The Rise of Extreme Daycare(psmag.com)
psmag.com
The Rise of Extreme Daycare
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/business-economics/rise-extreme-daycare-working-24-hour-children-school-93860/
7 comments
The US looks more and more like a third world country. The descriptions of working situations in that article are horrifying.
This.
"working poor" is an oxymoron in comparable countries. Like it should be. I'd be laughing at it if it wasn't so bloody tragic. How is this not a top political issue?
"working poor" is an oxymoron in comparable countries. Like it should be. I'd be laughing at it if it wasn't so bloody tragic. How is this not a top political issue?
> How is this not a top political issue?
There was a study posted on HN or reddit the other day showing that when people don't like the political implications of a solution to a problem, they minimize the existence of the problem.
There is an easy solution to the plight of the working poor in the U.S. Raise the minimum wage, and establish legal restrictions on the schedules companies can assign workers. To the extent that pushes people out of the work force (i.e. companies choose to not hire certain marginally-qualified workers rather than give them better shifts), expand welfare to cover those people.
This is a politically untenable solution here in the U.S. because even our economic liberals aren't liberal enough to be comfortable with telling Wal-Mart that there is no reason to have stores open 24-hours a day.
There was a study posted on HN or reddit the other day showing that when people don't like the political implications of a solution to a problem, they minimize the existence of the problem.
There is an easy solution to the plight of the working poor in the U.S. Raise the minimum wage, and establish legal restrictions on the schedules companies can assign workers. To the extent that pushes people out of the work force (i.e. companies choose to not hire certain marginally-qualified workers rather than give them better shifts), expand welfare to cover those people.
This is a politically untenable solution here in the U.S. because even our economic liberals aren't liberal enough to be comfortable with telling Wal-Mart that there is no reason to have stores open 24-hours a day.
There's no problem with 24/7 store hours as long as the work force can collectively say "we'll do it but it'll cost you X". What's almost incomprihensible to an external observer is that no candidates seem to voice this even though the electorate should be quite positive. It must be possible to run a campaign that is just one long middle finger to big business? Not everyone would agree, but surely there would be a part of the electorate that would strongly agree?
Americans of across the political spectrum are cognizant of the fact that you have to keep businesses happy. You can see this particularly clearly at the local level. Mayors and governors in "liberal" places across the country are governing like conservatives. Why? You can talk about campaign funding or whatever, but I think the real answer is that nobody wants their city to become the next Detroit or the next Philadelphia. In a globalized world, businesses can just pack up and leave, and when that happens there are no jobs nor any tax revenue.
I think Detroit is a pathological example of a city that was too dependent on a single industry and that industry was artificially subsidized both by the public ("buy American") and the govt (direct support and regulation that benefited us makers, truck tax laws for example). Like many mening towns turned ghost towns. It's also ironic that part of the reason the crisis hit US car makers extra hard is exactly this: when people don't have job security they don't buy cars in bad times. In other countries better job security and better welfare evens out the ups and downs when people dare buy cars, employ, and build houses even in a recession. Detroit was just the perfect storm of all things. Despite stronger labour laws and higher wages, German car makers aren't in the same situation.
It's very strange if both political parties try to uphold the image that it is in peoples' best interest to be anti labour and anti-union, or even that pro-business implies anti-union.
It's very strange if both political parties try to uphold the image that it is in peoples' best interest to be anti labour and anti-union, or even that pro-business implies anti-union.
Detroit is an extreme example, but the same phenomenon can be seen in cities across the country. In the last few years I've seen the results first-hand in places like Wilmington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Buffalo. To the extent that businesses haven't automated-away jobs or off-shored them, they've moved them to anti-union states like Tennessee and Georgia: http://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver-archive/2011/08/tennesse....
Well, the people caught in this trap can find it difficult to take time out of their schedule on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, not to mention the many other hoops they may have to jump through in order to be counted politically.
They're also entirely disenfranchised as a living generation, since both sides of the political spectrum in the US are more interested in fighting battles for companies like Comcast and AT&T than caring about problems like the big corporations actively exploiting the working poor and the welfare system - and being bold enough to put those words into their own presentations without any political backlash - or fixing healthcare.
The one time they do hire a guy to fix things, it turns out he can't do it because Congress obstinately blocked his way at every pass. His political rivals turned a compromise, non-universal health care plan into a three ring circus that somehow made the poor think things were getting worse for them, despite how many have been able to get access to healthcare for the first time in their lives.
Unfortunately for us, the guy we hired just doesn't have a strong enough backbone to stand up to the legislature and the FCC and the corporations and tell them in no uncertain words that this situation is no longer acceptable. Polite, articulate words simply won't cut it anymore.
I come from Kentucky, the state with one of the most successful deployments of the health care program in the nation, and Mitch has actively campaigned on repealing it, right to their faces, and yet they supported him at the polls. That's how fucked up this situation has become. It's quite hard not to be disenfranchised and think there's nothing we can do.
The one time they do hire a guy to fix things, it turns out he can't do it because Congress obstinately blocked his way at every pass. His political rivals turned a compromise, non-universal health care plan into a three ring circus that somehow made the poor think things were getting worse for them, despite how many have been able to get access to healthcare for the first time in their lives.
Unfortunately for us, the guy we hired just doesn't have a strong enough backbone to stand up to the legislature and the FCC and the corporations and tell them in no uncertain words that this situation is no longer acceptable. Polite, articulate words simply won't cut it anymore.
I come from Kentucky, the state with one of the most successful deployments of the health care program in the nation, and Mitch has actively campaigned on repealing it, right to their faces, and yet they supported him at the polls. That's how fucked up this situation has become. It's quite hard not to be disenfranchised and think there's nothing we can do.
This is just the next tragedy. Register in order to get to vote? People (100%) not having ID's? Why not issue ID's to everyone and just be done with it? Passports would be good...
Early voting seems to be possible in most states, and with at least 4 days of voting before the tuesday, most people should be able to do it. How can it not be a requirement for all states to provide early voting?
