Working Moms and Do It All Expectation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who say they work in case their husband divorces them or dies.

My friend married since 2006 to his wife who actually was so anxious to be a stay at home quit work while they were engaged to help plan wedding and she moved in. Well since then they bought a new home worth now around 3 million. Have two cars, I know my friend who makes around 500K has made almost 10 million in salary during marriage. And he goes max 401k and does IRA for her and has 529s fully funded all three kids. Since marriage greater than 10 years she gets his SS. In divorce she is entitled to 1/2 at this point, plus alimony, child support and if he drops dead she gets it all plus his multimillion life insurance policy.

Why would she need to work? Do you really think her making 100K a year is even going to matter. She did not have a big job. At his age he has around 10 million invested he makes around 1-2 million a year just on dividends, interest and capital gains a lot of years.

I don’t know…there is a divorce with one of the Pritkers who has a net worth of several billion but it looks the wife will only end up with $10MM…all sorts of tricks you can employ to screw your spouse if you want including moving your assets into trusts and what not.

Sounds like the wife above isn’t super savvy…not to mention the person with lots of money can decide to just spend down the $$$s on lawyers if the divorce is acrimonious. It’s crazy what lengths people will go to screw over a spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by saying that there was a division of labor and it was better when moms didn’t work and managed to single-handedly take care of kids needs, is still putting all the responsibility for child care on the women’s shoulder.

As a society, we decide what is important. Given that there is no minimum parental leave, affordable childcare, good before / aftercare options, we have decided as a society that having children is not valued. The moms lamenting are a result of that. But it’s not the feminists to blame, it’s all of us as a society because these are our values: families and children are not priority for us as a society. It’s that simple.

Or maybe it’s the opposite. Consider that the conservative argument is that women should be able to stay home with children and therefore a strong economy with high wages is important.

Compared to a country with lower wages and women returning to work after a year of government paid leave.

I’d argue European countries are less family friendly since through their taxes and lower wages require almost all women to work after having children.

Except they get like two years of paid maternity.

Your argument doesn’t hold because the median HHI income in the US is $75k and in Euro countries it’s $64.4k. Professional jobs in Europe pay absolutely well enough to have only one spouse working if that’s what you want…add in that you don’t have to save for healthcare, childcare, pre-school, college, etc.

So the median US household can’t afford to have a parent not work.

I like how everyone throws around “paid maternity”. No one is paying your $150k salary for 2 years in Europe unless you work a very unique job. They get a stipend or small percentage of their salary. I preferred my 12 weeks paid at my full salary.

+10000 paid maternity is around $250 a week in London. Yes many have additional benefits like we do from our employers.

In Denmark you receive full pay for 14 weeks and then both mother and father are able to take 32 weeks each at 80% salary.

In Germany you get full pay for 14 weeks and then after that you receive 65% of salary for another 12-14 months.

I could keep going down the list. The UK BTW is the one place where you can also earn serious $$$s if you pick a lucrative profession. The people working in PE, hedge funds, banks, etc. in the UK make as much or more than their US counterparts.

Except the co-workers pay for it along with tax payers there is no free ride. I worked doing same exact job my co-workers did in in Europe and made 100K more plus a lower tax rate.

Well, you have to factor in your health insurance premiums and copays and deductibles as another hidden tax (not to mention how stupid it is for healthcare to be tied to a job), plus the cost of childcare as a hidden tax…plus what you have to save for college, etc.

Yet something still doesn’t really compute. My company has many European engineers and there is a cost of living adjustment (actually no different than an engineer in SF makes more than one in Des Moines), but the pay isn’t much different for several in Sweden vs the US.

Maybe the secret is to work for a US company in Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by saying that there was a division of labor and it was better when moms didn’t work and managed to single-handedly take care of kids needs, is still putting all the responsibility for child care on the women’s shoulder.

As a society, we decide what is important. Given that there is no minimum parental leave, affordable childcare, good before / aftercare options, we have decided as a society that having children is not valued. The moms lamenting are a result of that. But it’s not the feminists to blame, it’s all of us as a society because these are our values: families and children are not priority for us as a society. It’s that simple.

Or maybe it’s the opposite. Consider that the conservative argument is that women should be able to stay home with children and therefore a strong economy with high wages is important.

