One of the lowest paying jobs requiring a college degree is being a teacher.
Daycare is an entry level minimum wage job. Career oriented women drop their kids of at places with names like "Lots of Tots" or "Kiddy Kare"
Women who choose to stay at home and don't have a career are thought of as less educated, less ambitious, more docile, and lazy.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
Yeah, and?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would argue that children are, overall, more valued in the last century than they have ever been in history.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Of course, many of the people who need daycare wouldn't be able to afford it if it got more expensive.
I'm glad to see you stress women in your post. Nobody is respected more than the stay at home father. Also, fathers who drop their kids off at daycare always take care to choose places with classier names and higher paid employees.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
She has a point, though. The names of daycare centers really ARE terrible.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I saw one called KinderCare.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I think it's not likely that this means children are less valued. I think the low child care wages just means the number of people capable and willing to take care of children for a living is high.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
We've looked at places called "Lullabies and Love," "Tiny Tots," and "LaPetite Academy."
I had to learn to stop cringing, on the grounds that their ability to pick a name wasn't really an accurate reflection of their childcare skills.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
"Lullabies and Love" sounds scary. The coolest one I've heard of is "Barefoot Days". Hey we have a LaPetite here too. Guess it's a chain?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Tres, willing yes. Capable? No. Let me microwave up something I posted on the other thread:
I despise feminists who challenge a woman's right to stay at home. One latent form of sexism that has not been challenged enough is that the world still defines success from a male's perspective: i.e. your career.
But what "career" is more important than raising your kids? I think any woman or man who stays at home to raise children is more valuable to our society than any doctor, lawyer, or author.
The correct feminist viewpoint is not to force women out of the home, but rather to elevate the position of a homemaker as not only a valid career choice, but a celebrated one for men and women.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I really don't care who drops the kids off at the 'raise them on an assembly line' places. Man or woman, typically, both of those people have put their priorities in the wrong place.
What about single women? They need cheap daycare! I would support subsidising daycare for those women and having more expensive daycare. And more qualifications. A teenager is fine for a night out, but I'm not sure I want my child in a place where the daycare worker comes and goes in shifts.
Fact of the matter is that where I live, a lot of women work in order to afford a house and nice car and to have their nails done every week.
I think we were making headway on this for about the first half of the century, even moving into the seventies. But as a society, I think we have been devaluing kids for about the last 30 or so years.
[ March 02, 2004, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Mothers who work outside the home get a lot of flack from stay at home moms.
Stay at home moms get a lot of flack from working mothers.
It all depends on where you're at.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I think the low child care wages just means the number of people capable and willing to take care of children for a living is high.
So you're suggesting that there are more people qualified to give care to children than there are to deliver pizzas?
-----
And actually, I would say that working moms get MORE flack from SAHM's than the other way around.
[ March 02, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
"Yeah, and?" That's pretty darn sad! Tom D., you may be right, but is that any reason to blow off this issue! Gay people are being treated better than they ever have in history, yet still there is a big issue in society.
In our generation, we now KNOW the importance of early childhood experiences. What children experience deeply affects what they grow up to be. What kind of world do you want to see? There's a reason I'm in education. I want to change the world. I want kids to have hope and power, and to learn how to use their minds wisely. But no one will thank me or give me monetary recompense. Many of my students will leave my classroom into a world where they are squelched, or manipulated, or at the worst abused. Is that not something to take issue with?
And paying our child-care professionals an extremely low wage, and downplaying the role of stay-at-home moms... How is this getting quality people to be interested in giving kids a quality upbringing?
Indeed, why SHOULD we care how kids grow up?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Tres, willing yes. Capable? No.
So says you. But I suspect the market disagrees with you.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I think we have been devaluing the effect of a parent who stays home with the kids, especially a mother. It's been devalued enough that we can put our own pursuits in front of the needs of our children. Our priorities have shifted.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I would support subsidising daycare for those women and having more expensive daycare."
If daycare were any more expensive than it is, there's no way a typical family could afford it. Christy and I are both relatively well-paid, but we're going to be seriously stretched by the $200/week cost of infant care -- per child -- in this area. If your goal is to make daycare so prohibitively expensive that families with upper-middle-class salaries find that it's cheaper to keep one parent home, I suppose that's one way to do it.
And if you're going to suggest that it's possible for people to raise families on one income, regardless of geographic location, I'm afraid you're going to have to institute widespread reform and/or federal subsidy of housing costs.
[ March 02, 2004, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
We have two kids and it's definitely more expensive to do daycare than to stay at home. It's probably more expensive for people with one kid as well, and after transportation, food and other things that go with having a second job, I'll bet it IS more expensive.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I'm not saying child care is a easy job. It is hard, and I know several individuals who are great at it. But one of them recently quit her job and went to law school because her job wasn't paying enough due to cut-throat competition from people who are less qualified but are willing to work for less.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
It is cheaper to breastfeed babies too, and better for them, but that doesn't stop people from buying lots and lots of formula.
More expensive daycares isn't the only thing I'm aiming for. I want more qualified daycare workers. That is why it would be more expensive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I personally think it might be nice if housing costs fell enough that it became possible to house a family on a single income, again.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
The daycare I attended was staffed by several 16-yr-old girls held up by one adult woman. I wouldn't think that most 16-yr-olds are qualified to give long-term care. Being a child's care-giver all day, five days a week puts one in the position of teacher and role model, and makes them the main source of information that the child receives. I find that scary.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Caitlin Flanighan has a fascinating article in the Atlantic this month about it.
Her presumed focus and audience are the professional women supposedly reading the article, so it does not claim to be exhaustive. But it's very interesting.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I used to work at KinderCare.
Day care has a tremendous turnover rate. The wages are next to nothing for the teachers. You are expected to take care of small children, not your own flesh and blood, and deal with all the exasperations that come with the territory, and multiply it by 10 or 20. It is a terrible job, because the training is usually minimal and the children are of course so needy, and the pay SUCKS.
Those of you who think the market is glutted, try looking into childcare as a viable occupation for yourself or your loved ones. Think about the kind of person who WILL work under those conditions and for that kind of pay. Think of the way they will treat the kids when they're having a bad day.
Good childcare providers exist, and they are priceless. However, they are in it only for the love of the kids. And unless they have other economic support, they will have to leave in order to make more money. The not-so-good ones will turn over quickly as well, because they do something dumb or potentially harmful, or they aren't very dependable people.
For small children, who, for the most part, need consistency, this continual shifting of important adults wreaks havoc on their sense of stability.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
wow $200/week equals $10,400/year
Does it get cheaper as the child gets older?
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
how does that compare to college tuition these days?
AJ
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Guess what? That's about how much a daycare worker gets paid. Think she can afford to work and still find quality care for her kids?
