homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » unto us, several children to be born: daycare at your workplace? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: unto us, several children to be born: daycare at your workplace?
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Cliffdweller;
quote:
We have the right to point out that your opinion is not based on good science (as you suggest) but rather on wanting to impose your own agenda on everyone else.

The title of the article is, "Two Studies Link Childcare to Behavior Problems in Daycare" and yet you say I'm reading it wrong to come to the conclusion that it's not generally a good thing.

I think you are the one reading it wrong if the only sentence you're paying attention to is the one that makes a slight exception (while saying it doesn't totally offset the negative) for certain well off, well educated "sensitive" parents.

Yep, sometimes the headlines on articles (often not written by the author of the article) are misleading-- for a number of reasons. That's why it's a good idea to read the whole article. In this case, the authors even "buried the lead" as they say in the industry-- the money quote came about mid way thru.

But the fact remains that the relevant quote I'm highlighting is the one the authors themselves said had the greatest influence. That's their words, not mine. That's not me cherry picking what serves my agenda, that's me reading what the study actually says and taking the authors at their word that that was the most significant factor:

quote:
"But while none of those variables entirely offset the negative effects that the study found, the mother's sensitivity and the family's socioeconomic status had a greater influence on children's behavior than did the amount of time spent in child care. Greater maternal sensitivity and higher level of family income and education correlated with better behavior in the children, the study found."
It is indeed disheartening that socioeconomic status has such a large impact on a child's outcomes-- but hardly surprising. Lower income families, even with a stay-at-home parent, face a host of issues and challenges that the wealthy are able to alleviate through purchasing goods, services, and supplementary resources.

It's not fair, it goes against our desire for equality and our desire to believe the rich suffer the same as the poor-- but it's just not the case. Given that, if indeed your desire is to see children thrive, we would want to do everything we could to allow all parents to prosper economically. Unfortunately, the "mommy track" you are advocating has been shown to be extremely disadvantageous to parents economically (as I myself, having chosen that path willingly, have seen). Now, there are some things we can do as a society to change that-- some of which have been suggested on this thread. But to simply suggest the sort of one-size-fits-all solutions you are advocating is not in the best interests of the child-- as your own study has shown.

[ 04. December 2017, 18:08: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11131 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes we've seen and talked about that paragraph several times and I can't imagine why you think it's "the lead." It follows detailed scientific reasons for why daycare is hard on little children and then your "lead" starts right out saying that even in these rarified situations the conditions don't completely offset the negative aspects of daycare, they just help.

It is only the "money quote" if you are digging through all the straight forward negative aspects of daycare to find something to clutch onto to defend your position.

I've been reading articles for years that say many working mothers simply refuse to listen to the combined advice of pediatricians and child psychologists that say daycare before three is not the best thing for children. I had to see it for myself to believe it.

Posts: 6717 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Yes we've seen and talked about that paragraph several times and I can't imagine why you think it's "the lead." It follows detailed scientific reasons for why daycare is hard on little children and then your "lead" starts right out saying that even in these rarified situations the conditions don't completely offset the negative aspects of daycare, they just help.

It is only the "money quote" if you are digging through all the straight forward negative aspects of daycare to find something to clutch onto to defend your position.

The first line in the paragraph does, yes, talk about "rarefied conditions" that may or may not offset the negative effects they found in child care. But the next line contains what I consider the lead-- the one single factor they found-- not just in rarefied conditions but across the board-- to have the greatest impact:


quote:
"the family's socioeconomic status had a greater influence on children's behavior than did the amount of time spent in child care."
I don't see how it can be any plainer. It's an unhappy conclusion, it's not one we like to see. But if you're interested in what the studies say, there you have it.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11131 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You know, I have been through the research on daycare over the years, ever since 30 years ago, and forward. The research is fraught with political and social views. One for example wants to show that children with a stay at home parent do better than those in daycare, and a second, that day care makes no difference in child outcomes (whatever various outcomes there may be) or is better.

Cliffdweller is on the right track as far as the summaries appear to suggest.
  • daycare is of varying qualities, and so is parenting
  • poor home environments harm children, and children from poor home environments benefit from daycare
  • daycare is of varying qualities, which pertains to staff-child ratios, training of staff and what the daily activities are
  • poor environments pertain to poor quality of adult-child interactions and of available activities whether at home or in daycare
  • variables and experiences other than whether a child is in daycare or at home with a parent account for more of the variance (variability) in child outcomes than does daycare versus stay at home

There's also extensive data that poor parenting or other childcare is mitigated by having a trusted older person who functions in a parent-like role, which has led some people to suggest that parenting is like vitamin C, as long as you have enough, you're okay, the rest may be nice, but not required. Though in the case of memories of growing up years, these may be remembered and valued differentially. This is the data on resilience.