Compared to a country with lower wages and women returning to work after a year of government paid leave.

I’d argue European countries are less family friendly since through their taxes and lower wages require almost all women to work after having children.

Except they get like two years of paid maternity.

Your argument doesn’t hold because the median HHI income in the US is $75k and in Euro countries it’s $64.4k. Professional jobs in Europe pay absolutely well enough to have only one spouse working if that’s what you want…add in that you don’t have to save for healthcare, childcare, pre-school, college, etc.

So the median US household can’t afford to have a parent not work.

I like how everyone throws around “paid maternity”. No one is paying your $150k salary for 2 years in Europe unless you work a very unique job. They get a stipend or small percentage of their salary. I preferred my 12 weeks paid at my full salary.

+10000 paid maternity is around $250 a week in London. Yes many have additional benefits like we do from our employers.

In Denmark you receive full pay for 14 weeks and then both mother and father are able to take 32 weeks each at 80% salary.

In Germany you get full pay for 14 weeks and then after that you receive 65% of salary for another 12-14 months.

I could keep going down the list. The UK BTW is the one place where you can also earn serious $$$s if you pick a lucrative profession. The people working in PE, hedge funds, banks, etc. in the UK make as much or more than their US counterparts.

Except the co-workers pay for it along with tax payers there is no free ride. I worked doing same exact job my co-workers did in in Europe and made 100K more plus a lower tax rate.

Well, you have to factor in your health insurance premiums and copays and deductibles as another hidden tax (not to mention how stupid it is for healthcare to be tied to a job), plus the cost of childcare as a hidden tax…plus what you have to save for college, etc.

Yet something still doesn’t really compute. My company has many European engineers and there is a cost of living adjustment (actually no different than an engineer in SF makes more than one in Des Moines), but the pay isn’t much different for several in Sweden vs the US.

Maybe the secret is to work for a US company in Europe.

Hmm, I'm a US mid level engineer making ~$230. Most jobs I'm seeing in europe (yeah, I'm looking) are around $80k unless you are on an expat contract, which are more rare and hard to get these days. Pretty hard to make the math work on that trade for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who say they work in case their husband divorces them or dies.

My friend married since 2006 to his wife who actually was so anxious to be a stay at home quit work while they were engaged to help plan wedding and she moved in. Well since then they bought a new home worth now around 3 million. Have two cars, I know my friend who makes around 500K has made almost 10 million in salary during marriage. And he goes max 401k and does IRA for her and has 529s fully funded all three kids. Since marriage greater than 10 years she gets his SS. In divorce she is entitled to 1/2 at this point, plus alimony, child support and if he drops dead she gets it all plus his multimillion life insurance policy.

Why would she need to work? Do you really think her making 100K a year is even going to matter. She did not have a big job. At his age he has around 10 million invested he makes around 1-2 million a year just on dividends, interest and capital gains a lot of years.

That’s great.
The problem is there is not enough of rich men for all the women who want them.
If Bill Gates wanted to marry me, I would not blink an eye about becoming SAHM…do social events, charities, humanitarian stuff and feel great about myself…
How many Bill Gates are out there?

And then, what about other factors looks looks, being good in bed, personality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who say they work in case their husband divorces them or dies.

My friend married since 2006 to his wife who actually was so anxious to be a stay at home quit work while they were engaged to help plan wedding and she moved in. Well since then they bought a new home worth now around 3 million. Have two cars, I know my friend who makes around 500K has made almost 10 million in salary during marriage. And he goes max 401k and does IRA for her and has 529s fully funded all three kids. Since marriage greater than 10 years she gets his SS. In divorce she is entitled to 1/2 at this point, plus alimony, child support and if he drops dead she gets it all plus his multimillion life insurance policy.

Why would she need to work? Do you really think her making 100K a year is even going to matter. She did not have a big job. At his age he has around 10 million invested he makes around 1-2 million a year just on dividends, interest and capital gains a lot of years.

There’s a lot more jilted ex-SAHMs who had to reenter the work force upon divorce than there are SAHMs married to wealthy single earners.

Easily a 30:1 ratio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who say they work in case their husband divorces them or dies.

My friend married since 2006 to his wife who actually was so anxious to be a stay at home quit work while they were engaged to help plan wedding and she moved in. Well since then they bought a new home worth now around 3 million. Have two cars, I know my friend who makes around 500K has made almost 10 million in salary during marriage. And he goes max 401k and does IRA for her and has 529s fully funded all three kids. Since marriage greater than 10 years she gets his SS. In divorce she is entitled to 1/2 at this point, plus alimony, child support and if he drops dead she gets it all plus his multimillion life insurance policy.

Why would she need to work? Do you really think her making 100K a year is even going to matter. She did not have a big job. At his age he has around 10 million invested he makes around 1-2 million a year just on dividends, interest and capital gains a lot of years.

That’s great.
The problem is there is not enough of rich men for all the women who want them.
If Bill Gates wanted to marry me, I would not blink an eye about becoming SAHM…do social events, charities, humanitarian stuff and feel great about myself…
How many Bill Gates are out there?

And then, what about other factors looks looks, being good in bed, personality?

A SAHP is a risk, but it’s a risk that can be managed by most IF that is what a family wants to do. A lot of women and men don’t want to be SAHP and that’s obviously fine, but to pretend that only millionaire families can have a SAHP is crazy. Lots of American families do it. As long as you have some assets before you have kids, take out disability and life insurance for the working parent, have a good marriage, and make sure that both spouses remain involved in finances it can work. If you have to divorce the SAHP gets 1/2 the assets, alimony, child support, and 1/2 of the working spouses’ social security benefits. Even if you’re out for the workforce for a long time, transitioning back as a teacher or nurse isn’t hard. This was my sister’s plan when she became a SAHP and it works for her. Not appealing to a lot of women, but she always wanted to be a SAHM and is very happy. ( and she has an advanced degree and made a very nice salary before having kids).

Life is full of risks. We all choose to take risks for things that are important to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Life can get bad for women who don't have a way of earning money and don't have legal protections. They can become trapped in abusive marriages or discarded and left with no way to support themselves.
The solution is flexible working arrangements for both spouses so each (if they choose) can maintain their voice and earning power.

This. Or even in more benign but still annoying situations. Like being married to a man who treats you like you are dumb and expects you to pack his suitcase for his business trips.

I have old school SAHMs in my family. Even the ones whose husbands make a lot, there are definitely downsides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who say they work in case their husband divorces them or dies.

My friend married since 2006 to his wife who actually was so anxious to be a stay at home quit work while they were engaged to help plan wedding and she moved in. Well since then they bought a new home worth now around 3 million. Have two cars, I know my friend who makes around 500K has made almost 10 million in salary during marriage. And he goes max 401k and does IRA for her and has 529s fully funded all three kids. Since marriage greater than 10 years she gets his SS. In divorce she is entitled to 1/2 at this point, plus alimony, child support and if he drops dead she gets it all plus his multimillion life insurance policy.

Why would she need to work? Do you really think her making 100K a year is even going to matter. She did not have a big job. At his age he has around 10 million invested he makes around 1-2 million a year just on dividends, interest and capital gains a lot of years.

I don’t know…there is a divorce with one of the Pritkers who has a net worth of several billion but it looks the wife will only end up with $10MM…all sorts of tricks you can employ to screw your spouse if you want including moving your assets into trusts and what not.

Sounds like the wife above isn’t super savvy…not to mention the person with lots of money can decide to just spend down the $$$s on lawyers if the divorce is acrimonious. It’s crazy what lengths people will go to screw over a spouse.

Except there is a saying "women have to pick a horse and ride it" In my spouses network it is all nurses, marketing majors, teachers, office worker jobs. The women all graduated average colleges with average degrees. All were pretty and nice. None had parents with money. Most parents had a HS education or were immigrants themselves and lived in small little houses. But a man in his late 20s or early 30s he is looking for exactly that. A women to be a Mom as men have biological clocks too. They weirdly and oddly even though they are business people them selves shy away from business women.

Now pick the horse and ride them. These women wont be able to marry a already rich guy, a guy from a rich family, a guy from a fancy school or grew up fancy neighborhood. Guess that the man wont be able to either.

However, the good looking six foot two inch white guy who is very nice and down to earth who is doing MBA part time or just got it who is 28 who just made AVP at a bank, just made Manager at Big Four, just got his stock broker license who is hardworking with proper molding and a women behind the scenes can like Hillary got Bill to President can make it happen. I have seen it time and time and time again.

And divorce. You girls crack me up. That Labrador of a husband she pushed out door each morning with a kiss on a check and a cup of coffee. He is useless without her. Who is he taken office holiday party, his wife at events is all friendly the other exec wives, she gives him the advice, she manages the money. She has control of house and kids and talks to his mom and sends the cards out and makes him look good. The kids all love Mom she is one home taking them places, cooking, going on class trips in divorce they side with her. Do you really think he has a powerfull attorney and a plot to take the money. He does not even know where the money is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1
I’m suspicious too.
We’ve been sold a bad deal.
Most women I know would love to be full-time homemakers raising children at home instead of laboring to help a corporation turn a meaningless profit. But it’s too late for that now.
Our standard of living has now outpaced the ability to provide a “good life” on one inclome. Sadly, we’ve sealed our own feminist fate.

Pfft. Then you have to trust a man to be able to work and bring home enough money to support your lifestyle. You also have to make sure you “keep him happy at home” to ensure he doesn’t “stray”

The answer doesn’t lie in going backwards, it is in more lenient hours, part-time work, more parental leave etc. This requires employers to change with the help of government.

Don’t exchange one story for another one that is worse. Keep moving toward real workplace changes for BOTH genders.

Totally! OP is either a MAGA trad wife or an angry husband whose weenie is in a twist because his wife makes more than him.

+1
Why is feminism to blame when we have corporate heads getting huge bonuses and squeezing workers to work insane hours and laying them off periodically? We should all be working a 30 hour week to allow for life. It would also be better for democracy and society. The government missed an opportunity to switch a 40 hour week to a 30 hour week, when women started working.

This. Your complaint is with capitalism. But the billionaire class, mostly men, prefers you blame feminism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9-5 is pretty ridiculous hours. Try working 7-3:30 or 8-4 instead and then it matches school hours better. I often leave at 5:30am, dh takes the kids to school and then I'm home by 3pm. It frees up the whole afternoon for me to be with kids.

My kids do after school activities and those activities (tae kwon do, ballet, gymnastics, kumon) all pick up from school and take them directly there. Technically they can all stay there until 6:30pm and occasionally I need it if I'm in long meetings downtown or something.

And yes, we all have choices. I wanted to have 3 kids, 5 bedroom house, nice vacations, college paid for. It's expensive. I know plenty of SAHMs who live in tiny apartments with 2 bedrooms and still live happy lives. America is great in that we do have choices. Become a trad wife if that makes you happy. Or marry a man who pulls his 50% (like I did). We all chose our majors, careers, spouses, houses. Change your choices if they aren't working for you.

Every single mom on my block of 2-4 million homes does not work or has a side job. Look my neighbor is a IVY league Doctor, sounds good. But she has four kids, range rover, mercedes convertible, beach house. She quit at 45 after birth of fourth child. She only made like 400k as a doctor. Her husband makes like 2-4 million as a CEO. What does she have to prove? She does on line medical stuff for a HMO just enough partime to keep license. The Dads on my block are all workholics who own business, judges, surgeons, CEOs, EVPs in IT alpha type males.

Five of my neighbors are SAHMs with no kids at home. Their kids are graduated and out of house. They are not going to work full time for 100k and give back half in taxes due to tax bracket. Yet somehow people think there are oppressed. 1/2 of these childless SAHMs have maids. I have no clue why. But they have so much money so they kept them after kids grown and they no longer work.

I live in a 15,000sf house. That is why I have a maid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by saying that there was a division of labor and it was better when moms didn’t work and managed to single-handedly take care of kids needs, is still putting all the responsibility for child care on the women’s shoulder.

As a society, we decide what is important. Given that there is no minimum parental leave, affordable childcare, good before / aftercare options, we have decided as a society that having children is not valued. The moms lamenting are a result of that. But it’s not the feminists to blame, it’s all of us as a society because these are our values: families and children are not priority for us as a society. It’s that simple.

Or maybe it’s the opposite. Consider that the conservative argument is that women should be able to stay home with children and therefore a strong economy with high wages is important.

Compared to a country with lower wages and women returning to work after a year of government paid leave.

I’d argue European countries are less family friendly since through their taxes and lower wages require almost all women to work after having children.

Except they get like two years of paid maternity.

Your argument doesn’t hold because the median HHI income in the US is $75k and in Euro countries it’s $64.4k. Professional jobs in Europe pay absolutely well enough to have only one spouse working if that’s what you want…add in that you don’t have to save for healthcare, childcare, pre-school, college, etc.

So the median US household can’t afford to have a parent not work.

I like how everyone throws around “paid maternity”. No one is paying your $150k salary for 2 years in Europe unless you work a very unique job. They get a stipend or small percentage of their salary. I preferred my 12 weeks paid at my full salary.

+10000 paid maternity is around $250 a week in London. Yes many have additional benefits like we do from our employers.

In Denmark you receive full pay for 14 weeks and then both mother and father are able to take 32 weeks each at 80% salary.

In Germany you get full pay for 14 weeks and then after that you receive 65% of salary for another 12-14 months.

I could keep going down the list. The UK BTW is the one place where you can also earn serious $$$s if you pick a lucrative profession. The people working in PE, hedge funds, banks, etc. in the UK make as much or more than their US counterparts.

Except the co-workers pay for it along with tax payers there is no free ride. I worked doing same exact job my co-workers did in in Europe and made 100K more plus a lower tax rate.

Well, you have to factor in your health insurance premiums and copays and deductibles as another hidden tax (not to mention how stupid it is for healthcare to be tied to a job), plus the cost of childcare as a hidden tax…plus what you have to save for college, etc.

Yet something still doesn’t really compute. My company has many European engineers and there is a cost of living adjustment (actually no different than an engineer in SF makes more than one in Des Moines), but the pay isn’t much different for several in Sweden vs the US.

Maybe the secret is to work for a US company in Europe.

Hmm, I'm a US mid level engineer making ~$230. Most jobs I'm seeing in europe (yeah, I'm looking) are around $80k unless you are on an expat contract, which are more rare and hard to get these days. Pretty hard to make the math work on that trade for me.

Too right! DCUM will deny this is true LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by saying that there was a division of labor and it was better when moms didn’t work and managed to single-handedly take care of kids needs, is still putting all the responsibility for child care on the women’s shoulder.

As a society, we decide what is important. Given that there is no minimum parental leave, affordable childcare, good before / aftercare options, we have decided as a society that having children is not valued. The moms lamenting are a result of that. But it’s not the feminists to blame, it’s all of us as a society because these are our values: families and children are not priority for us as a society. It’s that simple.

Or maybe it’s the opposite. Consider that the conservative argument is that women should be able to stay home with children and therefore a strong economy with high wages is important.

Compared to a country with lower wages and women returning to work after a year of government paid leave.

I’d argue European countries are less family friendly since through their taxes and lower wages require almost all women to work after having children.

Except they get like two years of paid maternity.

Your argument doesn’t hold because the median HHI income in the US is $75k and in Euro countries it’s $64.4k. Professional jobs in Europe pay absolutely well enough to have only one spouse working if that’s what you want…add in that you don’t have to save for healthcare, childcare, pre-school, college, etc.

So the median US household can’t afford to have a parent not work.

+1
I totally agree with you. I lived in France and Netherlands. Both countries are better set up for SAHMs (not dads, but they're getting there faster than we are). You don't have to worry about Healthcare or education in the way that we do, plus there is just much more public infrastructure with opportunities for all. The cost of living is lower. But because of all of this the childcare infrastructure is not as good. I work FT and did when I had my kids there, as did my husband. The lack of high quality childcare and the outrageous cost of nannies is what drove me back. I felt society wanted me to quit there and I felt it was oppressive, so I came home.

BTW - overall the quality of childcare is better but our range of childcare is wider here. I didn't want to accept average when in my home country I could hire a professional nanny for 1:1 ratio for less than 100k/yr. There everything costed about the same (about 25k 12 years ago) and it was equivalent to maybe Goddard or Primrose) and you could only get 2-3 days a week if you're lucky. It was horrible for working moms, and the culture for SAHDs was terrible

Sis, you lived in rural areas? I knew ZERO SAHM in Paris and several second- and third-tier French cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by saying that there was a division of labor and it was better when moms didn’t work and managed to single-handedly take care of kids needs, is still putting all the responsibility for child care on the women’s shoulder.

As a society, we decide what is important. Given that there is no minimum parental leave, affordable childcare, good before / aftercare options, we have decided as a society that having children is not valued. The moms lamenting are a result of that. But it’s not the feminists to blame, it’s all of us as a society because these are our values: families and children are not priority for us as a society. It’s that simple.

Or maybe it’s the opposite. Consider that the conservative argument is that women should be able to stay home with children and therefore a strong economy with high wages is important.

Compared to a country with lower wages and women returning to work after a year of government paid leave.

I’d argue European countries are less family friendly since through their taxes and lower wages require almost all women to work after having children.

It’s the other way round. The parental leave, childcare options, job sharing and part time options, enable female participation in the workforce. It’s not low wages after taxes that is pushing women to work in OECD countries, it’s the enabling environment that reduces obstacles to female labor force participation.

Here is from US chamber of commerce:
https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/data-deep-dive-a-decline-of-women-in-the-workforce#:~:text=The%20prohibitive%20cost%20of%20childcare,to%20return%20to%20the%20office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by saying that there was a division of labor and it was better when moms didn’t work and managed to single-handedly take care of kids needs, is still putting all the responsibility for child care on the women’s shoulder.

As a society, we decide what is important. Given that there is no minimum parental leave, affordable childcare, good before / aftercare options, we have decided as a society that having children is not valued. The moms lamenting are a result of that. But it’s not the feminists to blame, it’s all of us as a society because these are our values: families and children are not priority for us as a society. It’s that simple.

Or maybe it’s the opposite. Consider that the conservative argument is that women should be able to stay home with children and therefore a strong economy with high wages is important.

Compared to a country with lower wages and women returning to work after a year of government paid leave.

I’d argue European countries are less family friendly since through their taxes and lower wages require almost all women to work after having children.

It’s the other way round. The parental leave, childcare options, job sharing and part time options, enable female participation in the workforce. It’s not low wages after taxes that is pushing women to work in OECD countries, it’s the enabling environment that reduces obstacles to female labor force participation.

Here is from US chamber of commerce:
https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/data-deep-dive-a-decline-of-women-in-the-workforce#:~:text=The%20prohibitive%20cost%20of%20childcare,to%20return%20to%20the%20office.

The European model is all women working and mostly in PT roles so they can do evening at home too. You only get to apply yourself if you’re a man, and you’re limited to whatever the government provides you for daycare.

I’ll choose my high earning US job with a FT nanny, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is complex and centers mainly around the fact that a system that supported a working spouse/stay-at-home spouse model has NOT adapted to support two working spouses. For all the "advances" women have gained over the last several decades there is nearly no associated update to the infrastructure to support us.

Agreed, and the US really lags behind some other countries in this. The combination of (1) childcare being hard to find and very expensive, and (2) lack of leave and flexibility in US workplaces, combines to put American families in a bind. And it's compounded by rising housing and college costs.

In the US, if both parents work, you have to find full time childcare all year round. The problem does not go away when kids start school, because school breaks are lengthy and most American workplaces offer nowhere near the amount of leave necessary to cover them. Yes childcare is also not only very pricy but often hard to find. American families are constantly struggling to find childcare that will last until their work day is over, that will cover that last week of August before school starts, that will enable them to not have to take ever professional development day off work, etc.

Other countries have lower hours requirements for work, often government mandated leave policies that facilitate taking time off during school breaks, PLUS they often have subsidized childcare programs that make it easier for a family afford childcare from birth until a child is independent enough not to need it.

I used to see this as just a function of hyper-capitalist culture in the US, but with this Trump administration, I do view it more cynically as a concerted effort to try and force women out of the workforce by just making it too hard or expensive for families to go without a stay at home parent. Of course it's backfiring and instead birth rates are falling (note: falling birth rates are precisely why other countries adopted subsidized childcare and mandated leave policies). I think we're at a crossroads and it will be interesting to see where it goes from here.

What countries with these policies have sustained d a replacement rate or having an increasing birth rate? Trump administration one did 12 week parental leave for federal employees. Not sure where your argument fits in that they have targeted families specifically in other ways fits.