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
It is possible to raise a family on one income. We have been doing it for several years. My kids are 5 and 18 months. I am a computer programmer. We bought a house last summer and always have all of our bills paid on time. We don't have all the latest technology in our home, but we have a computer that is only a year old. We don't have high speed internet right now, but are considering fitting it into our budget. We are building up a savings after having some unexpected expenses at the end of last year. It isn't easy, but it is possible. At least in Edmonton. My brother is also doing it in Vernon (a small town in British Columbia). He works at a saw mill and has 2 kids. His wife hasn't worked since the kids came along and they have always gotten by. It does involve adjusting your lifestyle and spending habits. I'm not saying it is the only way, but it works for us.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
then the daycare centers are either making HUGE profits or have worse liability insurance than I realizes.
Even if you consider 50% overhead the ratio would be two children per worker at that pay rate. I guess I assumed that the workers would be able to bring their own children to the facility as well. Especially working for such lousy pay.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Women who choose to stay at home and don't have a career are thought of as less educated, less ambitious, more docile, and lazy.
Was the title supposed to be, "SAHMs are less valued"?
In answer to that, I don't know. I also don't think it matters terribly. The two-income family is seen as necessary more because our standards of "basic living", including luxury of house, have risen than because the world has become more expensive. Outside of that, it doesn't matter to me what the world thinks of my decisions. I suspect the world doesn't actually care one way or the other.
[ March 02, 2004, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm just curious as to what people who think day-care pay is a problem think we should do? If it involves paying them more, where should the money come from?
Dagonee
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Hmmmmm
It seems to me that some of the ones trumpeting the need for moms to stay at home with the kids, are also the ones who brandished stay-at-home-moms on welfare as a societal evil.
You can't have it both ways.
I've been on both ends. When my kids were young I stayed at home (and loved it). When my husband left us, I continued to stay at home because my kids were my priority (but needed public assistance to be able to do that).
People scorned me because I was on public assistance.
So then I went back into the workforce and paid for childcare at one of those mega-daycare centers, but working and paying for it with money I earned, and not getting to spend near enough time with my kids.
And people scorned me because I wasn't home with my kids.
You can't win in this battle. Not unless you have the perfectly balanced, perfectly happy nuclear family. And those are getting more rare all the time.
Farmgirl
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:I personally think it might be nice if housing costs fell enough that it became possible to house a family on a single income, again.
Yes. Granted the Bay Area is extreme in this regard. But if I could drop the % of my income that goes to rent by 15%, my family would be much better off. It's impossible to start off your career here and not have dual-income and still be able to afford even the crummiest of starter homes in a not-horrible-but-still-not-great neighborhood (and even then, it really needs to be a professional level dual-income -- my wife should be doing what I'm doing now and I should have gone to law school).
*Sigh*.
I wish there was a way that job creation could be a little more de-nucleaized.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Every time I read one of these threads, I hear Reverend Lovejoy's wife hysterically saying, "Won't anyone think of the children!?"
Guess what, you can't have both. You can't. Either stay at home with the kids that you chose to create, or stuff them into assembly line daycare tended by workers that make less than a good pizza delivery guy.
The money has to come from somewhere. No one can afford to pay daycare a ton of money, and people still want to have kids and work too. There it is. Whining won't change it.
Or, should they raise taxes and government subsidize daycare, so that the rest of us get to pay for you to go to work and drop your kid off somewhere?
I mean, what exactly is the point here? Daycare workers don't make enough? Then YOU pay them more. If you don't want to spend more on daycare, then stop complaining.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Or, should they raise taxes and government subsidize daycare, so that the rest of us get to pay for you to go to work and drop your kid off somewhere?
Yes. Of all the things the government subsidize, what could be more important than childcare?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I was a database adminstrator for an up-and-coming pharmaceutical company and I made pretty good money. We did the math, and if I were to keep working after the twins were born I would bring home less than $100 dollars a month.
And that was with us at a daycare that only cost $75 per week, per child. That's rare, and the only way it was possible is that the daycare was run by someone that owned the facility outright in an area where the property taxes and cost of living are low compared to many others in the area. My brother and sister-in-law pay about twice that, in the same metropolitan area.
So yeah, I quit my job. And I've noticed a huge difference in the older kids, even though they are at school most of the day, it still matters a lot to them to have someone here waiting for them at the end of the day instead of them having to go to a daycare with 50+ other students.
Most people can't afford real quality childcare. By that I mean centers that are staffed by people with degrees in Early Childhood Education. But doesn't that say something? Why should we entrust the care of our children to someone who has only a high school diploma (and many not even that) Should we leave our kids for 10 hours a day or more with somebody that we don't know, and that probably won't be there in a month because of the high turnover rate?
For parents that don't have any choice, it's a heart rending thing to do. I remember crying all the way to work, when I had to leave my daughter somewhere she hated being. Where she was susceptible to all kinds of teasing and taunts from kids. A place where her finger had been broken because a child hit her with a bat. A place where I'd had to run and get her one day because another child scratched her, laying her face open from above the eyebrow to the cheekbone, and I had to rush her to the doctor to make certain the eye itself hadn't been injured.
A single mom that has to work, or a working mom whose job provides the benefits and a lot of the monthly income, these women don't like the idea of leaving their kids in substandard care. They wouldn't do it if they could afford to either stay home or get better care for their kids. But many times, they are left with little choice.
I agree, if we valued our kids, this is the situation that feminists would be more concerned with, not abortion which appears to be their flagship issue. Finding viable options for these moms, encouraging them to stay home, lobbying companies to provide quality, on-site childcare.
And for a somewhat unrelated rant, Why do at-home mothers not get any tax considerations? Why do we give a break to families that pay for childcare, and not for the ones that stay home? Economically, one income families are statistically worse off than their two income counterparts, yet we punish that by giving the break to the working parents instead. Why shouldn't we reward people staying home (whether it's the father or mother) and committing themselves to the full-time care of their kids? Considering the amount of income we gave up when I came home...a childcare tax credit would have come in handy, especially the first two years when we struggled immensely just to pay the mortgage. Instead, I lost that tax credit I used to get each year when I was working.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Sometimes the workers can bring their own kids for a discount. Probably depends on the place. And I may be exaggerating the pay. Here in Kokomo, about 5 years ago, I was paid around $300 a week. It wasn't much.
I think that daycare centers are not the best option for childcare. I did use one, though, last year. Abby loved it. Then again, she's a precocious and independent child, and she WANTED it. Not many 4-year-olds are so well-adjusted and cavalier about leaving their moms.
