The Research on Various Childcare Options

[Anonymous]

The irony is that the same people who are demanding maternity/paternity leave for a year are the same people who crap on SAHMs. Like it’s important but not THAT important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These topics are difficult to discuss in mom forums (like this one) because people feel judged for the choices they make/made.

But let's assume you had access to any childcare option. There's no monetary constraint. You have loving grandparents who want to be caretakers for your infant. You have found the Mary Poppins of baby nannies and the cost is no big deal to you. How many would still choose center-based care for an infant?

Most of these findings line up with my intuitive feelings as a mom whose been through this a couple of times. But I didn't have infinite financial resources, we didn't have grandparents who lived nearby, the US does not grant a year or two years of parental leave, so we did the best we could.

Yeah, I think it's tough because most people are just not in this situation where money is no object. I'd absolutely pick Mary Poppins nanny until preschool (I can't even imagine myself into having different grandparents), but it's simply not an option, so it's tough to read this stuff and feel like we're screwing up our kids just by being middle income.

+1 I would pick grandparents in a heartbeat but my parents simply aren’t in a position to do that for me. Fortunately my kids seem to be doing okay in daycare but I definitely do feel guilty after reading the article. :-///

Me too, as long as they are someone else’s grandparents!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These topics are difficult to discuss in mom forums (like this one) because people feel judged for the choices they make/made.

But let's assume you had access to any childcare option. There's no monetary constraint. You have loving grandparents who want to be caretakers for your infant. You have found the Mary Poppins of baby nannies and the cost is no big deal to you. How many would still choose center-based care for an infant?

Most of these findings line up with my intuitive feelings as a mom whose been through this a couple of times. But I didn't have infinite financial resources, we didn't have grandparents who lived nearby, the US does not grant a year or two years of parental leave, so we did the best we could.

Yeah, I think it's tough because most people are just not in this situation where money is no object. I'd absolutely pick Mary Poppins nanny until preschool (I can't even imagine myself into having different grandparents), but it's simply not an option, so it's tough to read this stuff and feel like we're screwing up our kids just by being middle income.

+1 I would pick grandparents in a heartbeat but my parents simply aren’t in a position to do that for me. Fortunately my kids seem to be doing okay in daycare but I definitely do feel guilty after reading the article. :-///

Me too, as long as they are someone else’s grandparents!

Yeah, this. I really envy people with functional, capable parents who can (and want to) provide even some part-time childcare. My mom absolutely would do this but I don't trust her to -- she has huge boundary issues and I think might be bipolar. I'd never know if I was getting her nurturing, loving personality or her vindictive, abusive one. I could never leave my kid in her care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

Yeah I have several friends who are pretty successful and have higher incomes than that who sent their kids to daycare from an early age. Way before 3 or 4. Sometimes it's just easier that way because you never have to deal with an unreliable/sick nanny, don't need to worry about a nanny might be doing in your house when you're not there, easier to work from home, etc. It's not just about cost. Plus I've heard from multiple friends that nannies just aren't great at "teaching" anything.

I don't really know if I believe that a mom staying home is "by common sense" the best option. Spreading out the work and having a nanny come for part of the day who can really focus on the kid and then get a break might be better than a mom who is overworked/tired and can't give her all to the kid because she has to do housework, cooking, etc. Personally I was relieved when I got back to work because being the stay at home mom/house manager during maternity leave felt like a lot!

But the downside of daycare is that they can have strict rules about sick kids, and send kids home with the sniffles. And of course, being in group care with a lot of other kids and multiple caregivers als means kids in daycare are more likely to get sick, so this can become a nasty cycle, especially if you have multiple kids in daycare. Add to this strict rules about fevers in an age group where fevers are more common than in the general population.

With nannies, kids generally catch fewer viruses and most nannies will care for sick kids unless they are, themselves, too sick to work. Most nannies are not taking off four days for a cold, but a daycare could easily refuse to allow a kid in class for four days with a cold, especially post-Covid.

