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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

This. And they do shift work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1 some of us don't actually think that's better. I'd rather have focused time doing my WFH job and then focused time that's 100% on my kids. Not trying to juggle both all the times.

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This. Institutionalized child care is never a good thing for babies and young children. It’s just a sad result of our economic system.

I agree totally that institutionalized child care is never a good thing for babies and young children. However, while the economic system often seems to make this inevitable for many families, I also wonder why so many people do not consider this hard fact when planning, or failing to plan, their families. The attitude in this country seems to be that everyone is entitled to have as many children as they want rather than encouraging people to figure out what they actually can afford, what daycare options they can reasonably plan for, before bringing children into the world. So many new mothers and many new fathers as well are quite surprised by how much they would prefer to care for their own infants at least the first few years but find they have failed to anticipate this and therefore can't economically find a way to do it.

So you anticipated all this ahead of time? I feel like there was so much I didn’t know about parenting, and how parenting would change me, until I was actually a parent.

Also the problem is if everyone did as you say and only have kids they could “afford” the birth rate would likely drop pretty dramatically.

Unlike many parents today I prioritized my desire to care for my own children when they were too young to go to full time school and so did my husband. We are not professionals and not the least bit affluent. Even so, we made it work for us because it was a high priority. I know other families who have done the same. It's not easy, but it is possible. For instance, I currently know a young family where the husband works night shifts and the wife works a few shifts as a server in a restaurant. They take care of their baby themselves while the other is working. They don't want anyone else caring for their baby so they found a way to avoid that. They live in a small house in a nice neighborhood. They struggle but it is worth it for them. Nannies and au pairs are not an option. They didn't know much about parenting before they had kids either but when they met their baby they did not want other people taking care of him. They don't plan to have another child but might change their minds eventually if their economic situation improves.

They have a small house in a nice DMV neighborhood working shifts at a restaurant? I call BS on that one.

She works shifts as a server, he does not. They don't live close to DC, about an hour away, but it doesn't matter whether you believe it, it's simply true. It is sometimes just an accepted belief that it's impossible to have a home and a family on one income or less than two full time professional jobs, but with careful planning and frugality and determination it is certainly not impossible.

Doesn't mean it's the right choice for every family. Casting daycare as something to be avoided at all costs is dumb. For.many families it is the best choice.

Nothing is the right choice for every family.

There is something we can agree on

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This. Institutionalized child care is never a good thing for babies and young children. It’s just a sad result of our economic system.

I agree totally that institutionalized child care is never a good thing for babies and young children. However, while the economic system often seems to make this inevitable for many families, I also wonder why so many people do not consider this hard fact when planning, or failing to plan, their families. The attitude in this country seems to be that everyone is entitled to have as many children as they want rather than encouraging people to figure out what they actually can afford, what daycare options they can reasonably plan for, before bringing children into the world. So many new mothers and many new fathers as well are quite surprised by how much they would prefer to care for their own infants at least the first few years but find they have failed to anticipate this and therefore can't economically find a way to do it.

So you anticipated all this ahead of time? I feel like there was so much I didn’t know about parenting, and how parenting would change me, until I was actually a parent.

Also the problem is if everyone did as you say and only have kids they could “afford” the birth rate would likely drop pretty dramatically.

Unlike many parents today I prioritized my desire to care for my own children when they were too young to go to full time school and so did my husband. We are not professionals and not the least bit affluent. Even so, we made it work for us because it was a high priority. I know other families who have done the same. It's not easy, but it is possible. For instance, I currently know a young family where the husband works night shifts and the wife works a few shifts as a server in a restaurant. They take care of their baby themselves while the other is working. They don't want anyone else caring for their baby so they found a way to avoid that. They live in a small house in a nice neighborhood. They struggle but it is worth it for them. Nannies and au pairs are not an option. They didn't know much about parenting before they had kids either but when they met their baby they did not want other people taking care of him. They don't plan to have another child but might change their minds eventually if their economic situation improves.

They have a small house in a nice DMV neighborhood working shifts at a restaurant? I call BS on that one.

She works shifts as a server, he does not. They don't live close to DC, about an hour away, but it doesn't matter whether you believe it, it's simply true. It is sometimes just an accepted belief that it's impossible to have a home and a family on one income or less than two full time professional jobs, but with careful planning and frugality and determination it is certainly not impossible.

Doesn't mean it's the right choice for every family. Casting daycare as something to be avoided at all costs is dumb. For.many families it is the best choice.

Nothing is the right choice for every family.

I quit my work to become a SAHM when DC1 was born. Then once school started I rejoined the workforce. When DC2 was born, it basically was impossible even with the best childcare we could muster. DH begged me to become a permanent SAHM because he also was drowning with childcare issues when we became parents of two.

Life became absolutely wonderful and thriving because I was a SAHM.

But, why should I have been forced to become a SAHM by corporate inflexibility? I had all the credentials and college education to have actually contributed more to the world than just mothering two kids. I always felt that I could have leaned in if I could have worked from home remotely and if I could have a full time nanny. This is the only ideal situation for working in this country. But, this is not how my friends in Canada are managing work-life-parenting balance.

Anyhow, DC1 is now 23 in her first job. I have made sure that she stays local, that she picked up a career that is well paying and that she can work remote if she wants. If she wants to marry and have kids, well, she needs to be in DMV, next to our house, so that we can raise her kids. Since the time I left the workforce, and the time that my kid has grown up, nothing has changed regarding childcare. For my DD and my future DIL, I will be raising the grandkids.