In my personal ranking, these are the best childcare options:
1. Mom and/or dad at home. 2. Close relative as babysitter. 3. Nanny/babysitter for one family. 4. Nanny/babysitter for two or three families. 5. Small, in home daycare (make sure it's high quality) 6. Montessori or other school-type daycare. These places require their teachers to have some training; sometimes they require extensive training. 7. A public-school related daycare. These places also tend to hire folks with more training, and check up on them. 8. Government subsidized or Church-run daycares. These places tend to be staffed with fewer professionals. They pay less and charge less. Quality is so variable that you absolutely MUST check them out before entrusting them with your children.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Even if you consider 50% overhead ...
It's way higher than that.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Belle, I thought that you got added to the list of your husbands dependents and did get a tax break as a result. Am I wrong on this, or how much less is it in comparison?
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Or, should they raise taxes and government subsidize daycare, so that the rest of us get to pay for you to go to work and drop your kid off somewhere?
quote:Yes. Of all the things the government subsidize, what could be more important than childcare?
I don't think this is the government's problem. It's the problem of the parents to provide the care for their children whether they do it themselves, or pay someone else. I actually kind of agree with what Slash said.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
You are right Slash, you can't have both.
No, this thread really is about children, because I have another point:
Who suffers the most harm from no fault divorces? Children. If a couple has children, they should not be granted a no fault divorce until those children move out. They should have to prove there would be more harm to the children if the marriage stays intact.
Children are the adults of the future. If they are messed up...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Of all the things the government subsidize, what could be more important than childcare?
Infrastructure, national defense, nationalized health care. All the things that large organizations take care of better than small ones.
What is child care the province of the government? The onus is on those who wish to justify it.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Right now, we share a nanny with another family. She is a lovely young Amish girl, who packs a cell-phone and drives an SUV! The family we share with spared no expense to find a nanny they could trust. To them, good childcare was too important. If more families felt this way, I don't think we'd have such big problems.
Also, why shouldn't we spend our tax dollars on good childcare as opposed to Social Security? Old people have had the chance to make something of their lives and save for the future. Children are starting out with nothing yet. I think it would make more sense to invest in people up front - through childcare and education - and then let them make what they will of this quality upbringing. In their old age, they will reap the consequences of their ADULT decisions.
As it is now, we pay for all older people to stop working, and we increasingly draw funds away from the young ones needing a good start.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Our taxes went down because our income went down, but so did our witholding with me no longer having a check that taxes were taken out of.
Overall, we paid less in taxes, but if you consider it proportionally, comparing the drop in taxes with the drop in our income, we lost ground on taxes. We paid a greater percentage of our income to taxes after I quit. Sounds wrong, and unfair, and confusing, but it had to do with tax brackets and what my witholding rate used to be, and all sorts of stuff. My CPA sister in law tried to explain, but I just shook my head and said I wasn't surprised.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It is possible to raise a family on one income. We have been doing it for several years. My kids are 5 and 18 months. I am a computer programmer."
To be blunt, if I were a computer programmer -- or even made another $16,000 a year -- then I wouldn't be arguing this with you. But I already make more than the typical American median wage, and there's absolutely no way -- NONE -- that I could own a home and raise a family in this area on that salary.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
You get that tax break whether you work or not. Basically, it is just a deduction for every person living in your household.
Federally, there is no tax break for the stay at home parent. I know, because I do our taxes.
In Utah, there is a tax break until the child is two years old. I don't know about other states.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Old people have had the chance to make something of their lives and save for the future.
So... if for any reason that didn't happen - if something unexpected happened, the unprepared should starve?
I think Bob Scopatz gets much more eloquent on this subject than I have the juice for.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
On another topic, do people here think that it makes more sense for Christy and I to actually look for a nanny -- even a shared nanny -- than an accredited daycare?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
When it's a necessity to work and put the children in daycare, so be it. But I disagree with putting one's career pursuits in front of staying home with the kids, if staying home is an option.
Like solo said, living on one income is quite possible still. We've gotten by fine on my income, which until just recently was below the Utah average. My wife WAS working before our first child came, and with our combined incomes we paid off school loans, the car, and what credit card debt we had. We haven't been in debt since (save for our mortgage ). We started a pretty strict budget and managed to live within our means enough to be able to buy a house and pay mortgage payments. With my recent promotion/raise, we're able to put more into the 401(k) and pay down the principal on our mortgage much faster.
I know couples who earn two salaries and who are deep in debt and struggling to make any payment at all. It's all how you approach it.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Obviously this won't solve the problem for a lot of parents, but I wonder if the time is ripe for a childcare co-op movement somewhat similar to the home school movement. It would be more difficult to organize, and it requires huge levels of trust and agrement among participants on all those things that are easy to disagree about when it comes to childcare -- diet, acceptable play, discipline. And only those with a certain level of income could do it -- but for middle-income families, it might be just the ticket to allow one parent to work full time and another to work part time/free lance.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Tom-
If we couldn't survive on one income and I had to work, I would break my back to find one caring adult that could provide as much personal care as possible. If that means a shared nanny, I think you should look into it.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Tom: for the first few years -- yes.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Tom, I'd definitely recommend the shared nanny option. Interview your nannies. Get references, too.
When it comes to Social Security people becoming disabled, think what would happen if they'd invested in the young. The upcoming generation, having known care and quality education, just might happen to have the resources, psychological security, and deep hearts to care for their aging parents and other relatives.
I, for one, having had quality childcare in my upbringing, would do everything in my power to care for both my parents and my husband's parents. If it takes our money and time, so be it. They gave so much to us. And I know that my daughter will feel the same when it is my turn to weaken.
Think of the values it would engender in our youth. Who would they be indebted to? What would they care about in the world? Is that the world you want to see, or do you prefer the status quo?
I'm setting forth ideas here. I wonder what else we could cut to invest in our children. What is worth less than the children who are our future?
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I like the nannie option. Even a stay at home parent spends a certain number of hours a day doing ... not child care but menial labor around the home. The children during this time are cared for how? Perhaps they are taking a nap, or maybe they are watching tv, but they aren't enjoying quality time with a parent.
If said parent is a highly educated professional, they could be earning an hourly rate during that time that is several times the market value for that labor-intensive household work.
If you pay, say 150% of the market value for a childcare/housework person, in my area that's about $15 an hour, and you take care to find someone who you feel is stable, loving, gentle, and responsible, everyone wins.
The children get a third parent, and the benefit of freshly patient adults who are rested and spelled several times a day. They have the stability of a single additional care provider, and the health benefits of not being excessively exposed to other children's sicknesses such as can happen in day care settings. They stay in their own home. They also benefit from the increased income of the family. They are able to have more things that enrich their lives because of this, more books, skates, pianos, and tennis lessons and everything else. Don't think children don't suffer from lack of things. They do. Love is the most important, by far, but enrichment in the environment counts too.
Both parents get the respect and confidence that comes from being able to successfully negotiate the adult business world. The family gets the added insurance that a second income brings. If either spouse gets sick or injured or killed, then the other can still earn a decent living for the kids.