Early voting seems to be possible in most states, and with at least 4 days of voting before the tuesday, most people should be able to do it. How can it not be a requirement for all states to provide early voting?
I am not from US, but as someone explained this to me - issuing everyone national IDs like we have in EU would be incredibly hard if not impossible,because there is not one certain way to establish if someone is a citizen or not, so a lot of people in US would perceive such attempt as being a discriminatory one.
"because there is not one certain way to establish if someone is a citizen or not"
Only about half the states require citizenship to vote, this can be trivially verified on wikipedia. Its technically illegal at the federal level to vote in a federal election if you're not a citizen but that's only enforced politically "making examples of" and voter intimidation purposes and so forth.
It seems among the young HN participants, or maybe foreign participants, there is culturally almost no understanding of whats federal and whats state level in the USA. I would assume this is an intentional goal of the educational system, to make control of the population simpler. There is also an undercurrent of those who actually understand this simple fact not saying much, because "everyone knows" that you get 50 states into a big pile, anything you say about them can and will be wrong in some minor detail in one state and your entire argument will be viciously attacked because being only 98% right is the same as 0% right.
There is also at least a three step game being played where the first step is "demand ID to vote" rather than the existing "we trust you" system. The second step is state ID is technically free if you have the documentation required. The third step is making the documentation required change annually and sometimes be very expensive, almost impossible to obtain and you can always blame the victim for not having all the right paperwork.
My wife doesn't have a "real id" because it would just cost too much and be too much of a PITA to fix, so when a "real id" level license is required to vote, she'll be disenfranchised from voting. Eventually it will be enough of a PITA for her to obtain the docs she needs and we can certainly afford it, its only $100 or so, but that's a weeks labor for other social classes... very much intentionally.
Only about half the states require citizenship to vote, this can be trivially verified on wikipedia. Its technically illegal at the federal level to vote in a federal election if you're not a citizen but that's only enforced politically "making examples of" and voter intimidation purposes and so forth.
It seems among the young HN participants, or maybe foreign participants, there is culturally almost no understanding of whats federal and whats state level in the USA. I would assume this is an intentional goal of the educational system, to make control of the population simpler. There is also an undercurrent of those who actually understand this simple fact not saying much, because "everyone knows" that you get 50 states into a big pile, anything you say about them can and will be wrong in some minor detail in one state and your entire argument will be viciously attacked because being only 98% right is the same as 0% right.
There is also at least a three step game being played where the first step is "demand ID to vote" rather than the existing "we trust you" system. The second step is state ID is technically free if you have the documentation required. The third step is making the documentation required change annually and sometimes be very expensive, almost impossible to obtain and you can always blame the victim for not having all the right paperwork.
My wife doesn't have a "real id" because it would just cost too much and be too much of a PITA to fix, so when a "real id" level license is required to vote, she'll be disenfranchised from voting. Eventually it will be enough of a PITA for her to obtain the docs she needs and we can certainly afford it, its only $100 or so, but that's a weeks labor for other social classes... very much intentionally.
Like I have said in my own comment - I am not from US. For me, the very concept of non-citizens voting is.....bizarre. Also, the problem with US citizens not being just given IDs is also bizarre - when people in my country turn 18, they just collect their ID for free at the nearest government office, and that ID can also be used as a passport for travelling inside the EU, negating the need to ever pay for a passport for most people. It certainly does not seem to be difficult, because everyone is registered as a citizen from birth, unless someone becomes a naturalized citizen, so they are also added to the national database. In the States I understand the difficulty is that there is no such database - people can be Americans without having paperwork to necessarily prove it, and so demanding such paperwork is seen as discriminatory. Am I correct?
And no, as a European I very frequently do not understand what is governed on your federal or state level. In fact, this separation has never ever been mentioned in my own education,and I only know of it because I frequent places like HN.
And no, as a European I very frequently do not understand what is governed on your federal or state level. In fact, this separation has never ever been mentioned in my own education,and I only know of it because I frequent places like HN.
"For me, the very concept of non-citizens voting is.....bizarre"
Its that taxation without representation thing, still an issue two centuries later, if you pay taxes, even just road taxes via gasoline for your car, you get to vote on who spends the tax money ... More practically we use voting as a propaganda technique to calm the voters... "we don't have an oligarchy or dictatorship, you get to choose between two carefully chosen (by us, not you) candidates, and they do have different PR firms... see? thats real freedom so stop complaining!"
"Also, the problem with US citizens not being just given IDs is also bizarre"
We've historically had problems with J Random Criminal walking up to the counter and asking for someone else's ID and then doing very bad things with it. My own mother supposedly bought a truck in Texas last seen at the border crossing to Mexico, that's only 1000 miles away. Culturally we have a lot of people who work on commission and don't really care about much other than collecting that commission check. We could have .gov bankroll the substantial costs of identity paperwork, but 1) technically you're not supposed to throw away your birth certificate, so the guy who "lost" it should have some skin in the game, so bill them $100 and 2) Obvious voter suppression. At least poor voter suppression. Also aside from cost its a confuseopoly type of situation.. profiting off people being confused. Another thing we're really into culturally.
"demanding such paperwork is seen as discriminatory"
By a subset of the population with a political axe to grind, yes. Everyone else (maybe 80% of the population?) sees it more as common sense other than it has been used for oppression, stopping people on the street and only demanding papers from certain racial groups.
"this separation has never ever been mentioned in my own education"
Join the club, which unfortunately includes most Americans who've lived here their whole life and don't understand which laws are local, state, or federal. If you think our laws are confusing, try the building codes some time (ugh).
This also is comical because there is a cultural meme on HN that "we" all live in SV or Manhattan even though most of us actually do not. Like us two. So someone will comment about electrical codes for 3-phase wiring for the NAS in their basement in Mountain View as if the whole country works the same way, which it certainly doesn't. Or voting, which is regulated by state.