Childcare standards have fallen and it has become more expensive, and schools that at one point served as childcare & learning institutions are also failing kids in education massively. When I became a SAHM, my kids were being enriched at home by me. I was lucky that my DH made enough and also appreciated that he could concentrate on his work and the kids were being well educated by me at home. He thought my multiple college degrees were fantastic because our kids got the best tutor possible for education.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw maybe do a basic Google search of the term "late talker" before spouting off about late talkers being "4-5-6-7-8". Jfc.

Maybe you should.

Obviously, I already did. Not sure if you are aware but the term "late talker" is not the same thing as having a language disorder. Also, not sure why we are even debating this, as it's irrelevant to this thread.

But since we are on this topic, PSA people, if your 2 yo does not have words you should get them assessed and accept services if they are eligible. Early intervention is there for a reason. Ignore psychos like the PP who seem to think you should wait until age 4.

Anonymous wrote:Btw maybe do a basic Google search of the term "late talker" before spouting off about late talkers being "4-5-6-7-8". Jfc.

Maybe you should.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This. Institutionalized child care is never a good thing for babies and young children. It’s just a sad result of our economic system.

I agree totally that institutionalized child care is never a good thing for babies and young children. However, while the economic system often seems to make this inevitable for many families, I also wonder why so many people do not consider this hard fact when planning, or failing to plan, their families. The attitude in this country seems to be that everyone is entitled to have as many children as they want rather than encouraging people to figure out what they actually can afford, what daycare options they can reasonably plan for, before bringing children into the world. So many new mothers and many new fathers as well are quite surprised by how much they would prefer to care for their own infants at least the first few years but find they have failed to anticipate this and therefore can't economically find a way to do it.

So you anticipated all this ahead of time? I feel like there was so much I didn’t know about parenting, and how parenting would change me, until I was actually a parent.

Also the problem is if everyone did as you say and only have kids they could “afford” the birth rate would likely drop pretty dramatically.

Unlike many parents today I prioritized my desire to care for my own children when they were too young to go to full time school and so did my husband. We are not professionals and not the least bit affluent. Even so, we made it work for us because it was a high priority. I know other families who have done the same. It's not easy, but it is possible. For instance, I currently know a young family where the husband works night shifts and the wife works a few shifts as a server in a restaurant. They take care of their baby themselves while the other is working. They don't want anyone else caring for their baby so they found a way to avoid that. They live in a small house in a nice neighborhood. They struggle but it is worth it for them. Nannies and au pairs are not an option. They didn't know much about parenting before they had kids either but when they met their baby they did not want other people taking care of him. They don't plan to have another child but might change their minds eventually if their economic situation improves.

They have a small house in a nice DMV neighborhood working shifts at a restaurant? I call BS on that one.

She works shifts as a server, he does not. They don't live close to DC, about an hour away, but it doesn't matter whether you believe it, it's simply true. It is sometimes just an accepted belief that it's impossible to have a home and a family on one income or less than two full time professional jobs, but with careful planning and frugality and determination it is certainly not impossible.

Doesn't mean it's the right choice for every family. Casting daycare as something to be avoided at all costs is dumb. For.many families it is the best choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This. Institutionalized child care is never a good thing for babies and young children. It’s just a sad result of our economic system.

I agree totally that institutionalized child care is never a good thing for babies and young children. However, while the economic system often seems to make this inevitable for many families, I also wonder why so many people do not consider this hard fact when planning, or failing to plan, their families. The attitude in this country seems to be that everyone is entitled to have as many children as they want rather than encouraging people to figure out what they actually can afford, what daycare options they can reasonably plan for, before bringing children into the world. So many new mothers and many new fathers as well are quite surprised by how much they would prefer to care for their own infants at least the first few years but find they have failed to anticipate this and therefore can't economically find a way to do it.

So you anticipated all this ahead of time? I feel like there was so much I didn’t know about parenting, and how parenting would change me, until I was actually a parent.

Also the problem is if everyone did as you say and only have kids they could “afford” the birth rate would likely drop pretty dramatically.

Unlike many parents today I prioritized my desire to care for my own children when they were too young to go to full time school and so did my husband. We are not professionals and not the least bit affluent. Even so, we made it work for us because it was a high priority. I know other families who have done the same. It's not easy, but it is possible. For instance, I currently know a young family where the husband works night shifts and the wife works a few shifts as a server in a restaurant. They take care of their baby themselves while the other is working. They don't want anyone else caring for their baby so they found a way to avoid that. They live in a small house in a nice neighborhood. They struggle but it is worth it for them. Nannies and au pairs are not an option. They didn't know much about parenting before they had kids either but when they met their baby they did not want other people taking care of him. They don't plan to have another child but might change their minds eventually if their economic situation improves.

They have a small house in a nice DMV neighborhood working shifts at a restaurant? I call BS on that one.

She works shifts as a server, he does not. They don't live close to DC, about an hour away, but it doesn't matter whether you believe it, it's simply true. It is sometimes just an accepted belief that it's impossible to have a home and a family on one income or less than two full time professional jobs, but with careful planning and frugality and determination it is certainly not impossible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

This. And they do shift work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP. You really haven't figured out yet that every baby is different, and the things that worked out well for you aren't necessarily because of anything you did?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

This. And they do shift work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:https://www.thecut.com/2022/11/childcare-crisis.html
Sadly we are seeing this play out in NYC now with my grandchild’s daycare closing due to staffing shortage.

Archived link: https://archive.ph/PxKM6

Btw maybe do a basic Google search of the term "late talker" before spouting off about late talkers being "4-5-6-7-8". Jfc.