The nannie option is certainly the one I would choose. Being a parent and spouse is the primary calling of every married parent, but it's not necessarily the only calling. I don't presume to decide or opine on how others choose to arrange their lives and divide up their family responsibilities, but this is the solution I would pick. I think it has a lot of advantages.
[ March 02, 2004, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: aka ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Who suffers the most harm from no fault divorces? Children. If a couple has children, they should not be granted a no fault divorce until those children move out. They should have to prove there would be more harm to the children if the marriage stays intact.
You'll get no argument from me.
Tom, I think you should look at every single option on Jenny's list before resorting to the LaPetite's and KinderKares of the world. I'm sorry, no offense to anyone out there with family in "mass market" daycares or that works in one, it should be your last choice.
Too many stories....I have way too many. I think you should always look at church daycares first, because many (at least around here) operate as a ministry to the community and not for profit. They can usually afford to spend more on teachers and curriculum. The one where my twins attend preschool requires early childhood education training for their teachers, and is run by a woman with a master's in ECE. She shares the curriculum with you, will go over what they are going to do and teach. Reading is a requirement, every child in every class must be read to, no matter the age. Even the six-week old infants are read to and rocked by their teachers, I've seen them do it.
However, there's a flip side. In Alabama church daycares aren't required to be inspected, and to be accredited or licensed like commercial ones are. So you can run into ones that are really substandard. In my case, our preschool (it's not a full time daycare) voluntarily submits to every inspection and has inspection reports available for us to read in the office.
Bottom line, if you can't find a nanny or a small in-home daycare then you'll have to expect to spend a lot of time at that center. Don't just drop by with an appointment and take the tour. come by without notice, walk around and observe the classes and the teacher's interaction.
A quality daycare will tell you that you're welcome anytime. If they say "Oh, it's too disruptive for the kids, you'll need to make an appointment" - run, don't walk to somewhere else.
Oh - ask them if they do background checks on every employee.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Zal, I think a parenting/childcare co-op would be so wonderful! I already do something similar with some of my friends - we take turns watching each others' kids for free, so that the couples can go on dates and have couple time. It works really well.
Every once in a while, in magazines like Mothering, you'll read about some stay-at-home parents who organize into a childcare co-op. It seems to work quite well, once you have worked out the kinks.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Belle gives great advice. Heed the words of the Wise! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
$15 an hour full time comes to over $33,633 a year including social security and medicare contributions. That's a lot of money...
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
What's the cost of living where that is the wage for a daycare worker?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
You know, Jenny, that's got me thinking. We force employers to let their employees off time if they're in the military, or national guard. Two days a month and two weeks a year, right?
What if we had childcare co-ops. With some people who worked full time, that were degreed, qualified people. And then, every member of the co-op gave two working days a month, and a full two weeks at some point in the year working in the center?
They could pay a fee to belong to the co-op each month that would cover the salaries of the degreed personnel, the insurance for the facility, etc.
Everyone either provides their own supplies individually or chips in based on their child's age. Infants, who need more frequent diaper changes, etc. would be higher, but cost would drop as the child got older.
Everyone packs their own child's lunch each day, so the facility doesn't have to cook and incur those additional costs.
Wonder if it would work? How many people would you need to be members to make it work out? What's the estimated cost? Would it be cheaper than conventional daycare enough that it would save people money?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It would save employees with children who don't have a spouse at home money. Not employers, and not the people who work there who don't have children to contribute to the child-care coop.
Belle, y'all have employees. What if you had to pay each for the extra two days a month? How much would your labor cost go up?
Would it be right to pay those getting the paid days off less overall? How did caring for these children go from the parents' responsibility to the employers'?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Bigger question to my scenario - would people be more willing to entrust their child's care to other parents, who equally have a share in the center's success than they would to strangers hired for minimum wage?
I would.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
WOW, Belle! You might want to look into some other co-ops, if you can find them. I know a guy who lives in a "planned community". They're a bunch of families that live together in the same big house, and they're rather "communist" in some ways, but it works for them.
I love your ideas, especially about the lunches. That way, each family's dietary needs and issues are taken care of - whether vegan or lactose-intolerant or what-have-you, without making a big deal out of it.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Belle, I'd join such a co-op in a heartbeat!
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
You misunderstand me completely, kat.
The parents themselves pay for the co-op fees. Not the employer. And the employer doesn't have any obligation to offer paid co-op time off, though I would hope they would. Instead, the employer need only ensure the job is held for the employee, just like what is required under FMLA now.
The employer need not incur any extra costs. And the other employees aren't affected at all. All they have to do is allow the two days off per month, and the two weeks, but they would have to do that anyway, if the employee applied for FMLA.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
Tom,
I don't know what cost of living is like there, so I wouldn't presume to judge your situation. I am sure you have looked and continue to look at all of your options. Like I said, it works for us but it may not be feasible in some areas. I hope the best for you and your family.
Sorry if I came off as condescending or judgmental, it wasn't intended.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I can't take credit for the lunches idea, Jenny, that's what my preschool does. If your child stays for extended day, which is 9-2 instead of the normal day 9-12, you must send lunch.
The center doesn't cook because it would be a whole 'nother can of worms with insurance and inspections, etc. They keep cost down by asking parents to send their own children's food.
I think it works fine. And when Daniel was having trouble with chewing and eating, it would have been necessary for me to send his food anyway.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
Our cost of living in the Southeast is low compared to the national average. Child care and manual labor around the home pays about $10 an hour for the going rate. That's about what most of my friends pay. I was saying that if you are willing to pay $15 an hour, you should be able to search and find someone extra good who is stable, loving, kind, and responsible.
A professional will make several times that rate, so the difference is pure gravy. I probably wouldn't try to work full time but maybe about 20-25 hours a week, as my sister did when her kids were young. I know the increase in maternal and paternal patience from having some time away from the kids each day woudl be an enormous factor. And the nannie also comes to the kids each day with fresh patience. I think the kids come out way ahead this way.
[ March 02, 2004, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: aka ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Dag, in fact, it's more than I make.
Random thoughts:
I took family leave and was a stay-at-home Dad for as long as we could afford it. It was wonderful, and I wish I could have continued that way. I would definitely agree with those who say that a stay-at-home parent can do the job better than a preschool. My girls learned many bad habits in preschool, and I could no longer take them to speech and physical therapy, and I miss the more unique outings that I could offer them that preschool never could.
Preschool IS expensive. I don't have any answers, just agreement. We used to pay over $150 per child, and we had twins.
Whoever said he was a computer programmer and that any family could live on one income . . . you probably make by yourself what my wife and I make combined. We each make below the national median income. Just because something is easy for one person doesn't make it so for everyone else.