There's also data on the issues of parental life satisfaction re having both a career and children.

Here's a sample article from psychnet, I encourage anyone to cruise through. There are many articles. (I will note that a lot of my professional career has been with health and social program and policy development.)

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11181 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It looks to me like any positive or negative effect of childcare is lost in the noise of the other compounding factors - parental circumstances, home environment, poverty, etc. etc. As a simple f'rinstance, has anyone (could anyone?) attempted to weigh the effect of daycare (assuming all daycare is created equal, which it isn't) against the effect of a clinically depressed parent?

Which means that any conclusions being drawn about which way government should "nudge" are on shaky ground.

This one of those areas where you're going to have to trust the parents to be in the best position to work things out, barring obvious cockwomblery, drug addiction, alcoholism, plain gross incompetence. Hell, yes, they'll get it wrong, often, but not as often as someone who doesn't know the people and is trying to apply inconclusive research with confounding factors that cannot readily be corrected for.

[ 04. December 2017, 22:09: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17718 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:


quote:
"the family's socioeconomic status had a greater influence on children's behavior than did the amount of time spent in child care."
I don't see how it can be any plainer. It's an unhappy conclusion, it's not one we like to see. But if you're interested in what the studies say, there you have it.
Right, and whether the child is beaten daily or sexually abused or constantly told they are worthless probably also have greater influence on children's behavior than the amount of time spent in childcare.

The subject of this thread is not "What's the worst thing that can happen to a child?" or "Name four things that are worse for kids than daycare." but What is better for most children, daycare or home care?"

And all the variables and personal anecdotes aside, when speaking of the greatest good for the greatest number; home care is better. It couldn't be plainer.

Posts: 6717 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It looks to me like any positive or negative effect of childcare is lost in the noise of the other compounding factors - parental circumstances, home environment, poverty, etc. etc. As a simple f'rinstance, has anyone (could anyone?) attempted to weigh the effect of daycare (assuming all daycare is created equal, which it isn't) against the effect of a clinically depressed parent?

Which means that any conclusions being drawn about which way government should "nudge" are on shaky ground.

This one of those areas where you're going to have to trust the parents to be in the best position to work things out, barring obvious cockwomblery, drug addiction, alcoholism, plain gross incompetence. Hell, yes, they'll get it wrong, often, but not as often as someone who doesn't know the people and is trying to apply inconclusive research with confounding factors that cannot readily be corrected for.

No one has tried to apply any sort of research to you and your personal life. I've never heard a breath of talk about the government forcing parents to stay home with their children.

On the other hand, I've heard a lot of talk about how those of us who aren't in favor of daycare should pay for it for others.

Posts: 6717 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually the consensus has been in favour of paying people properly so they can afford whichever option suits them.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17718 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
wild haggis
Shipmate
# 15555

 - Posted      Profile for wild haggis         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are some problems with this debate:

+ Different countries have different systems for education/childcare, so can't be easily compared.
+ Wales has a different education system from England, as does Scotland so are not the same.
+ In all this we are talking mostly from an adult perspective and what is convenient for adults. It would be good to hear the voices of kids themselves and what they think.

I have a problem with adults who have kids and then palm them off on others for almost all of their childhood lives - why have kids? (Single parents is a separate issue). There may be financial reasons but why have children if you can't afford to bring them up teaching them your values. Most adults have no idea what values are being imparted in a nursery setting to their kids. OFSTED or other rankings doesn't always give a true picture of day to day, physical, mental and spiritual/emotional care. Care costs in most countries on the discussion board - so why work if you are spending nearly all of your salary in allowing someone else to bring up your child, teaching them values that may not be the same as yours? Look after your own child and enjoy them while they are young. There are plenty of playgroups and other activities out there so you can mix and learn parenting skills. Let them enjoy going to the park and feeding the ducks, making things with you, getting to know this young person you have created.

The discussion has already mentioned the variety of good/bad childcare. There is a lot not very good out there. I have spent my life working with children and have been shocked at what can go on in what seems as perfectly good facility.