Its that taxation without representation thing, still an issue two centuries later, if you pay taxes, even just road taxes via gasoline for your car, you get to vote on who spends the tax money ... More practically we use voting as a propaganda technique to calm the voters... "we don't have an oligarchy or dictatorship, you get to choose between two carefully chosen (by us, not you) candidates, and they do have different PR firms... see? thats real freedom so stop complaining!"
"Also, the problem with US citizens not being just given IDs is also bizarre"
We've historically had problems with J Random Criminal walking up to the counter and asking for someone else's ID and then doing very bad things with it. My own mother supposedly bought a truck in Texas last seen at the border crossing to Mexico, that's only 1000 miles away. Culturally we have a lot of people who work on commission and don't really care about much other than collecting that commission check. We could have .gov bankroll the substantial costs of identity paperwork, but 1) technically you're not supposed to throw away your birth certificate, so the guy who "lost" it should have some skin in the game, so bill them $100 and 2) Obvious voter suppression. At least poor voter suppression. Also aside from cost its a confuseopoly type of situation.. profiting off people being confused. Another thing we're really into culturally.
"demanding such paperwork is seen as discriminatory"
By a subset of the population with a political axe to grind, yes. Everyone else (maybe 80% of the population?) sees it more as common sense other than it has been used for oppression, stopping people on the street and only demanding papers from certain racial groups.
"this separation has never ever been mentioned in my own education"
Join the club, which unfortunately includes most Americans who've lived here their whole life and don't understand which laws are local, state, or federal. If you think our laws are confusing, try the building codes some time (ugh).
This also is comical because there is a cultural meme on HN that "we" all live in SV or Manhattan even though most of us actually do not. Like us two. So someone will comment about electrical codes for 3-phase wiring for the NAS in their basement in Mountain View as if the whole country works the same way, which it certainly doesn't. Or voting, which is regulated by state.
Thank you for such thorough explanation.
I will add one more thing to this discussion:
" if you pay taxes, even just road taxes via gasoline for your car, you get to vote on who spends the tax money"
Interesting you say this, because this is one thing that should work like this in EU, but it doesn't. As a EU citizen living in a country that is not the country of my birth, I am in a situation where I pay all the taxes like everybody else, I pay income tax, I contribute to national insurance, pay road tax with my petrol, once I get old I will receive a state pension from this country, the whole deal - I literally don't pay anything in my home country anymore, so from the "tax" point of view, I am no different than any other "citizen" of the country I currently live in. However, I cannot vote in parliamentary elections of this country, because my passport has the wrong country on it, even though for all other purposes it doesn't(and in fact, it by law cannot) make any difference as long as we are inside the EU.
I will add one more thing to this discussion:
" if you pay taxes, even just road taxes via gasoline for your car, you get to vote on who spends the tax money"
Interesting you say this, because this is one thing that should work like this in EU, but it doesn't. As a EU citizen living in a country that is not the country of my birth, I am in a situation where I pay all the taxes like everybody else, I pay income tax, I contribute to national insurance, pay road tax with my petrol, once I get old I will receive a state pension from this country, the whole deal - I literally don't pay anything in my home country anymore, so from the "tax" point of view, I am no different than any other "citizen" of the country I currently live in. However, I cannot vote in parliamentary elections of this country, because my passport has the wrong country on it, even though for all other purposes it doesn't(and in fact, it by law cannot) make any difference as long as we are inside the EU.
Its actually quite easy to issue everyone an ID as most people already have one. Over 90% of individuals have a drivers license that could be used, That has nothing to say of any of the other official ID's that you could use, however the very very very small minority of individuals who don't have ID's are so reliable a voting bloc for one party that anything that might reduce the size of that bloc is not even entertained.
So no amount of resources or effort will ever convince that party to adopt a policy requiring ID's since that will result in the loss of at least some votes which would hurt them.
So no amount of resources or effort will ever convince that party to adopt a policy requiring ID's since that will result in the loss of at least some votes which would hurt them.
Maybe a deal that is neutral could be made? Example: no registration to vote, require id, election on Sunday/holiday.
If you include voting rights for ex-convicts or even voting in prison you'd more than counter the effect of voter ID (this I assume would not be a popular opinion among R?)
If you include voting rights for ex-convicts or even voting in prison you'd more than counter the effect of voter ID (this I assume would not be a popular opinion among R?)
I think any change would be poison to one side or the other. Which is a shame since there is no technical hurdle to overcome to provide secure and easy voting for everyone. You could totally remove all barriers to voting and make a secure system where everyone was enabled to vote and vote securely, but because there are partisan politics at play we won't get it.
Wait what? No postal voting in the US? This is peculiar.
There definitely is at least in some (most?) states
> How is this not a top political issue?
An issue only becomes political in the US if the two major parties disagree on it, which is to say if different sectors of American big business disagree on it. It's important to remember that there is no major political party in the US that does not represent big business interests, so concerns around income and wealth inequality, poor working conditions and so on do not rise to the level of "political issues" despite almost universal agreement by actual citizens that they are a problem.
An issue only becomes political in the US if the two major parties disagree on it, which is to say if different sectors of American big business disagree on it. It's important to remember that there is no major political party in the US that does not represent big business interests, so concerns around income and wealth inequality, poor working conditions and so on do not rise to the level of "political issues" despite almost universal agreement by actual citizens that they are a problem.
Just think, this is an improvement over what there used to be. The America my parents grew up in would be as unrecognizable to most modern Americans as any 3rd world country.
If you were to highlight the areas on a map where these conditions existed you would find that it is a very small minority of the population. Additionally people who find themselves in this situation are not entirely at the mercy of fate determining that they would have these hardships. Many of these family's are single parent multiple child by different father households, and they are in a social group where all their peers are in the same boat. They are children themselves of households that were in the same situation and their kids will most likely follow the same life path. Essentially the entire social network underpinning society has withered away for an entire class of individuals. Family's who one generation ago were raised by Grandma and Grandpa have now grow up and had kids of their own and they have no responsible grandparents or other family members to turn to for assistance because they were just as irresponsible.