And yes, if we were willing to live at the poverty level, we could get by with one person working. We HAVE made a choice. But everybody makes a choice. Kids who grow up with one parent at home would be even better off with two parents at home, no? On the spectrum between perfect parental presence at home and the greatest possible income, everybody needs to choose what they think is healthiest for their family. And it's not about DVD players and high speed internet and flashy clothes and satellite dishes. It's also safe neighborhoods and good schools and reliable cars.
One of the cool things about Hatrack is that it broadens your horizons by bringing you into contact with people who would otherwise simply be part of some abstract population to you, like people who argues about homosexuality who in fact don't know any. When you condemn people here, you are not only speaking to the choir . . . there are people here who fit the characteristics you are putting down. I would take issue with those who have said, in this and other threads, that those who choose to have both parents work do so because they are selfish and don't value their children or their committments to them. I don't condemn your choice, and I don't think it's your place to condemn mine. I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but I am entitled to mine: that you're a self-righteous asshole.
[ March 02, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
Hear, hear!
Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
In Scotland yesterday most of the nursery nurses working for local government run nurseries went on indefinite strike in protest of their starting salary being only £10,000 (approx. $18,400). This rises to only £13,800 after 10 years service. Unions are asking for an increase of at least £4,000 ($7,300) to the starting salary as pay grades hadn't been reviewed for 16 years. They've been campaigning for this for 3 years before they decided to strike. It's reckoned that 4000-5000 workers went out on strike affecting over 40000 children.
I liked one of the slogans of the slogans they were using "We don't just change nappies (diapers), We change lives."
I believe that child rearing is one of the most important jobs there is and I hope if I become a mother that I will be able to stay home and raise my children. But knowing how difficult it is to manage on my salary right now and I'm single and my only real luxury is my car, I can understand why mums have to work. I think if I had to work I'd try to do so part-time as this also reduces the childcare costs. I think there's definitely a lot more understanding today for work/life balance which allows for more flexible working arrangements - and this doesn't just apply to women. Why shouldn't fathers reduce their hours too - if it means you don't have to pay childcare costs at all surely any loss in wages is mute. Plus you both get a better relationship with your children.
Oh and on the topic of names of nurseries - the worst one I 've seen is "Tend Early Yours"
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
You are right! Sometimes, it is in the best interests of the family for both parents to work, and it has little to do with gross income. However, I maintain that if the family needs childcare, finding high quality childcare must be a priority.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Who suffers the most harm from no fault divorces? Children. If a couple has children, they should not be granted a no fault divorce until those children move out. They should have to prove there would be more harm to the children if the marriage stays intact
I had to blink twice to make sure it wasn't OSC-Fan stating this. Sure sounded like her..
Amka -- this is idealistic. Yes, in a perfect world, divorce would be harder and the children would be considered above all else in the relationship. But that is with both people cooperating.
When my husband abandoned us for parts-unknown, I should have volunteered YOU to go look for him, run him down, and make him come back. Because the government wasn't looking for him -- I couldn't find him -- so I was supposed to just continue to wait years upon years thinking he might even show back up and take some financial responsibility? No -- I filed for divorce not because I had given up on my marriage -- but because he had, and because I couldn't continue to shoulder the burdens I already had PLUS any new ones he might incurr while away from me and not part of our household, had I remained married to him. (Turns out he went to Florida and married someone there later -- without even bothering to find out if he was still married to me)
The government doesn't care whether or not the family unit stays intact of if the single parents are being taken care of. On more than one occassion I told the powers-that-be a possible location for him, but nothing was done to enforce any responsibility on his part.
Making divorce harder will, in some cases, just make it harder on the single parents who are trying to keep their heads above water.
If BOTH parents are present and talking during the divorce, then I think perhaps there is a chance something can be worked out. But unfortunately, abandonment rate is high in our society.
Farmgirl
(I want to qualify this in that I have totally forgiven my ex for his transgressions at that time. He is now back in the area and spends time with his kids, now that they are teens. I feel sorry for him, though, because his life has not changed. He called me just today to tell me that the kids can't come to visit as planned because his electricity is getting turned off (again) due to non-payment, as he has no job)
Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
I realise that saying I hope to be able to stay home and raise my children might no work out. If it doesn't and I have to work then I to hope to be able to find good quality care and I agree that they should be paid properly.
It's a balancing act though as said before - paying them well and it still being affordable to those needing it.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Farmgirl,
I feel that would be case of abandonment, where continued marriage to the absent parent would be harmful to you and therefore to the children.
Also, since he abandoned you and made no effort for some years, I think he should have no legal right to see the children. You can allow it, yourself, but he should have no recourse in the courts to require visitation.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I know it isn't quite relevant, but I'm floored that Jenny Gardner has an "Amish" nanny that drives an SUV. The only thing Amish are supposed to drive are horses. Are you sure she isn't Mennonite?
Also ak, I don't think most people in need of child care are actually able to pay $15/hour. If both parents need to work to make meet, chances are, they may each only be earning 20- 25K a year and one would be staying home if they could afford it.
AJ
The second partner is spending half of what they earn, but the difference between 20k and 30k per year in income after child care makes a huge difference.
AJ
[ March 02, 2004, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
As a self-righteous asshole, I'm going to go play in the fluff threads for a while.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As a side note, I didn't mean to upset solo, either, by replying so harshly. It's kind of a sore spot for me; I'd LOVE to be able to afford to have one or the other of us stay home, and we considered waiting to have kids until we were in this financial situation, but we figured that at some point it was better to have children while still young and relatively poor than to wait until we were old and relatively prosperous.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Who suffers the most harm from no fault divorces? Children. If a couple has children, they should not be granted a no fault divorce until those children move out. They should have to prove there would be more harm to the children if the marriage stays intact
If you wanted to see marriage rates drop like a rock, particularly to women who already have children, then by all means push for this idea. Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
Tom,
I wasn't upset at all. I am a programmer, but I only have a 2 year diploma so I am on the lower end of the pay scale. My wife is incredible at budgeting our money, but we don't have a lot of extras. We live in Edmonton which is one of the least expensive big cities in Canada, so our cost of living is probably not as high as many of you.
I don't mean to be judgmental to anyone who doesn't make the same choice as we did. It is possible for us, but it is impossible for some.
Icarus, sorry if my statements upset or offended you.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Women who choose to stay at home and don't have a career are thought of as less educated, less ambitious, more docile, and lazy.
The solution to this (I know in general we're trying to stay child-centered, but if Mom is depressed she may start thinking it would be better for them to be with an institution) is to only care about the opinion of those who value you. As has been pointed out, there is someone who disapproves of everyone, and if all women can't learn to filter all that disapproval they will remain victims.
If working moms feel more judged than at-home moms, it is due to the compounded problem of thinking they shouldn't be judged. Which seems to go with the bias of assuming the at-homes are more religious.