Totally, I don’t disagree with any of that. I guess my point was just to say that I have friends who make a lot and still chose daycare despite having “options”. And I’m talking about like…double big law, banking, private equity, doctors. I don’t know anyone keeping their kids home until they’re 3.

This is unique to dc and a few other blue cities. In most of America, no one with a high earning career would ever put their child in daycare.

Ignoring the weird blue city comment, these professions also often can’t use daycare—it doesn’t fit their hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that the same people who are demanding maternity/paternity leave for a year are the same people who crap on SAHMs. Like it’s important but not THAT important.

I agree but I also don't like it when people are like "you don't need paid leave, just become a SAHM." And I say this as someone who did, in fact, become a SAHM when my childcare options were crap and my employer would not agree to extending my leave (even unpaid! I wasn't even asking for money, just time).

I would have liked the option of keeping my job without having to send my infant to a questionable childcare setting that I wasn't comfortable with and that was statistically more likely to cause behavioral issues later on.

But I also think women need to stop judging other women for become SAHMs, whether on a short or long term basis. The perception of all SAHMs a privileged and lazy is both misogynist and hyper-capitalist -- totally disregarding the unpaid labor done primarily by women with children and in homes as though it doesn't count and is not a worthwhile way to spend your time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

Yeah I have several friends who are pretty successful and have higher incomes than that who sent their kids to daycare from an early age. Way before 3 or 4. Sometimes it's just easier that way because you never have to deal with an unreliable/sick nanny, don't need to worry about a nanny might be doing in your house when you're not there, easier to work from home, etc. It's not just about cost. Plus I've heard from multiple friends that nannies just aren't great at "teaching" anything.

I don't really know if I believe that a mom staying home is "by common sense" the best option. Spreading out the work and having a nanny come for part of the day who can really focus on the kid and then get a break might be better than a mom who is overworked/tired and can't give her all to the kid because she has to do housework, cooking, etc. Personally I was relieved when I got back to work because being the stay at home mom/house manager during maternity leave felt like a lot!

But the downside of daycare is that they can have strict rules about sick kids, and send kids home with the sniffles. And of course, being in group care with a lot of other kids and multiple caregivers als means kids in daycare are more likely to get sick, so this can become a nasty cycle, especially if you have multiple kids in daycare. Add to this strict rules about fevers in an age group where fevers are more common than in the general population.

With nannies, kids generally catch fewer viruses and most nannies will care for sick kids unless they are, themselves, too sick to work. Most nannies are not taking off four days for a cold, but a daycare could easily refuse to allow a kid in class for four days with a cold, especially post-Covid.

Totally, I don’t disagree with any of that. I guess my point was just to say that I have friends who make a lot and still chose daycare despite having “options”. And I’m talking about like…double big law, banking, private equity, doctors. I don’t know anyone keeping their kids home until they’re 3.

This is unique to dc and a few other blue cities. In most of America, no one with a high earning career would ever put their child in daycare.

I live in DC and disagree with the PP. I know a lot of people here who kept their kids home until 3. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two families who put their kid in daycare before age 1, and they were not happy about it. I can't really think of any families who were really enthusiastic about daycare, especially for infants/babies. It's the kind of thing that just feels intuitively off to you (leaving a 3 or 4 month old baby in a daycare facility) and most people will try to avoid it if they can.

I will accept that some people actually choose daycare even when they have other options, but I'm raising kids in DC and don't know anyone for whom that is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

Yeah I have several friends who are pretty successful and have higher incomes than that who sent their kids to daycare from an early age. Way before 3 or 4. Sometimes it's just easier that way because you never have to deal with an unreliable/sick nanny, don't need to worry about a nanny might be doing in your house when you're not there, easier to work from home, etc. It's not just about cost. Plus I've heard from multiple friends that nannies just aren't great at "teaching" anything.