The first 5 years of a child's life are what lays the foundations of thinking and development for the rest of their lives. Who are you going to trust that to? Do you know what their values are?

We have a real problem in society, where children are just seen as appendages and often a hindrance to an adult's working and social life.

One child I worked with came from a wealthy background and hardly ever saw his parents. He was really bitter. His primary adult bond was with a constantly changing carer, while his parents zoomed off around the world. The lad didn't know what good parenting was about. How could he become a good parent himself in the future?

Some people leave their kids in the care of au pairs who aren't trained and you may not know what they get up to with your kids. I have been shocked at some of the so-called care these youngsters have given to children - or lack of it. There are some good au pairs but in my experience there aren't that many - and some have very poor English, so what does that do for language development?

Most of the kids who have problems today have these because they are ignored, left in the care of someone who isn't family, left to fend for themselves, feel their parents care for their careers, making money and having a life more than them.

Yes, there are ecconomic reasons where a a parent/s is on low pay and finds it difficult to make ends meet and then carers need to be sought. Then it is right that there is care available that doesn't break the bank.

But I think parents need to think carefully when they have kids.

Why are they having them, who will foster that child's early foundational development. A child is a separate sentient being, not a toy or an appendage that can be ditched because a parent doesn't feel "fulfilled" in caring for the offspring that they brought into the world, or who want to carry on with their life as it was when they were single.

Proper parenting is not easy. I was one. It meant that while our son was a baby and small, we had to discuss whose career would be on hold and yes it was difficult financially.

Workplace nurseries for those who are single parents or in dire financial straites are good. But better is the neighbourhood nursery where the child can form friendship bonds with those kids around his/her home.

Let's switch the focus from us adults and our needs (which we can modify) to those of the needs of the young child (who needs love from his/her parents), please.

--------------------
wild haggis

Posts: 123 | From: Cardiff | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Best laid plans and all that WH. What happens when one of you intends to put their career on hold but then finds that it was nothing like they expected and are now on anti-depressants? It's all very well saying "enjoy the child" but what happens when you find, despite all expectatations, that you don't?

What's really grinding my gears here is people telling parents who've done all this thinking, all this planning, with all best intentions, that they're doing it wrong, they're bad parents, they're harming their children.

We're doing our fucking best, dammit, and we'll take your advice, hectoring and condemnation and bin it, thanks.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17718 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:

Let's switch the focus from us adults and our needs (which we can modify) to those of the needs of the young child (who needs love from his/her parents), please.

But what if those aren't the only two models? I'm from a working class northern UK background. It seems to me that the model for child-rearing there has traditionally been that children are brought up by a collection of adults (traditionally women) comprising relatives and all the ladies you call "aunty" - friends, neighbours, whoever. Women would take children with them to work at, say cleaning jobs, or have the children around as they worked at home (taking in laundry, piece-work sewing).

The idea of a sort of golden-age child-rearing, where a mother is at home, spending her time feeding ducks, finger-painting etc, has never been a reality for people like me and my parents. Is there evidence that it really results in better adjusted members of society?

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2885 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wild Haggis, thank you. It's heartening to see someone speak on behalf of the children.

People talk about the golden age of the fifties where the mother stayed home and raised the children while the father worked as some impossible dream. We can still have that in most cases. The average house in the fifties was half the size of today's American home. Most families had one car. No one felt they had to have a TV. I think we don't need as much as we think we do these days.

When my child was birth to five, my husband was doing seasonal, unskilled work while he finished college. He earned about $3000 a year, which was well below the "poverty line." We could have had welfare and food stamps but we didn't apply for it because we were getting along okay. I stayed home because, like Wild Haggis, it was important to me to be there when questions about race, disabilities, playground bullies, etc. arose. Plus it was fun to watch him grow-up. With the small families people are having we don't get that many chances.

Posts: 6717 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Best laid plans and all that WH. What happens when one of you intends to put their career on hold but then finds that it was nothing like they expected and are now on anti-depressants? It's all very well saying "enjoy the child" but what happens when you find, despite all expectatations, that you don't?

What's really grinding my gears here is people telling parents who've done all this thinking, all this planning, with all best intentions, that they're doing it wrong, they're bad parents, they're harming their children.

We're doing our fucking best, dammit, and we'll take your advice, hectoring and condemnation and bin it, thanks.

