NY Mag: Daycare is Broken

[Anonymous]

I was so constantly frustrated and angry about this topic and not seeing it get better anytime soon so we made a radical change.

We moved abroad to a country where childcare is deeply subsidized and we don’t have to rely on our employers for affordable healthcare. We moved to self-employment and work about 75% while our child is in quality childcare. The other 25% of work hours goes to managing household and family life so our time as a family is higher-quality. With the lower cost of health and childcare (really hardly anything compared to the US), we can afford to work a bit less, even with taxes which aren’t that bad.

It has changed our lives for the better in every possible way. And yes, daycare is short-lived, but the benefits continue with aftercare, summer care, low cost community extra curricular and college costs.

I know it was an incredible privilege to be able to do this. But also it’s proof that this problem is not unsolvable. We just don’t want to do it in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In all of this, I was lucky that my DH made enough money, that he was healthy and that we had a good marriage. If any of these three things were not ok, I would have been screwed as a SAHM. So, if the govt cannot fix childcare and education, perhaps the govt can pay SAHMs to stay at home so they do not become vulnerable.

This is huge. It’s just a big risk. We could cover the basics on DH’s salary, but not save nearly enough for college and retirement. This is what happened to my parents- SAHM until she became a para when I was in high school, no college savings and now they are in a precarious state in retirement where any health problems will mean that we will probably have to start contributing financially.

Because of a pre-existing health condition, life insurance for DH is extremely expensive, so we don’t have as much as would need for me to feel comfortable quitting the workforce either.

To be fair, your average UMC white woman has an extremely high chance that everything will end up okay with DH. Divorce for this demographic is low, the DH should earn enough money if they live a frugal lifestyle and they should have multiple types of insurance for health issues.

Divorce.is lower than average but definitely happens. Also what is your definition of UMC? $250k is double the area median income, but most families.at this income level aren't loving frugally enough to save to cover long periods of disability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was so constantly frustrated and angry about this topic and not seeing it get better anytime soon so we made a radical change.

We moved abroad to a country where childcare is deeply subsidized and we don’t have to rely on our employers for affordable healthcare. We moved to self-employment and work about 75% while our child is in quality childcare. The other 25% of work hours goes to managing household and family life so our time as a family is higher-quality. With the lower cost of health and childcare (really hardly anything compared to the US), we can afford to work a bit less, even with taxes which aren’t that bad.

It has changed our lives for the better in every possible way. And yes, daycare is short-lived, but the benefits continue with aftercare, summer care, low cost community extra curricular and college costs.

I know it was an incredible privilege to be able to do this. But also it’s proof that this problem is not unsolvable. We just don’t want to do it in the US.

Does your new country have major shortages? France and Germany have amazing subsidized childcare systems but the shortages and waitlists are horrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that 45K for two kids sounds reasonable does not obviate the problem that it’s unaffordable for most. Unless we only want Rich people having kids (and workers earning peanuts) we need a better solution.

Most people under a certain income bracket don’t pay for daycare. They hav family members watch the kids or older siblings watch the kids.

This. And they do shift work.

Yup. But DCUMers lose their damn minds every time this is suggested when they complain they can’t afford childcare.

“But…but….I’m ENTITLED to make 6+ figures at a cushy desk job, only on the schedule I prefer, and I simply *cannot* work opposite shifts with my spouse to save on childcare anyway, because I must spend every waking moment with my spouse fOr mY mEnTaL hEaLtH.”

OK, then find a way to pay for that childcare and quit whining.

You think people with professional jobs should just quit and take a job with shiftwork so they can avoid using childcare?

Two working professionals who can't afford Kindercare? Yes, if they can't afford rent on a small one bedroom apartment and daycare for one child on two professional salaries, then they are woefully underpaid and should seek other work.

It's not just about affording, it's whether institutionalized care for a young child is appropriate. With the expansion of telework and remote work, there's no reason many professional parents cant keep their baby at home and trade off for a few months anyway. I have friends who are planning to do this for the first year- one parent has a very flexible (maxi-flex) job and can fit in their hours at any time of the day. The other has less flexibility but enough. Babies sleep so much that first year anyway.

