On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/business/05nocera.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=login&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1215254818-59OmZCQO0HIy0VGdQlO4Ug
25 comments
I agree. And really, this is supposed to be how Google tackles that issue: to maintain a high-perk atmosphere.
Google's atmosphere is similar to America's regulated airline era, where fares were set by a government body. Being unable to compete on price, they competed in other dimensions -- who had the newest planes, the best food, the friendliest flying atmosphere, the most trusted brand and the best service to their customers.
The best engineers are not more motivated by a somewhat higher salary, since they are passionate about their work, right? Indeed, all the perks in the world can't keep some of their employees from heading for the exits in the, er, face of more exciting opportunities. So why offer lavish perks at all?
The always-implied reasons are for its signaling effect and ability to increase the all-important worker productivity. But I would contend that the best reason for them to do so at this point is to reduce effects of the company's relative wealth disparity, which, should they rear their heads, clearly have the potential to be very corrosive. Highly democratic perks are a tonic for a de-facto aristocracy.
But the two risks of establishing a millionaire atmosphere are clear from this example. Firstly, of course, they're way expensive to the company, and that's hard to sustain. Secondly, workers, who may not have even cared about these things before arriving, have been conditioned to expect them.
So that sets up a bind, since the company needs to maintain the illusion that these benefits create. If you try to shunt some of the expense onto your workers, say to the 20% of employees that use 80% of some benefit, you run the risk of breaking the spell. Because the antediluvian class will take it in stride while the post-IPO gleaners will scream. So, Google: buck up and pay up.
Google's atmosphere is similar to America's regulated airline era, where fares were set by a government body. Being unable to compete on price, they competed in other dimensions -- who had the newest planes, the best food, the friendliest flying atmosphere, the most trusted brand and the best service to their customers.
The best engineers are not more motivated by a somewhat higher salary, since they are passionate about their work, right? Indeed, all the perks in the world can't keep some of their employees from heading for the exits in the, er, face of more exciting opportunities. So why offer lavish perks at all?
The always-implied reasons are for its signaling effect and ability to increase the all-important worker productivity. But I would contend that the best reason for them to do so at this point is to reduce effects of the company's relative wealth disparity, which, should they rear their heads, clearly have the potential to be very corrosive. Highly democratic perks are a tonic for a de-facto aristocracy.
But the two risks of establishing a millionaire atmosphere are clear from this example. Firstly, of course, they're way expensive to the company, and that's hard to sustain. Secondly, workers, who may not have even cared about these things before arriving, have been conditioned to expect them.
So that sets up a bind, since the company needs to maintain the illusion that these benefits create. If you try to shunt some of the expense onto your workers, say to the 20% of employees that use 80% of some benefit, you run the risk of breaking the spell. Because the antediluvian class will take it in stride while the post-IPO gleaners will scream. So, Google: buck up and pay up.
Mountain View is indeed expensive but $110K is $50K more than the average household income in the Bay Area. Aside from packing 3 people to a cube, Google pampers its employees above and beyond almost any other company in the area. There is free food, health insurance, free gym, free laundry, free haircuts and so forth. Taking this into account, a Google employee doesn't have to spend much money on anything other than rent, transportation and food for the kid. Even if renting a $3000/m apartment and leasing a Lexus a Google employee making $110K a year would still have $50K a year left over. "Making ends meet" perhaps isn't the most accurate way to describe the situation these people face.
I'm almost positive I paid for my haircut while there...
The haircut, dentist, car-wash, etc perks aren't so much about being free as they are about being convenient due to being located on-site.
The haircut, dentist, car-wash, etc perks aren't so much about being free as they are about being convenient due to being located on-site.
But Google day care is said to now cost $57,000 for two kids in post-tax money (which means closer to $80,000 of pre-tax money). right?
Yes. It does seem absurd that Google day care costs more per year than attending Harvard. A full time nanny can be hired for half that. Someone with a $110K salary and a working significant other has plenty of options for child care. If they are truly struggling to make ends meet, they are simply mismanaging their finances.
I'm assuming the other person works too, which is why they need child care. Thus, their actual combined income is over $110K, which is an enviable position for any household, even in the Bay Area.
I'm assuming the other person works too, which is why they need child care. Thus, their actual combined income is over $110K, which is an enviable position for any household, even in the Bay Area.
