free lunches. Plus, a new political push to make childcare supplements people received during the pandemic permanent.

People without children already supplement education with property tax they shouldn't be paying. Why in the hell should the childless be supporting your breeding habits?

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

#64

Post by downrightmike » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

Railsify wrote: post #18

Quoted post unavailable.

All employees get fucked, some just get more lube.

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

#65

Post by civilized » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #55

BWStearns wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Thanks for posting this - that's been my general theory regarding a big portion of the labor shortage, but I didn't have much info to back this up. If you are a mother making near minimum wage (which, these days, is around $15 in most major metros, regardless of what the actual law is), and you need to be on the job site for 8 hours/day, you're barely if even covering the cost of child care plus commuting and other j…

This story also fits with the first figure in the article, which says that the % drop in labor participation has been biggest for less educated women.

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

#66

Post by ch4s3 » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:18 PM UTC

UncleOxidant wrote: post #54

BWStearns wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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.

Yeah its really insane. The child care space has been legislated into un-affordability. Between licensing requirements, staffing ratios, building codes, and a litany of other requirements its a service that can basically only be provided to upper middle class families if not HEAVILY subsidized.

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

#67

Post by makeworld » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:18 PM UTC

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #48

__turbobrew__ wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have attended meetings with people who had to remain muted the entire time due to their kid screaming at the top of their lungs constantly. Its not great

There is some AI now that can filter this type of background noise.

Ah, the beautiful future we were promised.

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

#68

Post by phamilton » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:18 PM UTC

nineplay wrote: post #23

I can understand that it's probably easier to track the numbers of children born to 'women' instead of 'parents', but my observation has been that remote work has resulted in a sea change as to what it means to be a full time working parent. My boss works long hours and now has 2 kids under the age of 4. Pre-Covid he would have been out of the house from about 7-7 and only able to have moments of interaction at the e…

Beyond the hours, the lack of commute has changed so much for me. I can not only take my kids to their 5pm soccer practice, I can coach the team! None of that was possible when I had an hour commute each way.

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

#69

Post by jimbob45 » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

chatterhead wrote: post #63

jimbob45 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get $3,600 yearly for having a kid. That’s just not nearly enough to adequately raise a child, let alone fund the changes in your own life from getting to raise a child. It should be no surprise that women need some extra financial assistance when it comes to raising children.

Where did you get that number from? You get $4800 here just for being unemployed and on welfare; and it goes up with each kid up to 4. Plus, free lunches. Plus, a new political push to make childcare supplements people received during the pandemic permanent. People without children already supplement education with property tax they shouldn't be paying. Why in the hell should the childless be supporting your breeding…

https://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-deductions-and-credits-...

I got that number here. It has a bit of a range depending on income and a few other factors. The number appears to be low no matter what your factors end up being, though.

The childless support those with children because everyone recognizes that we have to reproduce to keep society running. If nobody has children, then our standard of living plummets, among other consequences. Thus, we subsidize kids for those who choose to have them.

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

#70

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #57

smeej wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends a lot on the phrasing of the question, because there can be a big difference between "unplanned" and "undesired." When people actively want not to have children, they tend to be fastidious about using their contraceptives as intended, but they're less careful when they are less opposed to the idea. Even if someone gets pregnant earlier than they had actually "planned," many are quickly delighted after th…

Yeah, the questions have to be carefully designed to avoid questioner's bias, and to get at the root of what you're trying to determine. There's a vast range from "we cannot have children at all" to "we are intentionally doing every single thing possible to conceive" and many people end up in the "eh if it happens it happens" middle somewhere.

Yes, but my point was that the set of 25 year old couples who ended up working from home and having sex more often because of it probably will not end up with a baby because they will not have forgone birth control.

Or a couple who has already had their desired amount of kids would not end up with more kids even though they are having more sex due to them using birth control.

Whereas a 30 to 35 year old couple who was already planning on babies in the next couple years would have opted out of birth control to take advantage of the increased time being spent at home.