So what about providing childcare to others in your home? What puzzles me is everyone I have known who undertakes this is not able to cut it. They wind up with only one or two children when they were planning on the income from five or six.
It seems in home daycares are less valued that institutional ones. Maybe because they tend to be in different neighborhoods from the folks who need them, and institutional daycares tend to be nearer businesses. Also, folks don't want an in home situation that is near capacity. I guess. I just don't understand it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In my admittedly brief experience researching daycares, too, most in-home care is not in fact licensed.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
In Alabama, if you report the income from an in-home daycare center, you must get an in-home daycare center license.
If you don't report the income, then the people paying you have to agree to not issue you a 1099 or take the childcare credit, because if they do, the IRS will want to know why they are saying they paid you income you say you didn't make.
The problem is, once you agree to be licensed and incur all the licensing fees and inspection fees and all the wonderful new taxes you become subject to - you have to charge so much that you are now much more expensive than a mass market daycare, and parents won't hire you.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
In our case we have a roommate who kicks in for expenses. Dave's a bst friend from back in high school who lived with us after he got out of the Navy. We gave him free room and board while he got his nursing degree, and now his and my income combined lets Teres stay home and take care of the kids.
We're cramped as hell, but managing.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
BTW, I'm starting a new thread for the at home vs. woking mom debate.
It's a good subject that can lead to some very thoughtful discussion, especially since I think hatrack won't disintegrate into the "I love my kids more than you do!" type arguments.
Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
I'm wondering if anyone here has read either of two books: The two-income trap, or He works, she works. I think both are worth reading (though the second title made me mad enough to spit nails; they feel very, very sorry for the poor downtrodden oppressed SAHMs). On the whole, I'm inclined to think that the first title is more realistic and has better suggestions both for individual families and for government policy (including proposals for child-care help for working parents and tax breaks for SAHPs). It tackles a range of subjects from housing prices to illness to bankruptcy.
Tom, when looking around for a nanny, maybe you could consider getting one with a small child of her own? I knew a woman who was an excellent nanny, who only worked if she could bring her own baby son with her. This struck me as an advantage, since there would be a playmate and the cost could actually be less, and you were getting an experienced mom. She said she often ran into people, however, who wanted her to leave her child in daycare while she cared for theirs.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kat, I read that entire article. It was looong.
To me the gist of it, is that upper middle class mothers have the luxury of paying someone less to do the work that they don't want to do which perpetuates class exploitation. And that they all want nannies rather than day cares.
The woman that was writing did seem a bit out of touch, but she was admitting she was one of the upper-middle class types and agonizing over the exploitation dilemma herself, even while she had a nanny.
What strikes me as very luxurious is that she was staying at home, and having a nanny BEFORE she started her writing carreer.
She did make it clear that many of the upper middle class "feminists" were very out of touch with lower class working women.
AJ
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: So what about providing childcare to others in your home? What puzzles me is everyone I have known who undertakes this is not able to cut it. They wind up with only one or two children when they were planning on the income from five or six.
The problem with this (providing child care in your own home, along with your own kids) is that you don't have sole discretion on disciplining, etc. In other words, kids coming in from the outside may be used to a different set of rules, values, etc as your kids.
So it ends up that either 1) you have to allow them to possibly do some things you don't even allow your own kids to do (because you can't discipline them in the same way as your own, or because their parents have a different set of values) or 2)You end up giving in and compromising on the rules for your own kids in order to keep all things equitable.
When I tried child care for a short time, I was appalled at some of the things other parents thought was "no big deal" that WERE a big deal in my home..
Farmgirl
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Quoting the last to paragraphs of kats article
quote: In my case, the despair was lessened—greatly—by a nanny. Without her I could never have launched a second career as a writer. Her kindness, her patience, and her many (and oftentimes extreme) acts of generosity have shaped my family as much as any other force. But the implications of this solution to my domestic problems are grave, and ever since I read Doméstica, two years ago, I have been turning over in my mind the high moral cost of my decision. Even if one pays a fair wage, hires a legal resident of the United States, and pays both one's own share of the required taxes and the employee's, so as not to short her take-home pay (all of which I do), one is still part of a system that exposes women to the brutalities of illegal immigration, only to reward their suffering with the jobs that ease our already comfortable lives.
It's easy enough to dismiss the dilemma of the professional-class working mother as the whining of the elite. But people are entitled to their lives, and within the context of privilege there are certainly hard choices, disappointments, sorrows. Upper-middle-class working mothers may never have calm hearts regarding their choices about work and motherhood, but there are certain things they can all do. They can acknowledge that many of the gains of professional-class working women have been leveraged on the backs of poor women. They can legitimize those women's work and compensate it fairly, which means—at the very least—paying Social Security taxes on it. They can demand that feminists abandon their current fixation on "work-life balance" and on "ending the mommy wars" and instead devote themselves entirely to the real and heartrending struggle of poor women and children in this country. And they can stop using the hardships of the poor as justification for their own choices. About this much, at least, there ought to be agreement.
quote:In Alabama church daycares aren't required to be inspected, and to be accredited or licensed like commercial ones are.
I've seen this a lot here. There are 'daycares' and 'babysitting'. Babysitting is not subject to licensing, but also should have a limit on the number and time a child can stay less than a normal daycare (3 hours in NY State).
(this is TheTick, btw)
We're doing the second on Jenny's list, working out pretty well. Until my wife got a raise and started working full time, it was not cost effective for her to be working, but she stuck with it because that was on the horizon. Grandmas don't charge much for daycare, thankfully. Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Guess what, you can't have both. You can't. Either stay at home with the kids that you chose to create, or stuff them into assembly line daycare tended by workers that make less than a good pizza delivery guy.
I agree with this, Slash - that's why I quit my job to stay home with my kids until they were well into middle school.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who has said those who choose to have both parents work are selfish and putting their needs for stuff ahead of their children? If someone implied that in any way, I'm with you, Icarus, but I don't recollect reading that.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
How is it exploitative, if the person is very glad for the job? And if you do everything you can to help them be able to learn and grow and get a better job, if they show any interest at all in so doing?
I have had people work for me many times and they are all very glad for the chance to do it. I pay better than the going rate, and tend to find especially good people. How exactly are you harming someone by giving them a good job they want?
I don't make as much as my bosses, either. Yet I'm delighted to work for them. I certainly don't think they are exploiting me.
[ March 02, 2004, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: aka ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Haven't read the second page yet, so if this was already covered please forgive me... but as far as taxes, daycare credits, and stay at home moms, what is to stop them from incorporating as a day-care, then sending your child to that day care, and paying from a personal account into a business account, and claiming that as a tax credit? I am guessing this is what a lot of home day cares already do... do you have to have more than your own children?