Sorry but that's horrible. I did it during covid when daycares were closed - traded off w my husband during the day and made up hours at night. It was constant bickering w my husband about who "got" to work when, trying to do calls during naptime just to have the baby wake up ten minutes in, staying up late every night to try to finish what I couldn't do during the day.

If you have any kind of real job you are going to be completely exhausted.

Disagree. My baby at the time napped for 5 hours during the work day. My DH took an hour lunch and watched him and vice versa. It was NBD and we truly didn’t need childcare. If you can get your baby on a nap schedule it’s a breeze.

My baby was a great sleeper but I would still be listening out for her constantly and wouldnt' be able to focus on work. People who can otherwise afford childcare and WFH without it are rolling the dice, not succeeding in gaming the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In all of this, I was lucky that my DH made enough money, that he was healthy and that we had a good marriage. If any of these three things were not ok, I would have been screwed as a SAHM. So, if the govt cannot fix childcare and education, perhaps the govt can pay SAHMs to stay at home so they do not become vulnerable.

This is huge. It’s just a big risk. We could cover the basics on DH’s salary, but not save nearly enough for college and retirement. This is what happened to my parents- SAHM until she became a para when I was in high school, no college savings and now they are in a precarious state in retirement where any health problems will mean that we will probably have to start contributing financially.

Because of a pre-existing health condition, life insurance for DH is extremely expensive, so we don’t have as much as would need for me to feel comfortable quitting the workforce either.

To be fair, your average UMC white woman has an extremely high chance that everything will end up okay with DH. Divorce for this demographic is low, the DH should earn enough money if they live a frugal lifestyle and they should have multiple types of insurance for health issues.

Ok, but now you need to purchase lots of insurance on one income too to cover all the possibilities? Not everyone is UMC, on one income we definitely would not be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In all of this, I was lucky that my DH made enough money, that he was healthy and that we had a good marriage. If any of these three things were not ok, I would have been screwed as a SAHM. So, if the govt cannot fix childcare and education, perhaps the govt can pay SAHMs to stay at home so they do not become vulnerable.

This is huge. It’s just a big risk. We could cover the basics on DH’s salary, but not save nearly enough for college and retirement. This is what happened to my parents- SAHM until she became a para when I was in high school, no college savings and now they are in a precarious state in retirement where any health problems will mean that we will probably have to start contributing financially.

Because of a pre-existing health condition, life insurance for DH is extremely expensive, so we don’t have as much as would need for me to feel comfortable quitting the workforce either.

To be fair, your average UMC white woman has an extremely high chance that everything will end up okay with DH. Divorce for this demographic is low, the DH should earn enough money if they live a frugal lifestyle and they should have multiple types of insurance for health issues.

Ok, but now you need to purchase lots of insurance on one income too to cover all the possibilities? Not everyone is UMC, on one income we definitely would not be.

Exactly. As much as I’d like to work only part time, we both make $70-80K per year. It’s a solid middle class lifestyle but on one income, I wouldn’t be able to save anything for emergencies or unexpected expenses. Like the $500 bill I just received for kid bloodwork to rule out some health issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In all of this, I was lucky that my DH made enough money, that he was healthy and that we had a good marriage. If any of these three things were not ok, I would have been screwed as a SAHM. So, if the govt cannot fix childcare and education, perhaps the govt can pay SAHMs to stay at home so they do not become vulnerable.

This is huge. It’s just a big risk. We could cover the basics on DH’s salary, but not save nearly enough for college and retirement. This is what happened to my parents- SAHM until she became a para when I was in high school, no college savings and now they are in a precarious state in retirement where any health problems will mean that we will probably have to start contributing financially.

Because of a pre-existing health condition, life insurance for DH is extremely expensive, so we don’t have as much as would need for me to feel comfortable quitting the workforce either.

To be fair, your average UMC white woman has an extremely high chance that everything will end up okay with DH. Divorce for this demographic is low, the DH should earn enough money if they live a frugal lifestyle and they should have multiple types of insurance for health issues.

Ok, but now you need to purchase lots of insurance on one income too to cover all the possibilities? Not everyone is UMC, on one income we definitely would not be.

Not PP, but obviously you need to plan carefully. My maternal grandfather planned very carefully throughout his life, and when he passed away relatively young, my grandmother was well cared for with his pension, SS, and longterm care insurance. She passed away at 95 in a nice LTC without having to rely on Medicaid. It was so huge for my mom and her siblings peace of mind.