For gosh sakes Karl we aren't talking about you.
We're talking about what we think is best in general in relation to whether or not businesses and/or government should provide free daycare.

You and your wife made absolutely THE RIGHT CHOICE for your circumstances, her medical condition, and your child. There I said it. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. Now please go follow another thread.

Posts: 6717 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Stop judging people’s choices. They make them with the children in mind. Harping on about ‘think of the children, let’s get back to the 50s’ is confusing the issue. Arrangements for childcare were as diverse in the 50s as they are now.

I was brought up in the 50s. My Dad was at college in London, my Mum and Grandnma out at work and us children cared for by a neighbour.

Good parents do their best for their children. That does NOT mean staying home with them 24/7!

Those who are not good parents have more need of good childcare, not less.

The worst behaved children I’ve ever seen (and I’ve taught in inner city schools for 40 years) were a bunch of home schooled kids at a threatre.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12737 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688

 - Posted      Profile for la vie en rouge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
People talk about the golden age of the fifties where the mother stayed home and raised the children while the father worked as some impossible dream. We can still have that in most cases. The average house in the fifties was half the size of today's American home. Most families had one car. No one felt they had to have a TV. I think we don't need as much as we think we do these days.

Twilight, I already told you upthread that this is utterly impossible for me and you conveniently ignored me.

Big house? Several cars? Pah. My home is a 60m² three room apartment. Paying the rent on it sucks up about 30% of mine and my husband’s salaries (and we are above average earners). I don’t own a car or a TV.

I would love to stay at home with a small child. I can’t. Housing in big cities these days is so indescribably expensive that families like mine can’t keep a roof over our heads without two salaries. Possibly I could stay at home if we could get social housing but have you even seen the waiting list?

Posts: 3624 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Stop judging people’s choices.

You might want to take your own advice Boogie. You love to tell everyone about your perfect, successful, superior life complete with vacations and children who turned out faultless. I find that more judgmental of others than my posts.

My psychologist written studies about how children might be silently suffering from long days in daycare are to be disregarded but your personal anecdotes are supposed to be accepted as the last word?

I have not judged anyone's choice. Like you, I told my story. I didn't do it to imply that people who don't do what I did are wrong but to show that it is sometimes possible on a low income for one person to stay home with the children.

I wasn't the one who brought up the fifties. Someone else brought it up to say that would be nice but it's not possible anymore, and I refuted that.

When I start saying that people who put their children in daycare are bad people, you can call me judgmental. I've said several times that I know different people have different needs and it's not possible in every case, I'm just stating what I think is best, in other words what I would do. It is just my opinion, just as you've stated yours.

If I read a study saying coffee causes cancer I might bring it here, not to cast judgement on coffee drinkers, or to force them to stop drinking it, but because I was under the impression that intelligent people liked to know about that sort of thing so that when they make their choice they be fully informed.

Posts: 6717 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Wild Haggis, thank you. It's heartening to see someone speak on behalf of the children.

People talk about the golden age of the fifties where the mother stayed home and raised the children while the father worked as some impossible dream. We can still have that in most cases. The average house in the fifties was half the size of today's American home. Most families had one car. No one felt they had to have a TV. I think we don't need as much as we think we do these days.

When my child was birth to five, my husband was doing seasonal, unskilled work while he finished college. He earned about $3000 a year, which was well below the "poverty line." We could have had welfare and food stamps but we didn't apply for it because we were getting along okay. I stayed home because, like Wild Haggis, it was important to me to be there when questions about race, disabilities, playground bullies, etc. arose. Plus it was fun to watch him grow-up. With the small families people are having we don't get that many chances.

I love all this talk about how much better everyone else would be if they just did it like we (older gen) did it.

Yes, American homes are bigger today than they were in prior generations. But here in Calif-- with the highest home prices around-- those big houses are not inhabited by nuclear families: mom, dad, and 2.5 kids. Rather, those big houses (they're called McMansions here) are inhabited by either:

1. Empty nesters (like me) who have no need of such a big place, but because of prop 13 can't afford to sell because we'd end up paying more in property taxes for a small condo than we do for our big 4 bedroom home. A ridiculous system which greatly disadvantages the young.

2. large multi-generational families, often immigrants: mom, dad, kids, grandma, grandparent, aunt, uncle & their kids. You have 3-5 adults going off to work each day (often 10+ hours a day) while grandma & grandpa take care of the kids.

