NY Mag: Daycare is Broken

[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.

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

It’s more complicated than that. The escalation of costs to attend college, healthcare and purchase a home have outstripped wage growth. And people living longer means you need more savings, or you need to work longer.

[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.

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

It’s more complicated than that. The escalation of costs to attend college, healthcare and purchase a home have outstripped wage growth. And people living longer means you need more savings, or you need to work longer.

And let’s not forget that 70s feminists wanted wages for housework. But our capitalist overlords said no. So here we are.

[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.

Good pensions and longterm healthcare plans are a thing of the past, though. The very good longterm care plan my MIL has is one that she is grandfathered into--they no longer offer one with that level of care because the insurance company was losing money on it with the length of time people spend in care nowadays and the rising cost of care. Likewise, the pension and health insurance my mom gets through my dad after he passed are no longer offered at my dad's employer.

[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.

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

This. Plus, people have loftier standards today. They don't want to live in a tiny house, never go out to eat, only go on vacations within driving distance. Lifestyle expectations are so different from those of our grandparents.

[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.

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

This. Plus, people have loftier standards today. They don't want to live in a tiny house, never go out to eat, only go on vacations within driving distance. Lifestyle expectations are so different from those of our grandparents.

We could certainly live more frugally on one salary. But we don't want to because I want to have a career, and would be miserable as a SAHM. And my experience is pretty typical.

In America, women are now just as likely as men to report working because they want to – not because they must, according to the new study by Schnabel, the Robert and Ann Rosenthal Assistant Professor of sociology in the College of Arts and Sciences. Even among very religious Americans, where men still report wanting to work more than women, there’s movement toward parity over time.

“We’re not explaining the stalled gender revolution, but we are showing that preferences aren’t the reason for it,” he said. “Based on this survey question, it doesn’t seem women don’t want to work. Rather, it seems that structural and cultural factors put up barriers to women who do want to work.”

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2022/03/women-want-work-despite-workforce-precarity

[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.

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

This. Plus, people have loftier standards today. They don't want to live in a tiny house, never go out to eat, only go on vacations within driving distance. Lifestyle expectations are so different from those of our grandparents.

I see being able to take nicer vacations than I did as a kid as a side benefit of two incomes, but I would never work just to afford nicer vacations. I don’t know anyone who does this. And I don’t know where you live but this area is full of small, circa-1940s homes with dual income parents.

[Anonymous]

Is the best possible scenario living in a multigenerational household where the grandparents take care of the children while the parents work and then the children and grandchildren take care of the grandparents when they age?

[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.

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

This. Plus, people have loftier standards today. They don't want to live in a tiny house, never go out to eat, only go on vacations within driving distance. Lifestyle expectations are so different from those of our grandparents.

We could certainly live more frugally on one salary. But we don't want to because I want to have a career, and would be miserable as a SAHM. And my experience is pretty typical.

In America, women are now just as likely as men to report working because they want to – not because they must, according to the new study by Schnabel, the Robert and Ann Rosenthal Assistant Professor of sociology in the College of Arts and Sciences. Even among very religious Americans, where men still report wanting to work more than women, there’s movement toward parity over time.

“We’re not explaining the stalled gender revolution, but we are showing that preferences aren’t the reason for it,” he said. “Based on this survey question, it doesn’t seem women don’t want to work. Rather, it seems that structural and cultural factors put up barriers to women who do want to work.”

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2022/03/women-want-work-despite-workforce-precarity

+1. Same. Also my parents were immigrants and sacrificed SO MUCH to send us to college (plus I had some loans I paid back in my 20s). To give that all up would feel like I was letting them down. I do wish there was more flexibility in this country to take a sabbatical in the early years, but I work in a STEM field where this isn’t possible.

[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.

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

This. Plus, people have loftier standards today. They don't want to live in a tiny house, never go out to eat, only go on vacations within driving distance. Lifestyle expectations are so different from those of our grandparents.

I see being able to take nicer vacations than I did as a kid as a side benefit of two incomes, but I would never work just to afford nicer vacations. I don’t know anyone who does this. And I don’t know where you live but this area is full of small, circa-1940s homes with dual income parents.

+1 living on one income for us would mean moving to an exurb and never seeing DH during the week due to the commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the best possible scenario living in a multigenerational household where the grandparents take care of the children while the parents work and then the children and grandchildren take care of the grandparents when they age?

Yes and no. It depends on the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the best possible scenario living in a multigenerational household where the grandparents take care of the children while the parents work and then the children and grandchildren take care of the grandparents when they age?

That depends on the differences in age. My parents cannot care for my toddler full-time. They are too old.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yeaaaa, check back with us about that couple you know who are going to try to work from home while switching off caring for their newborn first child for an entire year or more. That doesn't sound disastrous or anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the best possible scenario living in a multigenerational household where the grandparents take care of the children while the parents work and then the children and grandchildren take care of the grandparents when they age?

As another PP mentioned, parents have kids too late in life for this to be practical for more than a few years. Grandparents get too old to be actively involved. So then Mom ends up in a sandwich generation hell taking care of little kids and old parents.

Also the nuclear-family-centric attitudes toward this arrangement would be prohibitive, at least for typical DC white people. Everyone I know in that category is annoyed or stressed out by their parents after a couple days of visiting. I grew up in a close-knit family and would like to think I'm not part of that, but my mom lived with me temporarily to help with my baby while DH was working overseas and I felt like snapping at her often.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yeaaaa, check back with us about that couple you know who are going to try to work from home while switching off caring for their newborn first child for an entire year or more. That doesn't sound disastrous or anything.

+1 when parents-to-be tell me they are planning to do this I cringe. They need to get on daycare waiting lists pronto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the best possible scenario living in a multigenerational household where the grandparents take care of the children while the parents work and then the children and grandchildren take care of the grandparents when they age?

As another PP mentioned, parents have kids too late in life for this to be practical for more than a few years. Grandparents get too old to be actively involved. So then Mom ends up in a sandwich generation hell taking care of little kids and old parents.

Also the nuclear-family-centric attitudes toward this arrangement would be prohibitive, at least for typical DC white people. Everyone I know in that category is annoyed or stressed out by their parents after a couple days of visiting. I grew up in a close-knit family and would like to think I'm not part of that, but my mom lived with me temporarily to help with my baby while DH was working overseas and I felt like snapping at her often.

Among the Indian-American multigenerational families, I have seen the following -

- Parents and grandparents combine resources (may not be 50-50, but it is still very beneficial). Thus they are able to buy bigger McMansions in more expensive areas. Kids benefit by being in better school pyramids. Everyone has enough privacy and space.
- Household is run more efficiently (food cooked, groceries picked, laundry, school pickups and drop offs) because they can outsource chores (cleaning), they can supervise (nanny, handyman, tutors) and they can divide and conquer chores.
- Everyone has leisure time and kids are never alone.
- There are multiple levels of social connections formed and encouraged. All generations have their own peers, but overall social network is vast and overlapping.

However, you do have to ADJUST to each other and each person must feel valued and respected. That is a hard tightrope to walk and you have to have a clear understanding that you are benefiting. In other words, it is like having Thanksgiving every week. You can have a very great experience or it can also quickly turn into toxic situation.

Childcare with even elderly low energy grandparents work in this situation because they usually have a nanny and the grandparents can keep an eye on the kid and nanny.