You can't just claim that having a larger safety net or higher paying jobs will help as most of these individuals have a pattern of poor choices and personal vices that will eat away at any additional assistance they are given. That might not be true of everyone, but its true of the vast majority. There is no way to fix this fundamental break down of society at the governmental level without greatly impinging on the right of those effected.
You can't just claim that having a larger safety net or higher paying jobs will help as most of these individuals have a pattern of poor choices and personal vices that will eat away at any additional assistance they are given. That might not be true of everyone, but its true of the vast majority. There is no way to fix this fundamental break down of society at the governmental level without greatly impinging on the right of those effected.
>most of these individuals have a pattern of poor choices and personal vices that will eat away at any additional assistance they are given. That might not be true of everyone, but its true of the vast majority.
It's important to realize that you're making all of this up in order to rationalize your position. You can't just claim that this is true without research or reference.
edit: You could find out how many of the working poor match your internal fantasy of them, and how many don't, if you really wanted to know. The answer would cause you a lot of painful cognitive dissonance, though, because you like to think of yourself as a good person while explaining why people who work full time jobs don't deserve to eat, and how even if they had the money, they would spend it all on booze anyway.
It's important to realize that you're making all of this up in order to rationalize your position. You can't just claim that this is true without research or reference.
edit: You could find out how many of the working poor match your internal fantasy of them, and how many don't, if you really wanted to know. The answer would cause you a lot of painful cognitive dissonance, though, because you like to think of yourself as a good person while explaining why people who work full time jobs don't deserve to eat, and how even if they had the money, they would spend it all on booze anyway.
Why not start the discussion by asking him what he means by "poor choices and personal vices"? Perhaps he already did some research on the matter and that's why he's come to the conclusion he wrote above?
In essence, you're also making claims about the state of the poor, yet you also didn't provide any research or reference (which you accuse the OP of not doing either). I'm not saying you are, but it's equally likely (from our point of view, assuming it's unbiased) to think that you're also rationalizing your view of the poor to match your own position.
In essence, you're also making claims about the state of the poor, yet you also didn't provide any research or reference (which you accuse the OP of not doing either). I'm not saying you are, but it's equally likely (from our point of view, assuming it's unbiased) to think that you're also rationalizing your view of the poor to match your own position.
Because its a lot easier for people to disagree without doing research. Much like I was accused of not looking at the numbers and rationalizing to make myself feel good thats exactly what everyone does. I can't say I have done scientific grade research, but being in the trenches of this epidemic I can only go off what I see around me. I deal with these people on a daily basis, and I deal with their kids.
However if you want numbers just go look at the census data. Here is an analysis by kidscount (http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-...) and I can tell you from my experience that number is low. There are many other families where they are not "single" parents, but the second adult is just a boyfriend who may or may not be the father of the children in question.
However if you want numbers just go look at the census data. Here is an analysis by kidscount (http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-...) and I can tell you from my experience that number is low. There are many other families where they are not "single" parents, but the second adult is just a boyfriend who may or may not be the father of the children in question.
That doesn't answer the question.
Not having parents to pay for college isn't a "poor choice".
Since finances are the leading cause of divorce, it would be reasonable to expect that lower income families have more single-parent homes.
It's frankly immoral to consider marriage (and divorce) a luxury the poor are somehow less deserving of.
If I were to get a divorce, it wouldn't ruin me.
I have seen a number of middle class kids make "poor choices" that would have devastated a poor family. The children of poor families don't "fail upwards" in the way that upper middle class kids do.
I worked very hard to achieve what I have. But I recognize that without the help of family who could afford to help, the work alone would not have been enough. I've found a healthy dose of success in spite of some poor choices.
Your POV is typical of people who've had the luxury of not having to depend on a two hour bus commute to get to a job that offers no vacation hours. Where every trivial emergency is one that hits you twice: Once to pay for the event itself, and once for the lost work hours. It's a position of privilege.
Not having parents to pay for college isn't a "poor choice".
Since finances are the leading cause of divorce, it would be reasonable to expect that lower income families have more single-parent homes.
It's frankly immoral to consider marriage (and divorce) a luxury the poor are somehow less deserving of.
If I were to get a divorce, it wouldn't ruin me.
I have seen a number of middle class kids make "poor choices" that would have devastated a poor family. The children of poor families don't "fail upwards" in the way that upper middle class kids do.
I worked very hard to achieve what I have. But I recognize that without the help of family who could afford to help, the work alone would not have been enough. I've found a healthy dose of success in spite of some poor choices.
Your POV is typical of people who've had the luxury of not having to depend on a two hour bus commute to get to a job that offers no vacation hours. Where every trivial emergency is one that hits you twice: Once to pay for the event itself, and once for the lost work hours. It's a position of privilege.
So for someone who's first complaint was I was living in a magical world. You are clearly not in touch with reality. You mention divorce and college.
1. a very low percentage of minorities even get married. Meaning divorce is a statistical outlier [http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21569433-america...]
2. Low income teens are likely to get pregnant while in high school. This has nothing to do with mommy and daddy not being able to pay for college and them getting stuck in a dead end job while trying to raise a family. These kids are dropping out of school and having kids before any prospect of a job is on the table. Then they have to deal with the fact that they have kids and it limits their choices ( can I go to school and work two jobs while raising kids ? )[http://www.nber.org/papers/w17965.pdf]
Yeah right some kids can get away with more poor choices but that doesn't mean they are not poor choices, and while I don't think there is a good body of evidence for this exact situation, even kids who are middle or upper middle class who have kids early in life and have their parents who can cover for them, their kids are statistically likely to make the same poor choices and the parents are not as likely to be able to support them. So the first generation might be able to "fail upwards" but the second generation which is statistically likely to fail as well will be much less likely to do the same thing.
1. a very low percentage of minorities even get married. Meaning divorce is a statistical outlier [http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21569433-america...]