Families like my parents' in the 50s were able to get by with one car because only dad worked outside the home, and there was a school bus system to take kids to a neighborhood school, that was also in walking distance. Today most families need two jobs to support them, school buses are no more, and schools are no longer located in the neighborhood where kids live.

If you want a parent to stay home with their children, the first thing that needs to happen is to increase the minimum wage drastically to make it financially feasible to support a family on a single salary. Despite all this nostalgia for hard-working 50s families, this WAS possible in the 50s and it is NOT possible today for the vast majority of families.

The next thing that needs to happen is repealing prop 13 in Calif. and other tax schemes that make it impossible for empty nesters to move out of large houses and impossible for growing families to afford them.

And for those who are finding creative ways to deal with the above challenges-- such as our immigrant neighbors living multi-generationally or single parent families teaming up in similar ways-- let's celebrate them, rather than making quick assumptions about their lifestyles based only on the size of their houses and the number of cars in the garage.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11131 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Twiglight - I told you our circumstances to highlight the fact that I had choice. I could easily have been a stay at home Mum. There is nothing in the least superior about my choice. I have two dear friends who have never worked since they had their children - an equally valid choice.

But the fact is that me staying home the best choice for my family. There were many advantages, including keeping my career going, which turned out to be much needed. I would make the same choice again - I’m a useless home maker, just like 1000s of other women.

All choices are valid, so long as the children are well cared for. It really does not have to be Mum who does this.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12737 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh come on, Twighlight. You use phrases like "silently suffering" and slag off parents for "putting themselves first" and bang on about "so they can afford two cars and big houses", then try to tell us you're not calling them "bad parents".

Of course you are. We're not fucking stupid, so don't treat us like we are.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17718 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(there must be a word for the debating technique where you strongly imply something but when called on it deny that you said that.)

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17718 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
You might want to take your own advice Boogie. You love to tell everyone about your perfect, successful, superior life complete with vacations and children who turned out faultless. I find that more judgmental of others than my posts.

Twilight, I've already warned about making this personal. Don't.

That applies to everyone else too: further inflammatory posting on this thread is liable to attract admin attention.

For the second time of asking, guys, dial it down or take it to Hell.

/hosting

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17309 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bravo Wild Haggis: you put it very well - different countries have different systems and give greater or lesser support to parents through benefits both monetary and through good early-years provision.

The very awkward thing is that at different stages of their development children need differing amounts of parental input but there is no stage where you can just (metaphorically) wipe your hands and say "job done".

In the UK we have somehow got to the stage where in most parts of the country it requires two incomes to afford a decent house: in some areas that is two substantial full-time incomes.

We then hit the problem that we have some of the longest commuting times so not only do parents have to work full-time but they're having to spend anything up to 4 hours a day travelling to get to their place of work.

At the moment there are many, many families which are wholly or in part reliant on the good-will and availability of grandparents who, in the main, provide free pre or after school care: this is possible perhaps because granny (it usually is granny) doesn't herself have to work full time. However, the days are coming fast where this option won't be available and then we'll really see the true cost of childcare/supervision go through the roof.

As a society, the UK needs to have an honest discussion and decide where its priorities lie: does we truly see children as our investment and stake in the future, or are we really minded to have a situation where they become the luxury for the very few?

And all of that before looking at the differing needs of the children involved, the wishes and aspirations of those who wish to be parents, etc, etc, etc.

I think in an ideal world large workplaces would see the provision of creche facilities for children under statutory school age as an investment in their staff, and that governments would be prepared to reward companies which provided such things with tax incentives for so doing.

Speaking on a purely personal level, I have never worked for an organisation which showed the slightest inclination to acknowledge that some of its staff might have parental responsibilities and my other half was in the same boat. Even for such mundane things as taking children to the clinic for immunisations, we had to organise for one of us to take a day of annual leave. Those grandparents alive when the children were born were too old and infirm to offer any help and it was a real struggle to afford childcare when they were very little; once they were older, and a house move had had to happen, we were in the situation where one of us had to become entirely free-lance to fit around the children: not something I regret for a minute but the effect on my pension provision has been devastating.

[edited to correct a lunacy !]