Although I doubt you could have a flat policy of turning down any other children, there might well be a way to refuse to accept kids that did not get along with yours without actually advertising your business, unless you wanted to run a real day care.
Edit: changed unclear pronoun to "your business".
[ March 02, 2004, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Danzig ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I don't know, maybe a tax audit.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
That's what I was asking - I honestly have no idea if it is legal or not. Even if you cannot actually get a break for your own kids, you might be able to start a real daycare. I see no reason not to give the break as long as the parent is willing to take on one or two outside kids whose parents agree to have follow your rules while inside your home.
On a semi-related note now that I have read the second page... If someone is providing a real home day care, the rules might not have to change for your child to accomodate others. Just lay out your rules and if the prospective customers do not like them, they can go somewhere else. This is more or less feasible depending on the rules, of course, anything too outrageous and no one will want to send their kid there.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tom, was talking this over with Steve and he had an interesting point. You work for a university. Is there discounted child care provided there for both students with children and faculty or employees?
I didn't realize that Steve spent so much time in daycare, though it was mostly a in house arrangement with a single person. But for growing up a "daycare kid" he doesn't appear tooo much worse for the wear, other than having an encylopedic knowledge of cartoons I've never seen!
AJ
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
afr and solo (and Rakeesh), let me explain. If you truly have left the thread and don't see it, I'll e-mail you, but I'd rather explain in public.
You'll notice that I did not specify anybody by name in the last part of my rant, or quote anybody directly. That's because it was not my intention to respond to a single individual, but to a sentiment I've seen many times: that if one of you doesn't quit your job, it's because you are selfish and don't love your kids. Heck, even OSC has said stuff verging on this, IIRC. I'm not saying (right now) that anybody came right out and said that, and Rakeesh's post seems to imply that nobody has been this direct. But I do recall several posts which seemed to me to be hinting at it, and I have seen the sentiment before on Hatrack. I can think of specific posts that struck me as making that implication.
In short, there was an "if" implied in my own post: if you say I'm a lousy parent, then I say you're an asshole. If you didn't say that, then I'm not talking to you.
Now afr, since you feel like I was talking to you, I'm going to go back now and see what it was you actually said . . .
. . . okay . . .
. . . I don't know. You specifically said sometimes it was necessary for both parents to work. You haven't said who it's up to to make that call. In my case, not only do I make below the median income, I also don't get promotions. My annual raise is $50. Per year. On the other hand, now my kids are out of preschool and in regular school, and my job does have the advantage of having similar hours and annual schedules. When my kids have vacation, so do I. So, how personally should you take what I wrote? You tell me: how personally should I take what you wrote? If you're not judging me, then I'm not calling you names.
. . . solo, same thing. You said what you were doing, and you said it was not for everyone. I did specifically refer to your anecdotal evidence for the possibility of raising two kids on one income, to point out why it did not prove that everyone could do it. My best friend from high school is a computer programmer who never graduated from college, so I'm at least familiar with his situation (which may or may not be like yours).
Some other statements which, while not coming out and saying two-income parents are selfish and undevoted, seemed to be coming from that angle:
quote: I really don't care who drops the kids off at the 'raise them on an assembly line' places. Man or woman, typically, both of those people have put their priorities in the wrong place.
quote: The two-income family is seen as necessary more because our standards of "basic living", including luxury of house, have risen than because the world has become more expensive.
quote: Either stay at home with the kids that you chose to create, or stuff them into assembly line daycare tended by workers that make less than a good pizza delivery guy.
quote: I agree with this, Slash - that's why I quit my job to stay home with my kids until they were well into middle school.
Actually, I agree with Slash too . . . insofar as he's saying that parents have to make a choice and they can't have things both ways. But I include his statement because the language he couches it in clearly suggests who the good parents and the parents that don't give a darn are. But the rhetoric can be turned around just as easily (as I've seen in statements by Storm and Lalo in prior threads about stay-at-home parents). I could obnoxiously suggest that the stay-at-homes don't love their kids enough to turn off the soap operas and go out and bring home some money which will improve everybody's standard of living. As Farmgirl noted if we're going to start insulting everybody who chooses differently from us, nobody will win. You can't win.
I can't tell you the effort it's taking me to not be snarky right here.
-o-
I agree that preschool is terribly expensive.
I agree that at home is a better environment for kids under five.
I agree that whether or not to send your kids to preschool is a heck of a hard decision.
I don't think we should automatically judge parents for the decision they make here. Either way has ups and downs, and it's a parent's job to weigh those difficult options. It's not your job to weigh them for me. [That being the rhetorical "your" and not directed at anybody in particular.]
Incidentally, I have a great deal of respect for many of the people I just quoted. I just feel that they are making judgmental statements that show a lack of insight into other people's situations. afr and solo, I have a lot of respect for the two of you as well. In fact, afr, I have a vague memory of sending you an e-mail once to tell you this. (Or maybe I'm thinking of somebody else.) I hope you won't stay away from serious threads just because I blew my stack.
I virtually never curse on Hatrack. In fact, I rarely curse at all. But like Tom, the vibe I was getting felt insulting to me. In fact, nothing--nothing at all--gets my dander up more than being judged as a parent. Just look back at other parenting threads and you'll see me riled up there as well. I think perhaps it goes with the territory of being the parent of special needs kids--you get used to always being judged by what your kids can't do, and you get sensitized. Maybe some of the other parents of special needs kids here can tell me if I'm alone in this. In any case, it's not because I'm such a good parent that I get sensitive. Heck, I don't think I'm all that good at it. But all the mistakes I make, I make with the best of intentions. I'm doing the best that I know how and trying to make the best decisions I can, in a job with no instruction manual, only love. So tell me I'm lousy and I'll get annoyed. Tell me the reason I'm lousy is because I don't love my kids enough, and I'll get livid.
But I've been thinking about my post all night. I feel badly about having lost my temper, and I feel badly about having cursed. I know that there are people on this board who have done nothing to offend me, and who are offended by my language. I'm not going to go back and delete it and make later posters seem out of context, but I do apologize for it. And I apologize to people who took it personally, but feel it was undeserved.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Icarus, I totally understand. I did the daycare thing for about five years. I didn't like it, but I did it.
And nothing gets me riled up than parenting (except religion) either.
I get my dander up when people judge stay at home Moms, and give them little respect. But that doesn't mean that I don't respect working parents. I not only can sympathize with their predicaments, I've been there. I didn't work for anything fancy or for any reason other than this one: if I didn't have my job, our family wouldn't have enough to pay the bills each month, and we'd lose our health insurance because my husband's job didn't provide it.
I was raised for a while by a single Mom who was not receiving child support. I know how tough it is for folks like you and your wife, it wasn't long ago I was in your shoes. Wes and I both made little more than minimum wage apiece when Nat was born. It was awful, I had to borrow money from my parents to buy diapers more than once. And Slash - it wasn't an issue of us having children and not being able to pay for them, we were a married couple on birth control. I was on the pill. We didn't want children because we knew our financial situation was precarious. But I got pregnant. It happens.