I don't really know if I believe that a mom staying home is "by common sense" the best option. Spreading out the work and having a nanny come for part of the day who can really focus on the kid and then get a break might be better than a mom who is overworked/tired and can't give her all to the kid because she has to do housework, cooking, etc. Personally I was relieved when I got back to work because being the stay at home mom/house manager during maternity leave felt like a lot!

As a SAHM, you really don’t need to be focused on a young child or “teaching” them for much of the day. Lying under a tree is enrichment for a baby. Doing laundry together is enrichment for a toddler. It’s mostly about setting them up in safe, enriching environments (by which I mean a reasonably clean mud puddle) and then leaving them alone until/unless there’s blood.

My comment wasn’t directed at SAHMs, just nannies who may not be focused on a kid’s milestones and striving to teach vs. just babysit. whereas in daycare you know you’re getting certain benefits (even if there are costs too).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

Yeah I have several friends who are pretty successful and have higher incomes than that who sent their kids to daycare from an early age. Way before 3 or 4. Sometimes it's just easier that way because you never have to deal with an unreliable/sick nanny, don't need to worry about a nanny might be doing in your house when you're not there, easier to work from home, etc. It's not just about cost. Plus I've heard from multiple friends that nannies just aren't great at "teaching" anything.

I don't really know if I believe that a mom staying home is "by common sense" the best option. Spreading out the work and having a nanny come for part of the day who can really focus on the kid and then get a break might be better than a mom who is overworked/tired and can't give her all to the kid because she has to do housework, cooking, etc. Personally I was relieved when I got back to work because being the stay at home mom/house manager during maternity leave felt like a lot!

But the downside of daycare is that they can have strict rules about sick kids, and send kids home with the sniffles. And of course, being in group care with a lot of other kids and multiple caregivers als means kids in daycare are more likely to get sick, so this can become a nasty cycle, especially if you have multiple kids in daycare. Add to this strict rules about fevers in an age group where fevers are more common than in the general population.

With nannies, kids generally catch fewer viruses and most nannies will care for sick kids unless they are, themselves, too sick to work. Most nannies are not taking off four days for a cold, but a daycare could easily refuse to allow a kid in class for four days with a cold, especially post-Covid.

Totally, I don’t disagree with any of that. I guess my point was just to say that I have friends who make a lot and still chose daycare despite having “options”. And I’m talking about like…double big law, banking, private equity, doctors. I don’t know anyone keeping their kids home until they’re 3.

This is unique to dc and a few other blue cities. In most of America, no one with a high earning career would ever put their child in daycare.

I live in DC and disagree with the PP. I know a lot of people here who kept their kids home until 3. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two families who put their kid in daycare before age 1, and they were not happy about it. I can't really think of any families who were really enthusiastic about daycare, especially for infants/babies. It's the kind of thing that just feels intuitively off to you (leaving a 3 or 4 month old baby in a daycare facility) and most people will try to avoid it if they can.

I will accept that some people actually choose daycare even when they have other options, but I'm raising kids in DC and don't know anyone for whom that is true.

But I think keeping kids until 3 vs. sending a 3-4 month old to daycare are entirely different concepts and don’t belong in the same conversation. I don’t think anyone is advocating that daycare is “better” for a young baby. But at a certain age, I think daycare it does make sense to send a kid to a group setting, even if it’s for a few hours at a time and/or a few days a week. I don’t think keeping kids entirely home until 3 is normal. I have friends who don’t work and don’t even do that. Personally I kept my kid home until about 1.5 (probably could’ve kept him until 2 if we really wanted to). Between 2-3, I couldn’t imagine keeping him at home everyday. That would’ve been a disservice to him.

That’s the issue with this thread, people can be pro daycare beyond a certain age but others are like OMG you’re sending your 3 month old to daycare by choice??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that the same people who are demanding maternity/paternity leave for a year are the same people who crap on SAHMs. Like it’s important but not THAT important.