2. Low income teens are likely to get pregnant while in high school. This has nothing to do with mommy and daddy not being able to pay for college and them getting stuck in a dead end job while trying to raise a family. These kids are dropping out of school and having kids before any prospect of a job is on the table. Then they have to deal with the fact that they have kids and it limits their choices ( can I go to school and work two jobs while raising kids ? )[http://www.nber.org/papers/w17965.pdf]
Yeah right some kids can get away with more poor choices but that doesn't mean they are not poor choices, and while I don't think there is a good body of evidence for this exact situation, even kids who are middle or upper middle class who have kids early in life and have their parents who can cover for them, their kids are statistically likely to make the same poor choices and the parents are not as likely to be able to support them. So the first generation might be able to "fail upwards" but the second generation which is statistically likely to fail as well will be much less likely to do the same thing.
I think you must be responding to someone else. I didn't say anything about a magical world.
25% is not insignificant. And of course the lower on the socioeconomic totem pole you go, the more divorce you find.
And when you don't have prospects, then maybe you're a little more careless about behavior that would interfere with those nonexistent prospects. I feel like it's no great secret that many young people these days delay starting a family for college and career.
It seems reasonable to expect that the opposite might be true as well for people who don't have the same opportunities.
As for your last point, that doesn't nullify anything you know? If you start out on 3rd base, you will face fewer consequences. No surprise. You might not slide into home, but the people who started out at-bat are still unlikely to catch up with you. See wealth-gap, class mobility, etc.
25% is not insignificant. And of course the lower on the socioeconomic totem pole you go, the more divorce you find.
And when you don't have prospects, then maybe you're a little more careless about behavior that would interfere with those nonexistent prospects. I feel like it's no great secret that many young people these days delay starting a family for college and career.
It seems reasonable to expect that the opposite might be true as well for people who don't have the same opportunities.
As for your last point, that doesn't nullify anything you know? If you start out on 3rd base, you will face fewer consequences. No surprise. You might not slide into home, but the people who started out at-bat are still unlikely to catch up with you. See wealth-gap, class mobility, etc.
>In essence, you're also making claims about the state of the poor
In essence, I'm not. I'm responding to a bad argument. You can't just go on a rant about unicorns on the South Pole, and when people tall you you don't know what you're talking about, ask them all to prove you wrong. That's not how reason works.
edit:
>Why not start the discussion by asking him what he means by "poor choices and personal vices"?
Because there's nothing in this ancient, stereotypical rant of the comfortable since antiquity that gives me the indication that I have something to learn about the poor from the person who happens to be reciting it in this thread. I've been poor, and I know poor. If there are some statistics that tell me that I've just accidentally been in a bubble of the wonderful, hardworking, generous, and thoughtful poor (mixed with a few spoilers) I'm open to it and happy to read it.
In essence, I'm not. I'm responding to a bad argument. You can't just go on a rant about unicorns on the South Pole, and when people tall you you don't know what you're talking about, ask them all to prove you wrong. That's not how reason works.
edit:
>Why not start the discussion by asking him what he means by "poor choices and personal vices"?
Because there's nothing in this ancient, stereotypical rant of the comfortable since antiquity that gives me the indication that I have something to learn about the poor from the person who happens to be reciting it in this thread. I've been poor, and I know poor. If there are some statistics that tell me that I've just accidentally been in a bubble of the wonderful, hardworking, generous, and thoughtful poor (mixed with a few spoilers) I'm open to it and happy to read it.
>"In essence, I'm not. I'm responding to a bad argument. You can't just go on a rant about unicorns on the South Pole, and when people tall you you don't know what you're talking about, ask them all to prove you wrong. That's not how reason works."
And if I had no prior-opinion OR evidence on unicorns in the South Pole, I'd equally be skeptical of your claims that there aren't any, as I'd be of the guy that claims there are. I'd ask you both for some basic stats/research on the matter, which is what I tried to point out.
And if I had no prior-opinion OR evidence on unicorns in the South Pole, I'd equally be skeptical of your claims that there aren't any, as I'd be of the guy that claims there are. I'd ask you both for some basic stats/research on the matter, which is what I tried to point out.
Except in this case we have clear evidence for one side ( which is now provided ), but we still live in the internet where no rational conversation can take place.
>"but we still live in the internet where no rational conversation can take place."
Agreed, especially if you have a more controversial viewpoint. I know that all too well.
Agreed, especially if you have a more controversial viewpoint. I know that all too well.
I just want to point out that while I didn't include numbers here, I have in a child post of this thread. Also I mean I would love to know the world you are living in where what I said isn't true. There is not one study or academic research done that does not coorliate the plight of the working poor with their social status. This is a generational problem and to my knowledge there is not a single study that does not like poverty with higher rates of substance abuse, crime, and single parenthood. I have provided numbers please by all means cite even one resource that finds no link between poverty and social vices ?
The irony of your comment is that New Rochelle, the town where this daycare is located, is not one of those places where the social structure has broken down (and people mill around on the sidewalk at noon on a weekday). It's a working class town composed of black and hispanic people who work service jobs in Manhattan or the other wealthier Westchester towns. The neighborhood has bustling shops and stores, and restaurants are full of families in the evenings.
So according to the 2010 census its nothing like you have described. its 60% white and the median income per family is 88k
However I while I can't find the numbers for that specific town I imagine they don't deviate from the national statistics of 70+% of minority children in single parent households. The social structure _has_ broken down and we keep ignoring it like its not a problem.
However I while I can't find the numbers for that specific town I imagine they don't deviate from the national statistics of 70+% of minority children in single parent households. The social structure _has_ broken down and we keep ignoring it like its not a problem.
The census region includes the suburban area north of I-95, which might as well be a different state. The downtown has a heavy representation of immigrant families. Immigrant families have about 25% of children in single-parent households, far below the national average.
Also, whether a household is one-parent or two-parent is irrelevant to the childcare situation. Two parents with late night shifts aren't going to have an appreciably easier time than one parent. And your point about grandparents is also inapposite. If you have small children, it's unlikely your grandparents are old enough to already be out of the workforce.
