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

#71

Post by hedora » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:22 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...

In addition to this, measuring from just before covid until now, the US GDP grew way above its normally sustainable pace.

Fewer workers + fast economic growth = labor shortage.

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

#72

Post by poulsbohemian » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:22 PM UTC

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 to WFH, but felt it was the best job situation for their families - spouse could then take on new career opportunities when both weren't struggling with commutes, day care, etc. So this article feels like it is overlooking the way women have stepped up for their families often to the detriment of their own careers.

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

#73

Post by yucky » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:22 PM UTC

alocasia-1 wrote: post #16

lotsofpulp wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess it's indelicate to say that when a man and woman are both stuck at home, more babies will be conceived. It would be inaccurate to assume an increase in frequency of sex will lead to more babies, in the age of access to very effective birth control. Many (most I assume?) choose when to have or try to have children.

Roughly half of pregnancies in the US are unplanned, and with abortion and contraceptive access being removed or severely limited in many states, that situation is only going to get worse.

>contraceptive access being removed or severely limited in many states

Not being combative but as someone who isn't up to snuff on this subject can you provide some examples? I haven't seen examples of this so I'd like to read more.

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

#74

Post by jmole » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:23 PM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #66

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.

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.

Legislation has nothing to do with it. Staffing ratio minimums are 6:1 in California, which means $2000/child can get you pretty far.

The costs are the same as any other service industry - you have to pay more for higher quality teachers and you have to pay more for a location in more expensive areas.

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

#75

Post by plorkyeran » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:25 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #22

seydor wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Returning to the workforce does not mean returning to the office anymore. I can imagine mother-friendly remote work as a replacement/supplement to maternal/paternal leave

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…

When both parents are WFH you just try to schedule meetings so that they aren't both in a meeting at the same time. This isn't always trivial to do, but it hasn't been a big problem for us in practice.

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

#76

Post by colinmhayes » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:26 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.

Unbelievable that Manchin blocked the universal childcare provisions in BBB.

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

#77

Post by dxbydt » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:26 PM UTC

"If the lights and the T.V. are out, it kind of sets the table for romance . . . But, if you're running for your life, you can't make babies." - https://www.cargenerator.com/blogs/news/is-the-blackout-baby...

Baby booms have previously been positively correlated with blackouts, snowstorms, hurricanes and power outages. Now, remote work is a covariate as well. We're heading into a prolonged 2023 recession, coupled with job cuts, energy shortage, remote work as cost-cutting recipe and climate-related catastrophes inducing major downtime => huge baby boom in 2024.

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

#78

Post by cutthegrass2 » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:26 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.

this is the same in the UK. Childcare costs are abhorrent. As a sample of one, I have twins at ~2yrs old. We pay ~£3,000 per month between private nanny and private nursery. It's literally 2x our mortgage cost.

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

#79

Post by lupire » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:26 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...

There is no labor shortage. There has been a labor glut since women left the home (and men didn't go home) in the 1970s, driving down wages to subsistence levels.

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

#80

Post by mariojv » Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 4:26 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.

Yes. Even in my relatively low cost of living city (San Antonio, TX) some friends of mine about to have a kid are having to get on a wait list before birth for something near them. I don't really understand why this price spiral occurred but it is so hard for parents nowadays.