I agree but I also don't like it when people are like "you don't need paid leave, just become a SAHM." And I say this as someone who did, in fact, become a SAHM when my childcare options were crap and my employer would not agree to extending my leave (even unpaid! I wasn't even asking for money, just time).

I would have liked the option of keeping my job without having to send my infant to a questionable childcare setting that I wasn't comfortable with and that was statistically more likely to cause behavioral issues later on.

But I also think women need to stop judging other women for become SAHMs, whether on a short or long term basis. The perception of all SAHMs a privileged and lazy is both misogynist and hyper-capitalist -- totally disregarding the unpaid labor done primarily by women with children and in homes as though it doesn't count and is not a worthwhile way to spend your time.

I think one thing driving the lack of paid parental leave in the US is that to truly solve the problem, you’d need 7-8 years of paid parental leave per woman. If you want to be at home with young kids and don’t want to send kids to daycare, then six months to one year of parental leave per child only helps so much. Even friends of mine in Europe really struggle with childcare once their leave has ended. Their leave also seems to very much stall their careers. The only answer is to not have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that the same people who are demanding maternity/paternity leave for a year are the same people who crap on SAHMs. Like it’s important but not THAT important.

I agree but I also don't like it when people are like "you don't need paid leave, just become a SAHM." And I say this as someone who did, in fact, become a SAHM when my childcare options were crap and my employer would not agree to extending my leave (even unpaid! I wasn't even asking for money, just time).

I would have liked the option of keeping my job without having to send my infant to a questionable childcare setting that I wasn't comfortable with and that was statistically more likely to cause behavioral issues later on.

But I also think women need to stop judging other women for become SAHMs, whether on a short or long term basis. The perception of all SAHMs a privileged and lazy is both misogynist and hyper-capitalist -- totally disregarding the unpaid labor done primarily by women with children and in homes as though it doesn't count and is not a worthwhile way to spend your time.

I think one thing driving the lack of paid parental leave in the US is that to truly solve the problem, you’d need 7-8 years of paid parental leave per woman. If you want to be at home with young kids and don’t want to send kids to daycare, then six months to one year of parental leave per child only helps so much. Even friends of mine in Europe really struggle with childcare once their leave has ended. Their leave also seems to very much stall their careers. The only answer is to not have kids.

+1 studies show leave longer than 6 months is detrimental career-wise.

I think it's important to note that as the author of the blog post acknowledges, they simplified the research to make it digestible and clear. But if you read the individual studies, there is a lot of nuance in the findings and there is more uncertainty than what is conveyed in the blog post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that the same people who are demanding maternity/paternity leave for a year are the same people who crap on SAHMs. Like it’s important but not THAT important.

I agree but I also don't like it when people are like "you don't need paid leave, just become a SAHM." And I say this as someone who did, in fact, become a SAHM when my childcare options were crap and my employer would not agree to extending my leave (even unpaid! I wasn't even asking for money, just time).

I would have liked the option of keeping my job without having to send my infant to a questionable childcare setting that I wasn't comfortable with and that was statistically more likely to cause behavioral issues later on.

But I also think women need to stop judging other women for become SAHMs, whether on a short or long term basis. The perception of all SAHMs a privileged and lazy is both misogynist and hyper-capitalist -- totally disregarding the unpaid labor done primarily by women with children and in homes as though it doesn't count and is not a worthwhile way to spend your time.

I think one thing driving the lack of paid parental leave in the US is that to truly solve the problem, you’d need 7-8 years of paid parental leave per woman. If you want to be at home with young kids and don’t want to send kids to daycare, then six months to one year of parental leave per child only helps so much. Even friends of mine in Europe really struggle with childcare once their leave has ended. Their leave also seems to very much stall their careers. The only answer is to not have kids.

And that’s why people aren’t choosing to have kids.

The Democratic answer is daycare; the Republican answer is early marriage and maybe a career later for women (or more likely a low wage job).