Also, whether a household is one-parent or two-parent is irrelevant to the childcare situation. Two parents with late night shifts aren't going to have an appreciably easier time than one parent. And your point about grandparents is also inapposite. If you have small children, it's unlikely your grandparents are old enough to already be out of the workforce.
The model I have seen is the family unit ( mom and dad ) have kids and those kids go out and have children without a partner. Then the grandparents are in a two income household and they provide shelter and income subsidy to the children. As far as that not mattering, it totally matters two parent households have many more options in terms of childcare and employment. The number of households where both parents have off hour jobs that are low paying is marginal at best. With two parents just by one parent staying home you can make almost as much as you would pay to have extended daycare for the kids.
So your numbers make sence. First generation Immigrants typically move as family units. They would also lack the social net to assist with kids, so they might be prime candidates for this kind of service.
So your numbers make sence. First generation Immigrants typically move as family units. They would also lack the social net to assist with kids, so they might be prime candidates for this kind of service.
"Marisol works 29 hours at each of her jobs. This is common. If an employee works more hours, her employer is required to provide health insurance."
This is just one example of how poorly drafted the Affordable Care Act is. The lobbyists who wrote the bill (remember, the President provided almost no leadership on the detailed provisions of the bill while it was in Congress) ignored the certainty of elasticity of demand for labor by employers. If it becomes more expensive to provide full-time employment, because of a mandate to provide health insurance to full-time employees, then employers will offer fewer full-time jobs and more part-time jobs with few enough hours not to trigger the health insurance mandate. The drafters of the Affordable Care Act forgot Economics 101, or maybe never learned economics at all. "The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."
This is just one example of how poorly drafted the Affordable Care Act is. The lobbyists who wrote the bill (remember, the President provided almost no leadership on the detailed provisions of the bill while it was in Congress) ignored the certainty of elasticity of demand for labor by employers. If it becomes more expensive to provide full-time employment, because of a mandate to provide health insurance to full-time employees, then employers will offer fewer full-time jobs and more part-time jobs with few enough hours not to trigger the health insurance mandate. The drafters of the Affordable Care Act forgot Economics 101, or maybe never learned economics at all. "The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."
Or they knew exactly what would happen but went with it anyway so they'd have a bill that would actually get through the Senate. If you assume employer-provided insurance (which is bad but what the U.S. has), what's the alternative? Any part-time number you pick, some employers will schedule people just below it so if someone works even one hour, they get covered? How do you then sort out which of multiple employers actually provides insurance? Short-sighted, penny-pinching employers will always look for a loophole, if they couldn't get out of it by reducing hours, they'd do something like call each worker a "contractor" and not employee.
To answer the "How would you you...", you enable the employee to sue if they are artificially given less than full work-hours. It's not a hard thing to prove if there's a nontrivial part time work force. These being the odds, the companies don't try to pull it off too often, even if the court cases would mostly come from ex-workers.
I have so many feelings about this article. I feel so much sadness for the parents who need to use these kind of places, but yet I feel happy that the kids have somewhere to go and that the parent(s) can pay for it.
I still don't like it much. The article's projections just left my head shaking.
Someone needs to tell these programmers/marketers that there's a wee factor called "humanity" that they need to use when creating their algorithms. I wish it was as easy as that. :( Could someone enlighten me around this? I'm not in the US, and I have a hard time even thinking about everything being open 24/7. (New Zealand is where I reside)
Though, the people who run these wee centres are doing some selfless work. Absolutely amazing, and good on them for doing it. It makes me happy there's still people like that around. (I realise not everyone would be like the daycare in the article but I'd like to think so.)
I still don't like it much. The article's projections just left my head shaking.
Someone needs to tell these programmers/marketers that there's a wee factor called "humanity" that they need to use when creating their algorithms. I wish it was as easy as that. :( Could someone enlighten me around this? I'm not in the US, and I have a hard time even thinking about everything being open 24/7. (New Zealand is where I reside)
Though, the people who run these wee centres are doing some selfless work. Absolutely amazing, and good on them for doing it. It makes me happy there's still people like that around. (I realise not everyone would be like the daycare in the article but I'd like to think so.)
I'm not in the US, and I have a hard time even thinking about everything being open 24/7. (New Zealand is where I reside)
I'm not surprised! When I worked in NZ for a few months, years ago, I found very few businesses open outside of "business hours". This made e.g. grocery shopping a challenge. A few touristy places were open on Saturday morning.
Please don't take this as a criticism; run your country however you want to run it. It's just that cultural differences go both ways, and the other side looks weird no matter which direction one is looking.
I'm not surprised! When I worked in NZ for a few months, years ago, I found very few businesses open outside of "business hours". This made e.g. grocery shopping a challenge. A few touristy places were open on Saturday morning.
Please don't take this as a criticism; run your country however you want to run it. It's just that cultural differences go both ways, and the other side looks weird no matter which direction one is looking.
We used to have a 24/7 grocery store in Dunedin! ;-) Now it shuts before midnight. You'll find in the major centres like Auckland or Wellington that there'll be more of those open 24/7... but I can't think of anything else.
Mind you, banks that shut at 4.30pm are kind of annoying for many people and I can't blame them (even though my wife is a banker). There's only _one_ small branch open in a city of 140,000 people on a Saturday. No other banks open in the weekends here at least.
That being said, and on topic with the article... it'll be much easier for a single mum to stay at home with her kids and collect money from the govt, rather than to work nightshift at a supermarket most likely. I don't even think we have these extreme daycares in NZ. She may not get more money than someone who stacks shelves, but it's definitely much better than her losing out on her children growing up or the children missing their only parent from their lives.
Many parents like this will normally go back to work once the kids start full-time school, but still receive maybe $100 for accommodation help if they're not making enough. I like this a lot better than them having to be in the same circumstances as the women in the article.
(I know men fall into this too, I just used women as an example as the article primarily did)
Mind you, banks that shut at 4.30pm are kind of annoying for many people and I can't blame them (even though my wife is a banker). There's only _one_ small branch open in a city of 140,000 people on a Saturday. No other banks open in the weekends here at least.