My paternal grandparents did not have a pension or longterm care insurance and my grandmother's chronic health issues drained their retirement savings pretty quickly once things got bad. My dad and his siblings supported them as long as they could but they both ended up in Medicaid beds at the end. It kind of scarred my dad, he is still working at 70 partly for this reason. Just like daycare, end of life care can be really expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In all of this, I was lucky that my DH made enough money, that he was healthy and that we had a good marriage. If any of these three things were not ok, I would have been screwed as a SAHM. So, if the govt cannot fix childcare and education, perhaps the govt can pay SAHMs to stay at home so they do not become vulnerable.

This is huge. It’s just a big risk. We could cover the basics on DH’s salary, but not save nearly enough for college and retirement. This is what happened to my parents- SAHM until she became a para when I was in high school, no college savings and now they are in a precarious state in retirement where any health problems will mean that we will probably have to start contributing financially.

Because of a pre-existing health condition, life insurance for DH is extremely expensive, so we don’t have as much as would need for me to feel comfortable quitting the workforce either.

To be fair, your average UMC white woman has an extremely high chance that everything will end up okay with DH. Divorce for this demographic is low, the DH should earn enough money if they live a frugal lifestyle and they should have multiple types of insurance for health issues.

Ok, but now you need to purchase lots of insurance on one income too to cover all the possibilities? Not everyone is UMC, on one income we definitely would not be.

Not PP, but obviously you need to plan carefully. My maternal grandfather planned very carefully throughout his life, and when he passed away relatively young, my grandmother was well cared for with his pension, SS, and longterm care insurance. She passed away at 95 in a nice LTC without having to rely on Medicaid. It was so huge for my mom and her siblings peace of mind.

My paternal grandparents did not have a pension or longterm care insurance and my grandmother's chronic health issues drained their retirement savings pretty quickly once things got bad. My dad and his siblings supported them as long as they could but they both ended up in Medicaid beds at the end. It kind of scarred my dad, he is still working at 70 partly for this reason. Just like daycare, end of life care can be really expensive.

Most Americans are one medical emergency away from financial ruin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's broken is an economy that forces a majority of parents to work full-time in order to make ends meet.

I was a SAHM and by necessity lived extremely cheaply - as in, I packed lunch for me and my toddlers when we went on daily outings, dressed them in thrift shop finds, etc..
Those were financially strained times but it only lasted a few years (although it felt like forever at the time). When they were nursery/pre-school age they were enrolled in a local church program which is much cheaper than organizations that have to pay overhead rent. They were only half-day programs but those half-days were a profound gift after years of 24/7 toddlerhood.

They got into good publics which gave me the freedom to work PT and by middle school and high school I am FT and we are financially much more comfortable - as in, I don't have to pack lunch anymore (but I do out of habit!).
As for real estate, I used my little downtime as a SAHM to project manage my home renovation and thereby jacked up the value considerably. I also did some of the electrical, plumbing, carpentry and tile work just to keep the contractor moving fast. I worked on my architect's licensing exam while the kids were in preschool.

There would have been NO WAY we could afford to pay for baby daycare for 2 kids. Economically, it made sense for me to temporarily SAHM.

Look, having children requires shifts in priorities. Rather than chase more money so someone else can care for my kids, I chose to care for them myself and temporarily live VERY simply. I suspect that my hands on parenting has something to do with them testing into great publics which eliminated the need to chase more money for private school.
Others may choose to live close to family and forge childcare relationships with grandparents. Again, it's all about shifting priorities and accommodating these small people in your life. You either throw money at the problem or make different lifestyle choices.

I worked when my kids were babies and toddlers and preschoolers and elementary school on up.
Now they are soon heading off to college.
I know now that being a SAHM in the early years and going back to work when kids are in school is not brag worthy.
I tell all new moms to be the same thing - work now. Find someone loving and nurturing that is key. Parenting in the early years is caretaking.
When your kids are in school, then plan to stay home.
You will want to be there.
That is when the real parenting happens.

Btw I worked in daycares for a long time in college and after. Group care is fine. And most teachers do like kids. And kids like hanging out with other kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's broken is an economy that forces a majority of parents to work full-time in order to make ends meet.