Look for conservatives to try and push women out of the workforce in the next decade. It might work but only with a severe economic crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

Yeah I have several friends who are pretty successful and have higher incomes than that who sent their kids to daycare from an early age. Way before 3 or 4. Sometimes it's just easier that way because you never have to deal with an unreliable/sick nanny, don't need to worry about a nanny might be doing in your house when you're not there, easier to work from home, etc. It's not just about cost. Plus I've heard from multiple friends that nannies just aren't great at "teaching" anything.

I don't really know if I believe that a mom staying home is "by common sense" the best option. Spreading out the work and having a nanny come for part of the day who can really focus on the kid and then get a break might be better than a mom who is overworked/tired and can't give her all to the kid because she has to do housework, cooking, etc. Personally I was relieved when I got back to work because being the stay at home mom/house manager during maternity leave felt like a lot!

But the downside of daycare is that they can have strict rules about sick kids, and send kids home with the sniffles. And of course, being in group care with a lot of other kids and multiple caregivers als means kids in daycare are more likely to get sick, so this can become a nasty cycle, especially if you have multiple kids in daycare. Add to this strict rules about fevers in an age group where fevers are more common than in the general population.

With nannies, kids generally catch fewer viruses and most nannies will care for sick kids unless they are, themselves, too sick to work. Most nannies are not taking off four days for a cold, but a daycare could easily refuse to allow a kid in class for four days with a cold, especially post-Covid.

Totally, I don’t disagree with any of that. I guess my point was just to say that I have friends who make a lot and still chose daycare despite having “options”. And I’m talking about like…double big law, banking, private equity, doctors. I don’t know anyone keeping their kids home until they’re 3.

This is unique to dc and a few other blue cities. In most of America, no one with a high earning career would ever put their child in daycare.

I live in DC and disagree with the PP. I know a lot of people here who kept their kids home until 3. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two families who put their kid in daycare before age 1, and they were not happy about it. I can't really think of any families who were really enthusiastic about daycare, especially for infants/babies. It's the kind of thing that just feels intuitively off to you (leaving a 3 or 4 month old baby in a daycare facility) and most people will try to avoid it if they can.

I will accept that some people actually choose daycare even when they have other options, but I'm raising kids in DC and don't know anyone for whom that is true.

Interesting. I also live in DC and know many families who have put their kids in daycare before age 1. If you own a home, have at least one parent who is a fed or works in the non-profit sector, and have student loan debt, a nanny is generally out of reach financially, at least in my circle.

I also know people who could afford a nanny and choose daycare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

Yeah I have several friends who are pretty successful and have higher incomes than that who sent their kids to daycare from an early age. Way before 3 or 4. Sometimes it's just easier that way because you never have to deal with an unreliable/sick nanny, don't need to worry about a nanny might be doing in your house when you're not there, easier to work from home, etc. It's not just about cost. Plus I've heard from multiple friends that nannies just aren't great at "teaching" anything.

I don't really know if I believe that a mom staying home is "by common sense" the best option. Spreading out the work and having a nanny come for part of the day who can really focus on the kid and then get a break might be better than a mom who is overworked/tired and can't give her all to the kid because she has to do housework, cooking, etc. Personally I was relieved when I got back to work because being the stay at home mom/house manager during maternity leave felt like a lot!

As a SAHM, you really don’t need to be focused on a young child or “teaching” them for much of the day. Lying under a tree is enrichment for a baby. Doing laundry together is enrichment for a toddler. It’s mostly about setting them up in safe, enriching environments (by which I mean a reasonably clean mud puddle) and then leaving them alone until/unless there’s blood.

My comment wasn’t directed at SAHMs, just nannies who may not be focused on a kid’s milestones and striving to teach vs. just babysit. whereas in daycare you know you’re getting certain benefits (even if there are costs too).

I think most people overestimate the amount of “teaching” that children under 3 need. IMO love is more important but that can’t be purchased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

Yeah I have several friends who are pretty successful and have higher incomes than that who sent their kids to daycare from an early age. Way before 3 or 4. Sometimes it's just easier that way because you never have to deal with an unreliable/sick nanny, don't need to worry about a nanny might be doing in your house when you're not there, easier to work from home, etc. It's not just about cost. Plus I've heard from multiple friends that nannies just aren't great at "teaching" anything.