That being said, and on topic with the article... it'll be much easier for a single mum to stay at home with her kids and collect money from the govt, rather than to work nightshift at a supermarket most likely. I don't even think we have these extreme daycares in NZ. She may not get more money than someone who stacks shelves, but it's definitely much better than her losing out on her children growing up or the children missing their only parent from their lives.
Many parents like this will normally go back to work once the kids start full-time school, but still receive maybe $100 for accommodation help if they're not making enough. I like this a lot better than them having to be in the same circumstances as the women in the article.
(I know men fall into this too, I just used women as an example as the article primarily did)
I don't even think we have these extreme daycares in NZ.
They're not the norm in USA either. As TFA implied, this is not just a failure of the state (although it is that), but also of the social structure. The single parents described have no one to whom they can turn. I know a family (parents not married, but together for a long time) that had a hard time over the summer. They camped in a state park for over a month. (The younger son loved it.) The good news is that now both parents are working, incidentally at jobs that allow them to still eschew daycare. (Not that daycare is bad for other families; this is just an indication of this family's views.)
My time in NZ was almost entirely in Wellington, and was over a decade ago, so maybe everything is different now. One challenge for me was living and working downtown without an automobile. When walking absolutely wouldn't work, I found the buses to be less convenient than buses I've ridden elsewhere.
They're not the norm in USA either. As TFA implied, this is not just a failure of the state (although it is that), but also of the social structure. The single parents described have no one to whom they can turn. I know a family (parents not married, but together for a long time) that had a hard time over the summer. They camped in a state park for over a month. (The younger son loved it.) The good news is that now both parents are working, incidentally at jobs that allow them to still eschew daycare. (Not that daycare is bad for other families; this is just an indication of this family's views.)
My time in NZ was almost entirely in Wellington, and was over a decade ago, so maybe everything is different now. One challenge for me was living and working downtown without an automobile. When walking absolutely wouldn't work, I found the buses to be less convenient than buses I've ridden elsewhere.
> Someone needs to tell these programmers/marketers that there's a wee factor called "humanity" that they need to use when creating their algorithms
What have programmers, marketers, and algorithms to do with this, since you explicitly pointed them out?
What have programmers, marketers, and algorithms to do with this, since you explicitly pointed them out?
veb is referring to this paragraph from the beginning of the article:
" Working people who live below the poverty line are particularly afraid to say no to these unusual schedules. They may have no one to say no to, anyway—those schedules might have been created by computers, rather than human managers, in the hopes of saving a corporation money. Many companies now use data and algorithms to schedule employees so fewer hours will be spent sitting around. The software doesn’t care if a shift falls in the middle of the night, or that it might tear a big hole in an employee’s family life."
" Working people who live below the poverty line are particularly afraid to say no to these unusual schedules. They may have no one to say no to, anyway—those schedules might have been created by computers, rather than human managers, in the hopes of saving a corporation money. Many companies now use data and algorithms to schedule employees so fewer hours will be spent sitting around. The software doesn’t care if a shift falls in the middle of the night, or that it might tear a big hole in an employee’s family life."
It is a great tragedy that there is the need for such 24h daycare services. - Both for children and parents.
Speaking about parents: I really wonder how they got to this point. Clearly creating two children while in need of two low paid jobs seems like the opposite of a risk averse strategy.
Speaking about parents: I really wonder how they got to this point. Clearly creating two children while in need of two low paid jobs seems like the opposite of a risk averse strategy.
I used to feel this way before I had kids, I'm now of the opposite mind.
Having kids is a fairly fundamental part of being a human being (imho, ymmv), just below keeping yourself alive.
If everyone had to wait until they could afford kids before having them, many people would be too old to reproduce by the time they could (if ever).
This is a function of the wealth inequalities in our society, not the fault of those parents specifically. While it's easy to blame some of them, we get need get societies house in order first.
Having kids is a fairly fundamental part of being a human being (imho, ymmv), just below keeping yourself alive.
If everyone had to wait until they could afford kids before having them, many people would be too old to reproduce by the time they could (if ever).
This is a function of the wealth inequalities in our society, not the fault of those parents specifically. While it's easy to blame some of them, we get need get societies house in order first.
Just to underline the fundemental-ness of having kids I mentioned above, in the EU we have enshrined in law the right to "start a family" [1] as a recognised human right.
[1] Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights
[1] Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Individuals not having a support-structure in place to help them take care of kids (i.e. family) is both a symptom and a cause of individuals having children that they can not take care of. If they struggle to take care of their children, then they'll probably struggle to help their children take care of their own children.
I'd posit that this is endemic to our "credit/loan" society, where everyone feels the need to have things that they can't (yet) afford. If they just hold off on their self-indulgence for one generation (or x-amount of years) until they can afford to have that item, then they will improve the lifestyle of their following generations by an unmeasurable amount.
I'd posit that this is endemic to our "credit/loan" society, where everyone feels the need to have things that they can't (yet) afford. If they just hold off on their self-indulgence for one generation (or x-amount of years) until they can afford to have that item, then they will improve the lifestyle of their following generations by an unmeasurable amount.
For most people who struggle to afford their kids, its not other indulgences that cause it. There is a whole section of society who work hard but can't get by.
> Clearly creating two children while in need of two low paid jobs seems like the opposite of a risk averse strategy.
Conversely, not making sure that every family feels comfortable creating >= 2.0 children surely isn't a good strategy for the society as a whole either.
This means calculating a decent minimum wage is simple: it's what a single parent needs to support two kids (including healthcare, holidays, ...) with some margin, while working just one single full time job.
Conversely, not making sure that every family feels comfortable creating >= 2.0 children surely isn't a good strategy for the society as a whole either.
This means calculating a decent minimum wage is simple: it's what a single parent needs to support two kids (including healthcare, holidays, ...) with some margin, while working just one single full time job.
Prohibiting low income jobs for those in need seems like a very cynical idea to fight low income poverty.
What's cynical is a system where having a job doesn't provide a living wage. That just needs to be fixed. There is no point trying to scare with the fact that this would take people from a job that doesn't pay enough, to welfare that pays even less.