Much as I support the idea of having a parent at home, I know it's not always possible. I wish the govt. would quit subsidizing childcare and start giving some support to at-home parents, too. I wish more of the parents that want to stay home, could.
Oh, and I wanted to add one more thing. We're still a 2 income family. While we gained a lot with me coming home, as far as the kids getting time with one parent, we also lost some in that Wes works two jobs to support this lifestyle.
Not everybody can do that, not everyone has a job with a schedule like the fire dept. that makes it possible to have a 2nd career. So, I consider myself blessed, I know most families don't have the advantages that we do.
[ March 02, 2004, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Icarus, I make no judgements about who are the better parents whatsoever.
I just get irritated when people start the whole, "You should help me pay for childcare" thing. Have as many kids as you like. Stay home with them or put them in daycare as you like. Just don't raise my taxes to pay for it.
That's all.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Tom- Getting a nanny is better on many counts for children under five, but especially for children under two:
1- You don't have to wake-up the baby to pick her up or drop her off. 2- The baby isn't exposed to all the germs of all the other daycare kids. 3- A good nanny becomes another family member that you will learn to love as much as your baby does. 4- The nanny probably won't cost that much more than a good daycare, especially when baby number two comes along. 5- Most nannies will do light housekeeping while the baby naps.
Sharing is a great idea. What I did was talk to parents who had kids going into kindergarten or first grade. This is the typical age where the nanny becomes just a good family friend rather than an employee and available for the next family.
Another source is an agency. We have one in California called "Mary Poppins to Order" that is very good and gave us 8 - 10 candidates to choose from. If you don't like any of their initial candidates, (which we didn't), they will keep looking until they find the practically perfect person to look after the baby.
In any case, make sure that you get a chance to talk to both the parents and the children that your prospective nanny looked after.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Slash - I get you. So, do we offer the same tax credit to at-home parents that working parents get now for paying for childcare, or should we take away the tax credit the working parents get and not give a credit to anyone?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: When I tried child care for a short time, I was appalled at some of the things other parents thought was "no big deal" that WERE a big deal in my home..
This is the same reason I stopped babysitting (except on rare occasions). All the kids in my extended family are preschoolers with appalling behavior, which I could not adequately discipline, and it wasn't even really my place to decide that it was appalling. I could make rules for my home and try to get them to stick to it, but I actually had a mother tell me not to put her child in the corner or in bed, which left me with basically no means of discipline. It always ended up being a struggle because my son would imitate, and I would be forced to decide to discipline equally (which I couldn't really do) or not discipline at all.
quote: But for growing up a "daycare kid" he doesn't appear tooo much worse for the wear, other than having an encylopedic knowledge of cartoons I've never seen!
I have to say this really depends on your kid (or SO in whatever case) and that you really have to suss them out before you make a decision. My husband was left home alone in Tai Pei if you can imagine, from the age of six. He didn't speak the language (at least until he was older) and the only time he had babysitters, they were men who would steal and threaten him. He grew up well, but then he has a very solid personality. Most kids aren't like that.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
Icarus,
I was thinking about your post last night and I realized that you weren't talking about me. I appreciate your clarification and I want to say that I agree with basically everything you have said in your latest post on the subject.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Thank you, solo, and I'm sorry for souring the tone of this thread.
-o-
quote:and the only time he had babysitters, they were men who would steal and threaten him.
Huh?! Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Okay, I won't judge parenting skills. But judging from the results (i.e., two adorable kids) I'd nonjudgmentally say you're doing just fine
You haven't met mine yet, Icarus, but then I haven't received copies of your shots records and list of allergies. Remember, no sudden movements and keep your hand flat if you feed them.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Sorry Icarus, I haven't left serious threads forever. Thanks for responding, and I appreciate your words. I do tend to come off as self-righteous sometimes, and some of the threads yesterday made me realize it.
This isn't a huge hot-button topic for me. I'll never condemn anyone for working instead of staying home. I know there are so many circumstances that make it necessary for both spouses to work, or for the mom to work, and I totally respect their choices. I still do think that a parent should stay home with the kids if at all possible, but I know it isn't in many situations. That doesn't mean working parents love or care for their kids any less.
I am grateful that we are in a situation where my wife can stay home. I am grateful that she is willing to do it while I go to work. I think it's the best situation for our kids. I used our own financial situation not to toot my own horn but because it's the only one I'm intimately acquainted with. I know it could change at any time. I would try as hard as I could in any case to have one of us be home with the kids, but I know that might not always be possible.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Icarus
.....they stole things from his house.
edit: GAH! Backspace! Delete! Icurus indeed.
[ March 03, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Ah . . . I was wondering what you meant, PSI.
No problem, afr. I'm glad I didn't chase you away!
Oh, and thanks, Chris!
[ March 03, 2004, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Ick,
Did you read my reply? I think you mistook my tone. My negative tone was towards those who expect me to pay (in the form of taxes) for their childcare.
My tone was not towards those who pay their own childcare, or stay home with their kids. In either of those two cases, I am quite neutral as to which is better.
I mean, since neither costs me anything.
So, actually, I do have a bad attitude. It's just a different bad attitude from the one you read into it.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Yeah, I read your reply. Sorry for not specifically replying to your reply--I wasn't ignoring you or anything. Yeah, I absolutely see where you're coming from. In fact, as I mentioned in my first post here, I completely understand your sentiment, about not wanting to pay for other people's decisions one way or the other. I was just objecting to the wording, and as I said before, I'm much more touchy about things relating to my kids, and my love of my kids, than about anything else.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guess what, you can't have both. You can't. Either stay at home with the kids that you chose to create, or stuff them into assembly line daycare tended by workers that make less than a good pizza delivery guy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this, Slash - that's why I quit my job to stay home with my kids until they were well into middle school. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify my previous post, quoted above:
I did not intend for my statement to be an indictment of anyone else's decision, but rather a reason why I chose to stay home when I had children. It's also partly the reason why I didn't have children until rather late. My husband and I had been working a few years by then and had a little savings (which has been used up and then some by now!). And probably, if I were a teacher, I would have gone back to work sooner, when my children started school, for the reasons Icky cited. (In fact, I did do some substitute teaching in my children's school when they were in elementary school.)
I would never suggest that someone was selfish and didn't love their kids if they didn't quit their jobs, or that they were somehow an unfit parent. I'm sorry if my remarks were read that way.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). We started a pretty strict budget and managed to live within our means enough to be able to buy a house and pay mortgage payments. With my recent promotion/raise, we're able to put more into the 401(k) and pay down the principal on our mortgage much faster.![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)