I don't really know if I believe that a mom staying home is "by common sense" the best option. Spreading out the work and having a nanny come for part of the day who can really focus on the kid and then get a break might be better than a mom who is overworked/tired and can't give her all to the kid because she has to do housework, cooking, etc. Personally I was relieved when I got back to work because being the stay at home mom/house manager during maternity leave felt like a lot!

As a SAHM, you really don’t need to be focused on a young child or “teaching” them for much of the day. Lying under a tree is enrichment for a baby. Doing laundry together is enrichment for a toddler. It’s mostly about setting them up in safe, enriching environments (by which I mean a reasonably clean mud puddle) and then leaving them alone until/unless there’s blood.

My comment wasn’t directed at SAHMs, just nannies who may not be focused on a kid’s milestones and striving to teach vs. just babysit. whereas in daycare you know you’re getting certain benefits (even if there are costs too).

I think most people overestimate the amount of “teaching” that children under 3 need. IMO love is more important but that can’t be purchased.

No one is saying love is less important than teaching? And I don't know what you mean by most people overestimate. No one is saying that a 3 year old needs to do worksheets or sit at a desk and learn about history or math. But they should probably be doing art projects and learning how to socialize and share and they should probably learn their ABCs too by this point because they can absorb a ton, so if you're not teaching that to them then you're not doing them any favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

Yeah I have several friends who are pretty successful and have higher incomes than that who sent their kids to daycare from an early age. Way before 3 or 4. Sometimes it's just easier that way because you never have to deal with an unreliable/sick nanny, don't need to worry about a nanny might be doing in your house when you're not there, easier to work from home, etc. It's not just about cost. Plus I've heard from multiple friends that nannies just aren't great at "teaching" anything.

I don't really know if I believe that a mom staying home is "by common sense" the best option. Spreading out the work and having a nanny come for part of the day who can really focus on the kid and then get a break might be better than a mom who is overworked/tired and can't give her all to the kid because she has to do housework, cooking, etc. Personally I was relieved when I got back to work because being the stay at home mom/house manager during maternity leave felt like a lot!

As a SAHM, you really don’t need to be focused on a young child or “teaching” them for much of the day. Lying under a tree is enrichment for a baby. Doing laundry together is enrichment for a toddler. It’s mostly about setting them up in safe, enriching environments (by which I mean a reasonably clean mud puddle) and then leaving them alone until/unless there’s blood.

My comment wasn’t directed at SAHMs, just nannies who may not be focused on a kid’s milestones and striving to teach vs. just babysit. whereas in daycare you know you’re getting certain benefits (even if there are costs too).

I think most people overestimate the amount of “teaching” that children under 3 need. IMO love is more important but that can’t be purchased.

No one is saying love is less important than teaching? And I don't know what you mean by most people overestimate. No one is saying that a 3 year old needs to do worksheets or sit at a desk and learn about history or math. But they should probably be doing art projects and learning how to socialize and share and they should probably learn their ABCs too by this point because they can absorb a ton, so if you're not teaching that to them then you're not doing them any favors.

Kids can get that same experience at home instead of moving from one structured activity to another. There's so little ability to discover and explore. A kid at home is exposed to so many more things in a day in a natural way than the kid who is in one room with: 1) Story time 2) song time 3) blocks 4) art time. Day care kids only get quiet time at nap time which is not their nap time but the nap time which is also often stunted and disrupted by other kids. This idea that kids need to be constantly stimulated and enriched and a parent or nanny who sit on their phone with a child is negligent is crazy. Kids aren't a bag which we just need to fill with the required elements and they will magically be a success. The first three years should be about making them feel loved and secure and able to interact with and make sense of their world. That is the foundation for a happy, successful adult human.