As more parents chose to work, the economy adapted to that model. Not the other way around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's broken is an economy that forces a majority of parents to work full-time in order to make ends meet.

I was a SAHM and by necessity lived extremely cheaply - as in, I packed lunch for me and my toddlers when we went on daily outings, dressed them in thrift shop finds, etc..
Those were financially strained times but it only lasted a few years (although it felt like forever at the time). When they were nursery/pre-school age they were enrolled in a local church program which is much cheaper than organizations that have to pay overhead rent. They were only half-day programs but those half-days were a profound gift after years of 24/7 toddlerhood.

They got into good publics which gave me the freedom to work PT and by middle school and high school I am FT and we are financially much more comfortable - as in, I don't have to pack lunch anymore (but I do out of habit!).
As for real estate, I used my little downtime as a SAHM to project manage my home renovation and thereby jacked up the value considerably. I also did some of the electrical, plumbing, carpentry and tile work just to keep the contractor moving fast. I worked on my architect's licensing exam while the kids were in preschool.

There would have been NO WAY we could afford to pay for baby daycare for 2 kids. Economically, it made sense for me to temporarily SAHM.

Look, having children requires shifts in priorities. Rather than chase more money so someone else can care for my kids, I chose to care for them myself and temporarily live VERY simply. I suspect that my hands on parenting has something to do with them testing into great publics which eliminated the need to chase more money for private school.
Others may choose to live close to family and forge childcare relationships with grandparents. Again, it's all about shifting priorities and accommodating these small people in your life. You either throw money at the problem or make different lifestyle choices.

I worked when my kids were babies and toddlers and preschoolers and elementary school on up.
Now they are soon heading off to college.
I know now that being a SAHM in the early years and going back to work when kids are in school is not brag worthy.
I tell all new moms to be the same thing - work now. Find someone loving and nurturing that is key. Parenting in the early years is caretaking.
When your kids are in school, then plan to stay home.
You will want to be there.
That is when the real parenting happens.

Btw I worked in daycares for a long time in college and after. Group care is fine. And most teachers do like kids. And kids like hanging out with other kids.

This has been my experience. I will say it: Our daycare teachers have been more patient with my child than I am and I've learned a lot from them. And I'm not some horrific mother -- I'm just an average, kinda frazzled one with a short fuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's broken is an economy that forces a majority of parents to work full-time in order to make ends meet.

I was a SAHM and by necessity lived extremely cheaply - as in, I packed lunch for me and my toddlers when we went on daily outings, dressed them in thrift shop finds, etc..
Those were financially strained times but it only lasted a few years (although it felt like forever at the time). When they were nursery/pre-school age they were enrolled in a local church program which is much cheaper than organizations that have to pay overhead rent. They were only half-day programs but those half-days were a profound gift after years of 24/7 toddlerhood.

They got into good publics which gave me the freedom to work PT and by middle school and high school I am FT and we are financially much more comfortable - as in, I don't have to pack lunch anymore (but I do out of habit!).
As for real estate, I used my little downtime as a SAHM to project manage my home renovation and thereby jacked up the value considerably. I also did some of the electrical, plumbing, carpentry and tile work just to keep the contractor moving fast. I worked on my architect's licensing exam while the kids were in preschool.

There would have been NO WAY we could afford to pay for baby daycare for 2 kids. Economically, it made sense for me to temporarily SAHM.

Look, having children requires shifts in priorities. Rather than chase more money so someone else can care for my kids, I chose to care for them myself and temporarily live VERY simply. I suspect that my hands on parenting has something to do with them testing into great publics which eliminated the need to chase more money for private school.
Others may choose to live close to family and forge childcare relationships with grandparents. Again, it's all about shifting priorities and accommodating these small people in your life. You either throw money at the problem or make different lifestyle choices.

I worked when my kids were babies and toddlers and preschoolers and elementary school on up.
Now they are soon heading off to college.
I know now that being a SAHM in the early years and going back to work when kids are in school is not brag worthy.
I tell all new moms to be the same thing - work now. Find someone loving and nurturing that is key. Parenting in the early years is caretaking.
When your kids are in school, then plan to stay home.
You will want to be there.
That is when the real parenting happens.

Btw I worked in daycares for a long time in college and after. Group care is fine. And most teachers do like kids. And kids like hanging out with other kids.

