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

91–100 of 432 posts

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

#91

Post by mattkrause »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #84
ch4s3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Typically, infants are at 1:4 ratio and toddlers 1:7 and at 3 year olds, 1:10. (Massachusetts has a 2:7 infant ratio). Having managed 1 infant myself, even 1:4 seems like a lot of responsibility. I would not want my infant or toddler to be watched over by more lenient ratios.

There's a strong (underappreciated?) interaction with parental leave too.

If people got six months or a year, there would be far fewer babies in that labor-intensive category.

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

#92

Post by chatterhead »

jimbob45 wrote: post #69
chatterhead wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

Ok, that's federal. How is that the same as state provided welfare benefits? That's essentially a negative income tax (Milton Friedman) and is in addition to state benefits provided. At least, I don't see where there is an exclusion for those who receive such benefits.

Reminds me of when ODB snagged his welfare payment. People far removed from poverty really don't understand how cash based system-scamming the poor really are.

https://rockthebells.com/articles/odb-food-stamps-mtv/

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

#93

Post by glomgril »

luckylion wrote: post #32
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.

> Many (most I assume?) choose when to have or try to have children. Might sound a bit too cynical for this site, but plenty of people decided to get a dog in 2020. Why shouldn't they choose to have a baby for the same reasons?

Not sure why so many people balk at the comparison of having a dog versus having a kid. You don't need some deep philosophical reason for either: humans have lived alongside dogs for thousands of years, and humans don't need a justification to reproduce any more than a dog would. We're animals, we make babies.

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

#94

Post by francisofascii »

nxmnxm99 wrote: post #10
hanoz wrote: post #5

Not entirely surprising with so many couples suddenly at home all day, with any children at school.

Didn't that end up having the opposite effect where people were stuck with their partners all day and no longer wanted to have sex?

Maybe it worked both ways. Couples in a more positive state got stronger, couples in a more problematic/conflict state got worse.

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

#97

Post by foobarian »

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.

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.

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

#98

Post by rs999gti »

CalRobert wrote: post #88
poulsbohemian wrote: post #72

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…

We had two kids largely because my wife was resigned to her career already being destroyed, so why not?

> wife was resigned to her career already being destroyed

Really? She traded one job for another or does corporate life really matter that much to her?

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

#99

Post by lotsofpulp »

ch4s3 wrote: post #87
lotsofpulp wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically, infants are at 1:4 ratio and toddlers 1:7 and at 3 year olds, 1:10. (Massachusetts has a 2:7 infant ratio). Having managed 1 infant myself, even 1:4 seems like a lot of responsibility. I would not want my infant or toddler to be watched over by more lenient ratios.

In New York the ratio for children 2 and under is 1:2.

In NY, it is 1:3 up to 6 weeks and 1:4 after 6 weeks for day care centers. See page 22:

https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/418-1...

The 1:2 ratio is for “family daycare”, whatever that means. That is on page 19 of this document:

https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/regulations/417-F...

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

#100

Post by orzig »

foobarian wrote: post #97
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.

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.

Good thing all grandparents are the same, or else our models of how the world should work would have to be a lot more complex
Post reply on HN