[ 05. December 2017, 17:43: Message edited by: L'organist ]

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4720 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's a bit of assumption that it's one or the other. I work 35 hours over four days and my wife works 20 hours over two days. During the week she has the Ricardling three days, I have him one day and nursery have him one day. This sort of pattern is quite common among new parents IME.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7178 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
There's a bit of assumption that it's one or the other. I work 35 hours over four days and my wife works 20 hours over two days. During the week she has the Ricardling three days, I have him one day and nursery have him one day. This sort of pattern is quite common among new parents IME.

Well said.

Several of my son’s friends do similar.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12737 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:



And for those who are finding creative ways to deal with the above challenges-- such as our immigrant neighbors living multi-generationally or single parent families teaming up in similar ways-- let's celebrate them, rather than making quick assumptions about their lifestyles based only on the size of their houses and the number of cars in the garage.

You can hold me responsible for the low minimum wage in California, the high cost of living in France, the bad behavior of homeschooled children, (when all I've been talking about is preschool age toddlers) but I draw the line at being accused of being mean to immigrants. Can't we do that another day?
Posts: 6717 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

Twilight, that's two host warnings you've ignored; I'm referring the matter to the admins.

In the meantime, if you or anyone else tries to pursue personal vendettas here, this thread may be locked without further notice.

/hosting

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17309 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Er, Eutychus? I'm still waiting for your ruling on this.

For the record, I was not ignoring your warnings. Rightly or wrongly I didn't think I was personally attacking anyone, rather defending myself against their personal attacks:

The first time it was after Boogie told me to "Quit judging people's choices," that I said I thought she was the one being judgemental. Childish of me I know but she did start it.

The second time was after I had agreed with someone that in the 1950's economy, money not "went further," but that people typically spent less, too, houses being only about 1000 sq ft and only one car per family.

This was strictly an observation on my part and not a judgment on anyone for the size of their house. We have a 2000 sq ft house and three cars ourselves.

So when Cliffdweller implied that I would probably judge her for living in a big house, or, (and I still don't get the logical progression of this) make nasty assumptions about the many immigrants living in the house next to her -- then I quoted that part and told her I wasn't even ready to talk about that. I was too befuddled.

I honestly don't see how my response to her was a personal attack or how after she wrote a five paragraph diatribe against me, I was charged with carrying out a vendetta.

Obviously, you see it otherwise. I await your decision as to suspension, banning, what ever, but rest assured I have no desire to continue defending my position on this thread.

Posts: 6717 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For the record, I am similarly befuddled by Twilight's highly personalized interpretations of my comments.

Perhaps we can just call it a wash/miscommunication and get back to discussing the key issues of the thread:

1. Is daycare a good option for some, all or no children?
2. Should the government be supporting/subsidizing quality daycare, supporting/subsidizing all families (so they have a choice), or not involved in advocating or subsidizing families in any manner?

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11131 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

1. Is daycare a good option for some, all or no children?

Good daycare is a perfectly fine option for most children. As is staying home.

There is evidence that for children from the poorest most chaotic backgrounds, daycare can be better than not daycare. So for that small set of children, daycare is actively good.

quote:
2. Should the government be supporting/subsidizing quality daycare, supporting/subsidizing all families (so they have a choice), or not involved in advocating or subsidizing families in any manner?
My position is quite clearly that government should not express a preference between two equally valid reasonable choices.

This means that governments should absolutely pay for HeadStart programs and the like aimed at those children from poor chaotic families who will show significant benefit from it. Call that part of the general support that governments should offer the poor.

It also means that governments should not subsidize daycare for everyone else. Whatever subsidies are offered should be given equally to all families.

Posts: 4897 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The other question in the OP was whether day care should be in the workplace. Here, in the commuter area around London, two hours travel each way is not unusual. The balance then includes considering day care near home, starting at 6:30am to 7am and ending at 6:30pm, or taking a young child on the commute into work, equally that early and late. Those children I have seen on the daily commute are often distressed in the unpleasantly crowded conditions.

The people desperately trying to cram themselves on those overcrowded tubes are often trying to get back to closing nurseries - one man squeezing himself into a packed tube carriage recently shouted out: "I have to get on, father collecting from childcare at 6:30pm!"

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13597 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There you put your finger on a different issue - the insane concentration of jobs and service industries in London, and the consequent pricing out of the people seeking employment in them. A similar thing happens on a smaller scale elsewhere; I work in Sheffield but live in rural (not very, you can get to Chesterfield without ever being more than 100 yards or so from housing) NE Derbyshire because it'a cheaper.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17718 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools