Ship of Fools: unto us, several children to be born: daycare at your workplace?

Thread: unto us, several children to be born: daycare at your workplace? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020385

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Do you have a daycare at your workplace? Should workplaces have daycare in them for children? Should they be subsidized or free? Why is school paid via taxes if not daycare?

I provoked a meeting at my office I own with others. We are talking on how to afford providing an in house daycare, including before and after school care for staff's children. I'd like it to be 100% covered, budget suggests 50% co-pay where we pay half. Daycare here is ad hoc, extremely stressful and very expensive. Care can easily be $1000-1500 per month (£600-900). I think it shows we only pretend to like kids as societies.

Do we actually value children? As much as roads, bridges, tax breaks to industry, public buildings?

Personally, I'd like to see safe cheap and universal tax-paid daycare. What do you think?

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Are you prepared to pay more taxes for it?

I would be. And for schools being open 7 - 7 so working parents have a hope of getting a job they want. I'm more and more hearing the 9 - 3 disadvantages women. [I realise my plan does not cater for shift-workers...I am not sure what the answer is there - 24 hour daycare?]

I have no kids, and never will. But there are some things that are important to society. And kids are one of them.

But the whole daycare profit-making business, sorry, industry, needs a good look at before they start charging government, and the taxpayer - at least here. I'd vote for more community-run daycare facilties, but I honestly do not know what I'm talking about as I have no experience except my own many, many years ago.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

Do we actually value children? As much as roads, bridges, tax breaks to industry, public buildings?

Personally, I'd like to see safe cheap and universal tax-paid daycare. What do you think?

I value children, certainly. But daycare isn't about children - it's about enabling parents of children to work. For almost all children, daycare offers no benefit - they are not better off in daycare than at home with a parent.

So here's my question: if you're prepared to pay A to look after B's children, so B can go out to work, are you also prepared to cut out the middle man and pay B to look after his own children?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I think, rather than spending vast amounts employing people to take care of other people's children, we should look at making it possible for people to look after their own children, and this means addressing the decline in real wages, particularly vs housing costs. I work full time and do extra work marking exams because my wife has a long term illness that makes paid work difficult, so having a child didn't affect our finances very much (our stress levels, on the other hand...) I'm also fortunate that I earn a professional salary and live somewhere relatively affordable to while money can be tight we're generally comfortable. By contrast my sister and her fiancee both work part time to let them do the bulk of the care for their child, but as they both previously worked full time and are in admin roles their finances end up much more difficult to manage and are reliant on the dog's regurgitated breakfast that is universal credit.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Mrs Backslider nearly went mad staying at home. She'd rather pay someone to do childcare so she can go out to work and avoid ending up in a padded cell.

We're arguing between two One Size Fits All solutions. Thing is, address the wage issue and people can afford either option.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

My company works with the education sector, which makes a big difference. Some of our staff - especially those on support work - work shorter days, and don't work at all during the holidays.

I think work being flexible about poeples needs is far more important than requiring specific child care. And making sure that this pays sufficiently to allow women to work these flexible hours.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Leorning Cniht:

quote:
For almost all children, daycare offers no benefit - they are not better off in daycare than at home with a parent.

That's not actually true. Daycare in the UK (or nursery, as we call it) is subject to national standards such as the Early Years/Foundation Stage National Curriculum and offers children a wider range of experiences than they would get at home with any but the most dedicated parent. And it's not an either/or situation: children who go to daycare still spend a lot of time with their parents. But sure, if you want to limit children to what their parents think they should learn and/or are able to teach them, go right ahead.

Also, many mothers of small children are highly-trained professionals whose knowledge needs to be kept up-to-date if they are to continue in practice (doctors, for example). This is a non-trivial cost, both to the women whose careers are put on hold and to society.

And what Karl said.

[ 02. December 2017, 10:41: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

For clarity the National Curriculum applies to England, not the whole of the UK. Education is a devolved matter and Scotland has a different system (Early Learning and Childcare, utilising the Early Level of Curriculum for Excellence).

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

England and Wales, actually. But that's why I said 'such as'. I think the main difference between the ones for England and Wales is the provision for Welsh language teaching.

[ 02. December 2017, 10:51: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
For almost all children, daycare offers no benefit - they are not better off in daycare than at home with a parent.

Disagree, the Ricardling gets to socialise with other children, plus (as Jane R says) he gets a different range of experiences, plus nursery staff with childcare qualifications who can flag up any issues with his development rather more effectively than other people.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The levels of stress for working people with children is atrocious. I remember it well. I like the idea of a board meeting and there's an interruption because a child needs dad or mom to comfort. And we see the after school kids and learn about their math homework.

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

I remember a sad morning. It was about 6 am, dark and cold, and a single mother with child got on the bus I was riding. She was taking her child to daycare and hoping to make the next bus so she wouldn't be late for her 7 am shift. Surely, a daycare at work would have been a benefit to both mother and child.

I'm not sure how she would manage things once her child started school. Most schools have before,- and after-care service, but typically they start at 7 am.

sabine

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Leorning Cniht:
quote:
For almost all children, daycare offers no benefit - they are not better off in daycare than at home with a parent.
That's not actually true.

Please post your data. Every study I am aware of only shows a measurable benefit for children from the most deprived backgrounds.

To your point about professional parents needing to keep up-to-date, or Karl's about Mrs. Backslider climbing walls, sure. I agree. There are good reasons to choose to put your children in daycare, and as long as you choose a reasonable one, they'll be generally happy and will do fine. But those reasons are about the parents, not the children.

And on that basis, you don't persuade me that I should pay for it. (It's clear to me that childcare for employed parents should be tax-deductible: it's a business expense.)

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The problem with making things tax deductible is that this largely favours the better off. Tax policy isn't a matter of proceeding logically from axioms (e.g. business expenses shouldn't be taxed) but saying "does taxing or not taxing this, on balance, best serve our financial and policy goals as a society?" Better, surely, to apply a tax rate reduction (which could end up negative for those on low incomes) for people with children, to enable them to decide whether paid-for childcare or making arrangements for there to always be at least one parent at home are the best option.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Leorning Cniht:
quote:
For almost all children, daycare offers no benefit - they are not better off in daycare than at home with a parent.
That's not actually true.
Please post your data. Every study I am aware of only shows a measurable benefit for children from the most deprived backgrounds.

To your point about professional parents needing to keep up-to-date, or Karl's about Mrs. Backslider climbing walls, sure. I agree. There are good reasons to choose to put your children in daycare, and as long as you choose a reasonable one, they'll be generally happy and will do fine. But those reasons are about the parents, not the children.

And on that basis, you don't persuade me that I should pay for it. (It's clear to me that childcare for employed parents should be tax-deductible: it's a business expense.)

One way or another you will. Either you'll pay more for products and services so that businesses can pay their employees sufficiently that they can support a family on one income or afford childcare, or else you'll end up paying for the government either to subsidise childcare or subsidise the wages of those too poorly paid to afford either of the former options.

Alternatively, of course, neither could happen and you'll have millions of children brought up in poverty, left alone at home, or a situation where only the wealthiest can afford to have children, in which case you've got a demographic time-bomb coming.

You pays yer money...

[ 03. December 2017, 10:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

So here's my question: if you're prepared to pay A to look after B's children, so B can go out to work, are you also prepared to cut out the middle man and pay B to look after his own children?

Yes. The work of childcare by family members, just like eldercare and care for the sick and disabled, is a huge part of our economy that the fact that it is not justly compensated is not only one of the major elements of the exploitation of women (who are often the caregivers in our culture), but also a large reason why (in the case of care for the elderly, sick, and disabled), the happenstance circumstances of one's family's health can force one to quit one's job or only work part time, ruin one's finances, and wreak havoc on one's (the caregiver's) physical and mental health.

The disparity between the affluent and barely-getting-by in terms of ability to afford to have one family member be a full-time parent or caregiver without putting the whole family's financial health at risk is a huge contributor to income inequality and different outcomes in education and healthcare across social classes.

Paying stay-at-home parents and caregivers for their labor (and yes, even if done out of love, it is labor) is only part of the solution to this problem, but it is a good start. Universal Basic Income is one way to make this happen, but there are others.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Please post your data. Every study I am aware of only shows a measurable benefit for children from the most deprived backgrounds.

To your point about professional parents needing to keep up-to-date, or Karl's about Mrs. Backslider climbing walls, sure. I agree. There are good reasons to choose to put your children in daycare, and as long as you choose a reasonable one, they'll be generally happy and will do fine. But those reasons are about the parents, not the children.

And on that basis, you don't persuade me that I should pay for it. (It's clear to me that childcare for employed parents should be tax-deductible: it's a business expense.)

Agree 100%. The OP implies that if we care about children we will be all for free day care. I care enough about children to want them to have that one on one with a parent for, at least, the first three years that child psychologists agree is ideal for them. Taking a six month old baby from it's mother and putting it inside a daycare where twenty other children are vying for attention isn't something I'm excited to pay for.

Instead of clamoring for society to throw more money at childcare, I think society should be encouraging people to plan a little better before bringing children into the world. Getting married first so that one person can work while the other stays home with the infant is still a good plan for the children and it's much more doable, even in today's economy, than many people think it is.

The "I'll run mad," excuse doesn't sit well with me either. With the internet, TV, books, evening education classes, and play groups, no one should be feeling the isolation or mental lack of stimulation that should bring on insanity. I think it's usually the lack of job related ego strokes that such parents are really missing.

It's like the "But, I have to work!" that really means, "We both had to work to afford two cars and a big house."

Yes, I know there really are people who would become depressed if they had to stay home and couples that wouldn't be able to eat and pay rent if they didn't both work, but I think they are a small minority and probably not the people working in the big corporations.

Three years out of one's entire life is not a big deal and if a tiny bump in the "career path," is the most important thing in your life, maybe you don't really want children.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

It does come down to what societies agree to pay for and what is "user pay". If schools are publicly funded from taxes why not daycare? (I realise UK may be different than this way where social inequality is more ingrained, accepted as normal and where private pay schools are more common, private schools here are rare, there is one tier of public school education, though it varies province to province).

It does impact women's careers to have children. People discriminate against women in hiring if they believe they might have children. Illegal but definitely happens. It does impact health of people to have the stress of poor and unreliable daycare. It does increase gender inequality. Daycare does not harm development of children when it meets standards.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The discrimination in hiring would be significantly reduced if discrimination in parental leave were eliminated. I got one week on full pay and one week on the legal minimum, while my wife is self-employed so got nothing. Had our roles been reversed she'd have had six months on full pay then another six on the legal minimum. That, to my mind, is crazy.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Twilight, your opinion contradicts my reality. I'll go with reality. I'll tell Mrs Backslider she was just being silly and selfish ot exaggerating if you like, but you'd best be glad the Atlantic separates you if I do.

[ 03. December 2017, 15:24: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

It isn't true that children do better being looked after by a parent at home. I'll have to find the citations, but children in preschool/childcare situations develop social skills and independence more quickly than other children.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

And for the record, one car and a house we're now extendeding because it's too small. The assumptions the judgemental make are nauseating.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

KLB, please remember not to be easily offended, not to offend easily, and to take any remaining differences to Hell.

Thank you.

/hosting

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The "I'll run mad," excuse doesn't sit well with me either. With the internet, TV, books, evening education classes, and play groups, no one should be feeling the isolation or mental lack of stimulation that should bring on insanity.

It is I suppose arguable that a child might be better off getting one on one attention from a parent than getting stimulation from other children and carers in a nursery. I think it's beyond doubt that a child is better off in a nursery than sat in front of the internet or a TV.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
One way or another you will. Either you'll pay more for products and services so that businesses can pay their employees sufficiently that they can support a family on one income or afford childcare, or else you'll end up paying for the government either to subsidise childcare or subsidise the wages of those too poorly paid to afford either of the former options.

I see I didn't express myself very clearly. My position is that the government shouldn't prefer either a parent staying home with the children or the parent going out to work and putting the children in daycare, and to this end, whatever financial support is offered to parents should be offered equally to working and stay-at-home parents.

My preference would be to achieve this with a citizen's basic income payable for children (not at the same rate as an adult rate; quite possibly higher for infants and at a more modest level for school-age children) and then let parents make their own choices.

Arethosemyfeet:

No. Making tax-deductible a legitimate expense that you require in order to earn money is entirely reasonable, sensible, and consistent. Giving people money if they choose a particular choice is something else entirely. What you propose is a fiscal transfer from someone who chooses to stay at home to an equivalent person who chooses to work. I object to that.

(In general, you will find me supporting universal benefits and higher taxes, and opposing governments picking and choosing favoured subgroups.)

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

NZ has 30 hours free pre-school education for all children aged between 3 and 5, and subsidised before, after and holiday programmes for school aged children.

The family over the road consists of Mum, Dad and two pre-schoolers. Dad works full-time and Mum looks after the children. Two mornings a week the children go to pre-school which gives their mother a break to do other things. When she told me about their arrangements she sounded a bit defensive, but my reaction was very positive.

As a taxpayer I have no problem in supporting people to make their own decisions as to what suits their family's needs. If the main care-giver is climbing walls then the rest of the family aren't going to be happy either.

Huia

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Twilight, your opinion contradicts my reality. I'll go with reality. I'll tell Mrs Backslider she was just being silly and selfish ot exaggerating if you like, but you'd best be glad the Atlantic separates you if I do.

I am glad to have the buffer! It's impossible to have this sort of discussion without offending some parents, but I'll continue to take the side of the children who are too young to read the posts that seem to think their well-being is a reasonable sacrifice to their parents earning power and glittering career path.

Daffyd: It was not the child but the mother I was suggesting go on the internet or read a book. It was to keep her from "running mad."

Working parents have been clutching to the guilt relieving crumbs of studies that show small benefits in daycare raised children, for years. Yes, of course, the daycare kids are going to be more comfortable in strange social situations -- they've had to be, haven't they? The facts still remain that, over all, it's best for children to stay home during the early years.

study

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Studies vs studies. What make yours better than theirs, Twilight?

The fact is, what's better for parents and children will vary from family to family and situation to situation.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Studies vs studies. What make yours better than theirs, Twilight?

The fact is, what's better for parents and children will vary from family to family and situation to situation.

Because long term studies show an over all serious problem with children who go to daycare full time, while the pro-daycare studies tend to be all about minor advantages, mainly for the financial success of the mother.

It is a wonder to me that studies like the one I'll link next have been out since 2003 and no one really cares. They say things like, "children vary," just as you have and that seems to settled it all in their minds and the next thing you know we have a thread where someone implies that if we really cared about children we would want free daycare for all of them.

Of course, you'll be able to find exceptions. Cases where the family has no choice, but I think those situations are few and far between and not a reason to ignore the best interests of the majority of children.

another study

From the link:

quote:
The study, which began in 1991, found that the more hours the children spent in child care, the higher the incidence of problem behavior and the greater its severity.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:

The fact is, what's better for parents and children will vary from family to family and situation to situation.

And therefore government should express no preference.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:

The fact is, what's better for parents and children will vary from family to family and situation to situation.
And therefore government should express no preference.

Preference, maybe not. But financial and vocal support for programmes, yes.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Preference, maybe not. But financial and vocal support for programmes, yes.

If you support X but not Y financially, that is a preference for X.

If the government handed out steaks to everyone on the grounds that people should be able to have a decent meal, vegetarian taxpayers would have the right to feel rather aggrieved if they were told "you can choose whether or not you eat the steak").

[ 04. December 2017, 00:06: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Preference, maybe not. But financial and vocal support for programmes, yes.
If you support X but not Y financially, that is a preference for X.

If the government handed out steaks to everyone on the grounds that people should be able to have a decent meal, vegetarian taxpayers would have the right to feel rather aggrieved if they were told "you can choose whether or not you eat the steak").

Rubbish. As bullshit as healthcare being paid only by sick people.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Rubbish. As bullshit as healthcare being paid only by sick people.

Not at all rubbish, and not at all the same as "healthcare only being paid by sick people".

Let's take this in very slow steps.

People who get sick do not have a sensible choice about whether to want treatment or not. If you are sick, you need treatment.

Childcare is a choice. Obviously people without children don't need it, but people with children can reasonably want to have it, or can reasonably not want to have it.

(This statement is true for the middle classes. The poor are in a rather different situation, but their problem is not so much a lack of childcare as it is a general lack of money. The discussion of how much support we should offer the poor, and what form it should take, is a different subject.)

If you provide "free" childcare, you provide a massive financial incentive for parents to use the childcare and get a job.

Consider two couples - ordinary middle class Americans. Teachers, nurses, whatever. All with about the same earning capacity. Each couple has two children.

One couple prefers to have a parent stay home with the children, and manages to live on a single income. Money is very tight.

The other couple prefer to both work, and purchase (at the full economic cost) daycare for their children to allow that. The daycare consumes a significant fraction of one partner's take home pay. Money is pretty tight, but they're a little better off than their neighbours above.

Now introduce "free" childcare. The second couple are now financially comfortable. They have two incomes to live on.

The first couple saw their taxes go up to pay for the "free" childcare. Money is now exceptionally tight, and you may well have forced the stay-at-home partner to put the children in daycare at least part time and get a job in order to make ends meet.

That's your scheme, and it is evil.

My preference is to give both couples money. Attach a basic income to each child. Each couple finds themselves enriched by the same amount. The working couple are still a bit better off than the couple with the stay-at-home parent, and the incentives for the couple to choose work over stay-at-home and unchanged.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Care to elaborate on why?

LC's logic seems sound to me. AIUI, he's not saying that childcare shouldn't be funded, he's saying that all childcare options should be funded equally, and the most efficient way of doing this is by paying the parents directly.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

[Sorry, that post was to lilBuddha.]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Studies vs studies. What make yours better than theirs, Twilight?

The fact is, what's better for parents and children will vary from family to family and situation to situation.
Because long term studies show an over all serious problem with children who go to daycare full time, while the pro-daycare studies tend to be all about minor advantages, mainly for the financial success of the mother.

It is a wonder to me that studies like the one I'll link next have been out since 2003 and no one really cares. They say things like, "children vary," just as you have and that seems to settled it all in their minds and the next thing you know we have a thread where someone implies that if we really cared about children we would want free daycare for all of them.

Of course, you'll be able to find exceptions. Cases where the family has no choice, but I think those situations are few and far between and not a reason to ignore the best interests of the majority of children.

another study

From the link:
quote:
The study, which began in 1991, found that the more hours the children spent in child care, the higher the incidence of problem behavior and the greater its severity.

Ah, but you missed the money quote:

from your own linked article:

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."

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Lots of studies.

The overall conclusion of which is that the evidence is contradictory, but neither the positive nor the negative effects are particularly large outside of the more extreme cases (e.g. full time daycare below the age of one does seem to be a Bad Thing).

Which admittedly is backtracking from my first post, but doesn't really support the apocalypticism of Twilight's links either.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Care to elaborate on why?

LC's logic seems sound to me. AIUI, he's not saying that childcare shouldn't be funded, he's saying that all childcare options should be funded equally, and the most efficient way of doing this is by paying the parents directly.

All options funded equally typically ends up being a subsidy to the rich, which they do not need, and not enough for the poor.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Care to elaborate on why?

LC's logic seems sound to me. AIUI, he's not saying that childcare shouldn't be funded, he's saying that all childcare options should be funded equally, and the most efficient way of doing this is by paying the parents directly.
All options funded equally typically ends up being a subsidy to the rich, which they do not need, and not enough for the poor.

It only subsidises the rich if the tax system is insufficiently progressive.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Twilight:

quote:
It's impossible to have this sort of discussion without offending some parents, but I'll continue to take the side of the children who are too young to read the posts that seem to think their well-being is a reasonable sacrifice to their parents earning power and glittering career path.

My daughter may have been too young to read when she started at nursery, but she was quite capable of making her views known. She used to cry when she was being carried OUT of nursery at the end of the day, because my arrival always interrupted her in the middle of playing with her friends.

Sending her to nursery was a guarantee of 'power and a glittering career path', was it? I must have done something wrong.

And some parents are not fit to look after their children. I hope your concern extends to them, too.

Getting back to the subject of the OP, here is a meta-analysis of studies on the effect of childcare on children's development. The basic conclusion is that the quality of early childcare is important: high-quality childcare usually has a positive effect, low-quality care has either no effect or a negative effect. For children over the age of 3, the effects are obvious and easily measurable; under the age of three the benefits are less clear, except for disadvantaged children receiving good-quality care who do far better than they would otherwise have done.

FWIW, Leorning Cniht, I agree that paying a basic income for children and allowing parents to choose whether to spend the money on childcare or having the child looked after at home is better than simply subsidising childcare or providing it free of charge. I have no objection to you choosing to care for your child at home, provided you (generic you) do not use it as an excuse to look down your nose at me for making a different choice.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Meh. I would quite like to stay at home with a baby. I Cannot. Afford. It.

I am married and live in an apartment that is nothing special. I don’t have a car. Rents here are simply too high to pay on a single salary. Even with two incomes, there’s nothing uncommon here about spending 50% of your take-home salary on keeping a roof over your head. The only way we could make it work is by moving to the provinces, and then I would go insane. (It’s not the baby that would do for my sanity, but small town living.)

My choices are – move to the sticks – be homeless – go to work. It would be nice to have others, but I don’t. One more way my generation got screwed by the skyrocketing price of housing.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Twilight, your opinion contradicts my reality. I'll go with reality. I'll tell Mrs Backslider she was just being silly and selfish ot exaggerating if you like, but you'd best be glad the Atlantic separates you if I do.
I am glad to have the buffer! It's impossible to have this sort of discussion without offending some parents, but I'll continue to take the side of the children who are too young to read the posts that seem to think their well-being is a reasonable sacrifice to their parents earning power and glittering career path.

Daffyd: It was not the child but the mother I was suggesting go on the internet or read a book. It was to keep her from "running mad."

Working parents have been clutching to the guilt relieving crumbs of studies that show small benefits in daycare raised children, for years. Yes, of course, the daycare kids are going to be more comfortable in strange social situations -- they've had to be, haven't they? The facts still remain that, over all, it's best for children to stay home during the early years

Nope.

I had plenty of choice. My husband was a headteacher. I went back to work when each of my children were six months old. Their childminders were far, far better, more patient and experienced child readers than I was.

My children had lovely evenings, weekends and holidays with us. I enjoyed work - as did my husband. A couple of years later he decided he was tired of his job and became a house husband for four years. I was acting headteacher by then, so financially we were sound. After that he got a new job as international director of a charity.

We went on amazing holidays due to our good salaries. We were able to fund our boys’ courses to become a nurse in Germany and the other an airline pilot.

Nobody has any right to criticise the choices of sensible, caring parents.

I am not a home bird, I can’t do house work or cooking or any of that nonsense. We are retired now and my husband is shopper and chef. I do the cleaning etc - but badly!

My sons? Lovely boys, happy and settled and both still have the travel bug. One is on holiday in New York just now with his wife and one in Thailand with his GF.

[Smile]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
My daughter may have been too young to read when she started at nursery, but she was quite capable of making her views known. She used to cry when she was being carried OUT of nursery at the end of the day, because my arrival always interrupted her in the middle of playing with her friends.

That's great for her. According to the studies the majority of children had this reaction:

quote:
The other study found that in children younger than 3, levels of cortisol, a hormone associated with stress, rose in the afternoon during full days they spent in day care, but fell as the hours passed on days they spent at home. This study's researchers, from the Institute of Child Development of the University of Minnesota, had earlier found the same pattern in 3- and 4-year-olds.

Cortisol levels in the saliva of day care children were highest and rose most steeply in those judged by day care center personnel to be the shyest. ''These children struggle in group situations and find them stressful,'' said the study's lead author, Dr. Megan R. Gunnar.

I find the picture of these children, exhausted and stressed from the sensory overload by the afternoon, very sad.

From Cliffdweller's quote:

quote:
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."

The government has no way to guarantee that all children have "sensitive," rich, well-educated mothers. I'm sure children with such fabulous mothers do weather daycare better.

As we've all been saying mothers and children do vary. Maybe Karl's wife really would have "run mad," and Jane R's child needs more stimulation than most. But we, at least some of us, are trying to talk generalities rather than exceptions here because when it comes to government funding, we should be looking at what will help the most children.

In this community it's the poorest children who seem to be getting the best care. I know a young single mother who is raising her three children on various forms of welfare. They are with her all day every day and she proudly says they've never been in daycare. Some day they will all be in school and then she can go to work fulltime.

I would much rather the government spend my tax money on helping mothers of small children stay home than helping them go to work, because I sincerely believe it's best for the majority of children. As a tax payer I have a right to form an opinion on the subject even if it doesn't agree with every parent's choice.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Absolutely everybody is better off as a result of my decision to return to work 12 months after my son was born and 8 months after my daughter. I employed a nanny - but don't think of Mary Poppins - this was a local woman with her own daughter, 4 years older than my son. She then went on to have her second child a couple of years before I had my second child. So finally, we had four children between us. She stayed with us for more than 10 years, became my daughter's godmother and my good friend.

I basically split my salary after tax between the two of us - so between our two families, we had one job in a city firm and one stay at home mum and divided the spoils. Think of it like a job-share but where one of us did all the outside-the-home bit and one did the inside-the-home bit. This meant I was paying lots of income tax on my salary, and also deducting income tax and NI from the half I then paid to my nanny - which was good for the economy and for public services.

The fact that I stayed in work meant that I was able to progress into a position where I can now work part time and fully flexibly, so I do 21 hours a week now and am at home most afternoons to help my son - now secondary school age - with homework, and listen to his news now that he's at an age when I'm much more concerned about what kind of people he is mixing with, what he's doing in his spare time etc.

My former nanny is now a classroom assistant, providing one-to-one support for a special needs child. She tops up her salary from this by doing some holiday care for me. She has a stakeholder pension that I started for her as her employer. And one day a week, I pick her younger daughter up from school and bring her home to play with my daughter before they then go swimming together - they are very close.

Good things about our arrangement that it would be great for more people to be able to access:

(1) Decent wages and tax treatment that enables people to pay fairly for child care
(2) More opportunities in the work-place for job-sharing, part-time and flexible work (I see so many jobs advertised that could be done by two part time workers, but are advertised as one full-time - perhaps we need more tax incentives for business to employ job-sharers?)

I've been very, very lucky and I would like more people to have the choices I have had.

[ 04. December 2017, 11:08: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Twilight - you do, but at least take into account what actual real parents with actual real children are telling you when you do so.

[ 04. December 2017, 11:08: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Why generalise?

In an ideal world all parents would have the choice of work or stay at home while the children are babies/toddlers.

I am more than happy for my tax to go to give parents the choice - mothers or fathers. Why assume Dads shouldn’t be just as entitled to be paid to do the childcare.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why generalise?

Because that is how you make decisions for a society. It is the only practical way for a government to govern responsibly. It is rare, if not completely impossible, to account for every particular situation, so the the best general solution is the one to choose.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
My daughter may have been too young to read when she started at nursery, but she was quite capable of making her views known. She used to cry when she was being carried OUT of nursery at the end of the day, because my arrival always interrupted her in the middle of playing with her friends.

That's great for her. According to the studies the majority of children had this reaction:
quote:
The other study found that in children younger than 3, levels of cortisol, a hormone associated with stress, rose in the afternoon during full days they spent in day care, but fell as the hours passed on days they spent at home. This study's researchers, from the Institute of Child Development of the University of Minnesota, had earlier found the same pattern in 3- and 4-year-olds.

Cortisol levels in the saliva of day care children were highest and rose most steeply in those judged by day care center personnel to be the shyest. ''These children struggle in group situations and find them stressful,'' said the study's lead author, Dr. Megan R. Gunnar.
I find the picture of these children, exhausted and stressed from the sensory overload by the afternoon, very sad.

From Cliffdweller's quote:
quote:
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."
The government has no way to guarantee that all children have "sensitive," rich, well-educated mothers. I'm sure children with such fabulous mothers do weather daycare better.

My point was that you are being very selective in the way you are reading even this one particular study. You highlight one finding that was-- according to the authors-- only loosely correlated, while completely ignoring/discounting what the authors of the study themselves say was the one strong correlation.

And there ARE things that the government can do to help encourage "sensitive, rich (or at least not poor), well-educated mothers"-- they just don't happen to be the ones you want to encourage. Providing subsidies for child care so women can go back to school, complete their education, get a better-paying job, learn about child development-- those would be excellent ways to achieve those things-- not guarantees, of course, but then neither is what you're suggesting. And again, they are encouraging the things the study showed were most strongly correlated with the positive outcomes you say you want to see.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

I would much rather the government spend my tax money on helping mothers of small children stay home than helping them go to work, because I sincerely believe it's best for the majority of children. As a tax payer I have a right to form an opinion on the subject even if it doesn't agree with every parent's choice.

You have a right to form an opinion-- as does everyone else-- and no one is suggesting otherwise. 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.

I would agree with other posters that each family, each child, and each parent is so highly individualistic that it is impossible to impose the sorts of one-size-fits all dictates you're suggesting. Within my own family, each of my 3 children was so different, and the economic/life conditions so unique, that each had a very different response from us in terms of work/life/child care balance. The best thing we can do as a society is give parents the flexibility and resources they need to make these individual decisions in the best interests of their child. I like the proposal upthread about providing income subsidies rather than tying them to child care so that parents can freely decide whether to have a stay-at-home parent or child care. But also having better standards for child care-- staff/child ratios, turnover, training, and content of care-- is essential.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

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. That's Boogie and her scenario. So fine for her and her perfect boys, but the majority of children in daycare do not have all that going for them at home. Many of them are being picked up around six from daycare, taken along to the supermarket, waiting for dinner to be prepared, eating, and going to bed. They are too little for long lovely evenings at home. They still need about 12 hours sleep so if they were awakened at six in the morning they don't have the energy for all this quality time the parents might have in mind. They are essentially being raised by the daycare worker along with her ten to fifteen other toddlers.

Remember we're talking about preschoolers in daycare. Not school age children and not nanny or shared babysitting situations.

I am absolutely not imposing my agenda on anyone. Any parent who wants to put their child in daycare is perfectly free to do so and free to pay for it. You are the one imposing agendas if you require me to fund your agenda through taxes.

[ 04. December 2017, 17:59: Message edited by: Twilight ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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 ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

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.)

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

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 ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

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.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

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.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Actually the consensus has been in favour of paying people properly so they can afford whichever option suits them.

Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :

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.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

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.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

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?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

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.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

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.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

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?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

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.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

(there must be a word for the debating technique where you strongly imply something but when called on it deny that you said that.)

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

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 ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

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.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

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?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

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

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

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!"

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

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.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0