Higher minimum wages could mean higher unemployment of course, but it isn't a right to employ people without paying them a living wage. Raised minium wages would need to be coupled with increased spending on social benefits/welfare.
Higher minimum wages could mean higher unemployment of course, but it isn't a right to employ people without paying them a living wage. Raised minium wages would need to be coupled with increased spending on social benefits/welfare.
Increased unemployment coverage, but possibly decreases in other welfare. Quite a few people on food stamps have jobs--they're just low-paying jobs (or too few hours).
Exactly. And better social security can often show up As a net positive for the economy as a whole. Especially when starting from the very low level we are talking about here. If people aren't fearing for their economic future (the U.S. default mode) they can do what society prefers them to do (have kids, start businesses) rather than saving up for that day you get an illness or get fired.
What is a "living wage"?
A wage that is sufficient to cover basic needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
In the same way that its cynical to cut taxes on the wealthy in hopes it'll "trickle down" or "create jobs".
[deleted]
They may not have been in need when the children were conceived. There are many things that can turn someone's life around for the worse.
Fair enough.
This said I won't belive all of this to be rooted in reasons beyond control.
This said I won't belive all of this to be rooted in reasons beyond control.
> This said I won't belive all of this to be rooted in reasons beyond control.
Most definitely. If America had a proper social safety net and income equality, this would've never happened. But heh! Bootstraps!
Most definitely. If America had a proper social safety net and income equality, this would've never happened. But heh! Bootstraps!
If you have a bunch of single people raising kids on their own, something like this is bound to happen.
"Diana and Ivette’s mother, Marisol, for instance, is raising the girls on her own, working at a supermarket from 8 a.m. until 2 p.m. and at Home Depot from 6 to 10 p.m., six days a week. "
"This clock has highlighted weakness in our social networks. In 2013, 28 percent of children were living with a single parent; 77 percent of those single parents are mothers."
Sounds like at some point, people are going to have to make a specific choice between raising kids on their own (potentially) or not having them at all; and vote for Governments that favor the policy they prefer.
"Diana and Ivette’s mother, Marisol, for instance, is raising the girls on her own, working at a supermarket from 8 a.m. until 2 p.m. and at Home Depot from 6 to 10 p.m., six days a week. "
"This clock has highlighted weakness in our social networks. In 2013, 28 percent of children were living with a single parent; 77 percent of those single parents are mothers."
Sounds like at some point, people are going to have to make a specific choice between raising kids on their own (potentially) or not having them at all; and vote for Governments that favor the policy they prefer.
How can we as a society survive if most people decide to not have kids at all?
Another interesting aspect of "poor people with kids" is downward class mobility. I'm in excellent short term financial shape now, but I'm only one major medical problem or legal problem or financial problem or work problem away from being in the same boat as these folks. Due to long term permanent economic decline for people in my socioeconomic class (not 1%), plus extensive ageism, the odds of my ending up at walmart / home depot while my kids are teens is actually pretty good, in fact its nearly certain at some point in my future, assuming I don't die at a very young age or immigrate somewhere civilized. A STEM degree in SV or Manhattan might save you, maybe, but 99% of the population isn't there and isn't STEM, so their local conditions, however nice, are completely irrelevant when discussing national policy.
Any time you have, say, 20M McJobs and 40M applicants, its not going to suck just for the 20M not currently working, but its going to suck for all 40M. Come in to work at 3:30am and stop complaining or I'll find someone more cooperative. You're now on 24x7 pager duty and you will respond in 5 minutes and begin working within 30 minutes or be fired.
Any time you have, say, 20M McJobs and 40M applicants, its not going to suck just for the 20M not currently working, but its going to suck for all 40M. Come in to work at 3:30am and stop complaining or I'll find someone more cooperative. You're now on 24x7 pager duty and you will respond in 5 minutes and begin working within 30 minutes or be fired.
Adoption? Immigration?
The US is supposed to be a nation of immigrants, after all.
The US is supposed to be a nation of immigrants, after all.
If you rely on immigration from 3rd world countries to replenish population, you'll become a 3rd world country.
Do you really want that?
Do you really want that?
The United States has always relied on immigration from worse-off countries to grow strong as a country. The immigrants come here and become Americans. Only a minority of today's Americans are descended from immigrants from Britain (indeed, only a minority of my own ancestors were from Britain), but almost everyone here is English-speaking and American in cultural outlook. This is how immigration works: people become acculturated to the new country, even with very high rates of immigration.
I would speculate that it won't work anymore. When economy is bad and only unsustainable wages are available for work, immigrants will stop assimilating and start to create 3rd world within 1st world. I think it already happens.
Not "most" people, just the ones that can't afford to have children.
I don't see why most people won't eventually be priced out of having children. Do you?
Why would they be priced out? I'm curious why you think that. It's the first time I've heard such a view-point.
Why are some families are priced out now? It is historically new.
Why do you think this crack won't widen? Because wealth gap won't repair itself.
Why do you think this crack won't widen? Because wealth gap won't repair itself.
Notice the 29 hour-a-week job? Healthcare, anyone?
Terrible. People working 2 part time jobs at 54+ hours a week and still no health care benefits, while corporate profits and executive pay continue to increase.
I think this 29 hour per week loophole was supposed to be fixed in the ACA but it was one of the things that got left on the negotiating table.
I think this 29 hour per week loophole was supposed to be fixed in the ACA but it was one of the things that got left on the negotiating table.
Isn't it fixed though? I thought that was the whole point of the insurance subsidies. You should be able to get healthcare (possibly even better healthcare), even if your employer doesn't provide it.
I thought.
I thought.
what negotiating table? The dems didn't need (or get) any republican support. The whole thing was done behind closed doors "we need to pass it so you can see what is in it". All from the "most transparent" administration in history.
They needed every single Democratic vote to pass it in the Senate. Many concessions were made to get some of the more conservative Democratic senators on board.
Something about psmag.com makes firefox very sad.