This has been my experience. I will say it: Our daycare teachers have been more patient with my child than I am and I've learned a lot from them. And I'm not some horrific mother -- I'm just an average, kinda frazzled one with a short fuse.

+1 and I would be way more frazzled doing some of the staggered schedules and juggles being described here. Probably would end up with more screen time rather than the activities and socializing that happen at daycare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that 45K for two kids sounds reasonable does not obviate the problem that it’s unaffordable for most. Unless we only want Rich people having kids (and workers earning peanuts) we need a better solution.

Most people under a certain income bracket don’t pay for daycare. They hav family members watch the kids or older siblings watch the kids.

This. And they do shift work.

Yup. But DCUMers lose their damn minds every time this is suggested when they complain they can’t afford childcare.

“But…but….I’m ENTITLED to make 6+ figures at a cushy desk job, only on the schedule I prefer, and I simply *cannot* work opposite shifts with my spouse to save on childcare anyway, because I must spend every waking moment with my spouse fOr mY mEnTaL hEaLtH.”

OK, then find a way to pay for that childcare and quit whining.

You think people with professional jobs should just quit and take a job with shiftwork so they can avoid using childcare?

Two working professionals who can't afford Kindercare? Yes, if they can't afford rent on a small one bedroom apartment and daycare for one child on two professional salaries, then they are woefully underpaid and should seek other work.

It's not just about affording, it's whether institutionalized care for a young child is appropriate. With the expansion of telework and remote work, there's no reason many professional parents cant keep their baby at home and trade off for a few months anyway. I have friends who are planning to do this for the first year- one parent has a very flexible (maxi-flex) job and can fit in their hours at any time of the day. The other has less flexibility but enough. Babies sleep so much that first year anyway.

Sorry but that's horrible. I did it during covid when daycares were closed - traded off w my husband during the day and made up hours at night. It was constant bickering w my husband about who "got" to work when, trying to do calls during naptime just to have the baby wake up ten minutes in, staying up late every night to try to finish what I couldn't do during the day.

If you have any kind of real job you are going to be completely exhausted.

Disagree. My baby at the time napped for 5 hours during the work day. My DH took an hour lunch and watched him and vice versa. It was NBD and we truly didn’t need childcare. If you can get your baby on a nap schedule it’s a breeze.

My baby was a great sleeper but I would still be listening out for her constantly and wouldnt' be able to focus on work. People who can otherwise afford childcare and WFH without it are rolling the dice, not succeeding in gaming the system.

+1 I know people who have managed to do it, but they are the exception. When our friends tried, they quickly learned it was untenable

[Anonymous]

The other think a lot of the anti-daycare people don't realize is that a relative is often not going to be better than daycare. I love my mother, she is not abusive or harsh with my child, she is in good physical shape for her 70s, but she is simply doesn't have the energy to take care of my child full time. I'm grateful to my mother for acknowledging that.

Also remember, the vast majority of child abuse and child deaths from abuse and neglect happen at home with children's parents. That is why the research shows undeniably that home environments are what matter the most, far more than whether a child attends daycare. A highly regulated daycare is so much safer than frazzled, stressed out and sleep deprived parents trying to work shifts purely for the sake of avoiding daycare, or one overwhelmed grandparent who doesn't have the energy or physical capacity to care for a young child or baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The other think a lot of the anti-daycare people don't realize is that a relative is often not going to be better than daycare. I love my mother, she is not abusive or harsh with my child, she is in good physical shape for her 70s, but she is simply doesn't have the energy to take care of my child full time. I'm grateful to my mother for acknowledging that.

Also remember, the vast majority of child abuse and child deaths from abuse and neglect happen at home with children's parents. That is why the research shows undeniably that home environments are what matter the most, far more than whether a child attends daycare. A highly regulated daycare is so much safer than frazzled, stressed out and sleep deprived parents trying to work shifts purely for the sake of avoiding daycare, or one overwhelmed grandparent who doesn't have the energy or physical capacity to care for a young child or baby.

This is absolutely valid. My mom is a lovely person (and she is still young/spry enough to run after my toddler) but the quality of her care is objectively not as high as daycare. For the infant stage she was great -- but for the toddler stage, she is too coddle-y and relies on screen time too much.