NY Mag: Daycare is Broken

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You also need people to be relatively emotionally healthy. Too much undiagnosed mental illness in my immigrant family for this to work for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What happens when multiple members of the second generation marry? This setup seems to only work if the grandparents only have one child with their own family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What happens when multiple members of the second generation marry? This setup seems to only work if the grandparents only have one child with their own family

Ideally you have two children and the other child marries into another like minded Indian-American family, OR they but in the same neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

I understand that it is normal and expected that women want to have a career and maximize their potential. But, it also seems normal to want to care for your own baby when they are infants and toddlers, until they are old enough to self report about their day and also to attend actual school full time. What I guess I don't understand is that the career and self actualization seems to have become more important than that time spent with your young children. I think the reason there are "mommy wars" is because these two things are both very important. Each of us prioritizes according to our beliefs but there is no one correct answer.

I don't personally think it is the government or society's obligation to satisfy one or the other of these choices, especially when it actually is a choice.

[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.

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.

That's not middle class. Middle class cannot pay the $500 bill. $160K a year is very comfortable. $120 is manageable too but some of it is your housing and other expenses which are all choice. Funny how some of us do fine on less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand that it is normal and expected that women want to have a career and maximize their potential. But, it also seems normal to want to care for your own baby when they are infants and toddlers, until they are old enough to self report about their day and also to attend actual school full time. What I guess I don't understand is that the career and self actualization seems to have become more important than that time spent with your young children. I think the reason there are "mommy wars" is because these two things are both very important. Each of us prioritizes according to our beliefs but there is no one correct answer.

I don't personally think it is the government or society's obligation to satisfy one or the other of these choices, especially when it actually is a choice.

The difference between you and me is that I completely understand why you want to SAH, but you don't understand why I don't want to SAH and are blatantly and unapologetically judging my choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand that it is normal and expected that women want to have a career and maximize their potential. But, it also seems normal to want to care for your own baby when they are infants and toddlers, until they are old enough to self report about their day and also to attend actual school full time. What I guess I don't understand is that the career and self actualization seems to have become more important than that time spent with your young children. I think the reason there are "mommy wars" is because these two things are both very important. Each of us prioritizes according to our beliefs but there is no one correct answer.

I don't personally think it is the government or society's obligation to satisfy one or the other of these choices, especially when it actually is a choice.

With this viewpoint, I’m curious how you advise your daughters, if you have any, on their educational, career, and family choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that it is normal and expected that women want to have a career and maximize their potential. But, it also seems normal to want to care for your own baby when they are infants and toddlers, until they are old enough to self report about their day and also to attend actual school full time. What I guess I don't understand is that the career and self actualization seems to have become more important than that time spent with your young children. I think the reason there are "mommy wars" is because these two things are both very important. Each of us prioritizes according to our beliefs but there is no one correct answer.

I don't personally think it is the government or society's obligation to satisfy one or the other of these choices, especially when it actually is a choice.

With this viewpoint, I’m curious how you advise your daughters, if you have any, on their educational, career, and family choices.

She cares for their children herself. They are learning a lot from watching Peppa Pig all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That's not middle class. Middle class cannot pay the $500 bill. $160K a year is very comfortable. $120 is manageable too but some of it is your housing and other expenses which are all choice. Funny how some of us do fine on less.

If you look at any objective measurements of socioeconomic status, I’m pretty sure $160k is considered middle class for the DC area. But that wasn’t really PP’s point- going from $160k to $120k or 80k if one parent stays at home altogether is a huge hit economically. Much different than if one earner is bringing home the $160k on their own.

[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.

What do you mean by extremely high? I’ve been surprised by the number of separations and divorces among people we know lately, most in their 40s. Heck my own parents likely would have divorced but they could not afford to (they were definitely not UMC though).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That's not middle class. Middle class cannot pay the $500 bill. $160K a year is very comfortable. $120 is manageable too but some of it is your housing and other expenses which are all choice. Funny how some of us do fine on less.

If you look at any objective measurements of socioeconomic status, I’m pretty sure $160k is considered middle class for the DC area. But that wasn’t really PP’s point- going from $160k to $120k or 80k if one parent stays at home altogether is a huge hit economically. Much different than if one earner is bringing home the $160k on their own.

Yeah that’s like the combined salaries of 2 teachers. Unless we now consider education to be an UMC profession, snort!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That's not middle class. Middle class cannot pay the $500 bill. $160K a year is very comfortable. $120 is manageable too but some of it is your housing and other expenses which are all choice. Funny how some of us do fine on less.

PP that’s a pretty grim definition of middle class. But anyway my point was that I can’t live comfortably on half of that. So we both have to work for a comfortable lifestyle. I’m just glad I’m on my last daycare kid. No more!

We also have family help which makes it so much easier. However, there is a lot of tv with grandma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that it is normal and expected that women want to have a career and maximize their potential. But, it also seems normal to want to care for your own baby when they are infants and toddlers, until they are old enough to self report about their day and also to attend actual school full time. What I guess I don't understand is that the career and self actualization seems to have become more important than that time spent with your young children. I think the reason there are "mommy wars" is because these two things are both very important. Each of us prioritizes according to our beliefs but there is no one correct answer.

I don't personally think it is the government or society's obligation to satisfy one or the other of these choices, especially when it actually is a choice.

The difference between you and me is that I completely understand why you want to SAH, but you don't understand why I don't want to SAH and are blatantly and unapologetically judging my choice.

I guess so because I do definitely believe that it's important and very valuable to families and society for infants and toddlers to be cared for by a parent who wants to be doing that. I don't think you "completely understand" that at all given your judgmental tone in your reply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that it is normal and expected that women want to have a career and maximize their potential. But, it also seems normal to want to care for your own baby when they are infants and toddlers, until they are old enough to self report about their day and also to attend actual school full time. What I guess I don't understand is that the career and self actualization seems to have become more important than that time spent with your young children. I think the reason there are "mommy wars" is because these two things are both very important. Each of us prioritizes according to our beliefs but there is no one correct answer.

I don't personally think it is the government or society's obligation to satisfy one or the other of these choices, especially when it actually is a choice.

With this viewpoint, I’m curious how you advise your daughters, if you have any, on their educational, career, and family choices.

I have a daughter and a son and they are grown. My daughter is single by choice and I have not advised her on career or family choices ever although I did encourage her to go to college. My son married a woman who wanted to be a SAHM and he supported her in that but it was entirely their decisions. I have never pushed my children to choose any particular path as adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That's not middle class. Middle class cannot pay the $500 bill. $160K a year is very comfortable. $120 is manageable too but some of it is your housing and other expenses which are all choice. Funny how some of us do fine on less.

Do you do fine on 70-80k for a family? Because THAT is what the PP is saying would be hard. Come on. Read.