Then hire a nanny?
People get too used to what they have. Try leaving and seeing how much better plan B is.
People get too used to what they have. Try leaving and seeing how much better plan B is.
I worked there, the haircuts aren't free.
Interesting observation, and I agree with much of what you say, except that there are few places where someone smart enough to get through the Google Gauntlet has to settle with renting an apartment for their growing family. And indeed, making ends meet is exactly what happens if they ever try to buy a house (forget about owning > 1400 sq. ft. in a good school district with even double that income).
Yeah, unfortunately this has been reality for engineers in the Bay Area for at least 10 years. Your company either goes public and you're rich, or you're in a bipolar economic limbo where statistically you are upper middle class because of your high income, but really you are lower middle class because you are renting and your job can disappear at any moment.
Absolutely. If they are not very careful with precisely this type of issue, it will become "the nomenklatura vs. the proles", and result in the leadership being insulated from what happens at the edges of the organisation - which would ensure the end of profitable innovation at Google.
This is an issue faced by all "unequal" social structures, including countries, tribes, corporations, governments, and others, and every human structure throughout history has required mechanisms for managing it. Google is not exempt.
This is an issue faced by all "unequal" social structures, including countries, tribes, corporations, governments, and others, and every human structure throughout history has required mechanisms for managing it. Google is not exempt.
The problem with flat organizations like Google is that they aren't really flat at all; all that happens is the org chart is hidden rather than out in the open. This story is nothing to do with daycare per se; it's to do with the crackpot ideological ideas of one individual who is very powerful on the hidden org chart, and is abusing her position to further her own social engineering experiments.
I think it also gives a clear example of out how brittle "don't be evil" truly is, when administered by a "management committee" consisting of people who are mostly multimillionaires.
Perhaps a more equitable and user-responsive way to provide day care would be to let local offices or workgroups organize their own childcare groups, with some degree of corporate subsidy and other support.
Perhaps a more equitable and user-responsive way to provide day care would be to let local offices or workgroups organize their own childcare groups, with some degree of corporate subsidy and other support.
You know, Marie Antoinette is famous for saying "then let them eat cake" when told that the poor of Paris had no bread. That wasn't her being cruel; she had been raised in such luxury that she simply couldn't comprehend that there was no food at all to be had outside of her cloistered world. The pre-IPO Googlers have all the characteristics of an aristocracy now...
I don't think that's true ...
I believe that the original source of that quote was Rousseau, referring to an unnamed princess, some 20 years before Marie Antoinette was even born.
There is some speculation that he may have been referring to Maria Theresa of Spain, but even that is doubtful.
I believe that the original source of that quote was Rousseau, referring to an unnamed princess, some 20 years before Marie Antoinette was even born.
There is some speculation that he may have been referring to Maria Theresa of Spain, but even that is doubtful.
From the article:
"Meanwhile, someone at Google woke up one day and realized that the company was subsidizing each child to the tune of $37,000 a year — which nobody had noticed up until then — compared with the $12,000-a-year average subsidy of other big Silicon Valley companies like Cisco Systems and Oracle."
It seems that Google was quite generous over the years and finally realized that given the difficult economic times that they as a company must do something to bring their internal spending in line to a more realistic range. I don't see why Google should be penalized for such a move.
Unfortunately for Google, the fact that this is a move that affects children and families such a story becomes even more sensitive. Google is a business like any other business out there. Why are they being treated as though they are something other than a business?
"Meanwhile, someone at Google woke up one day and realized that the company was subsidizing each child to the tune of $37,000 a year — which nobody had noticed up until then — compared with the $12,000-a-year average subsidy of other big Silicon Valley companies like Cisco Systems and Oracle."
It seems that Google was quite generous over the years and finally realized that given the difficult economic times that they as a company must do something to bring their internal spending in line to a more realistic range. I don't see why Google should be penalized for such a move.
Unfortunately for Google, the fact that this is a move that affects children and families such a story becomes even more sensitive. Google is a business like any other business out there. Why are they being treated as though they are something other than a business?
Because the impression is about that they are different, an impression which they have fostered themselves. The opening words of the Letter from the Founders in the IPO prospectus reads: "Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one." (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001193125040...)
It seems that google was generous in the way a company is generous by having a policy to pay for traveling employees' hotel stays at the Ritz, and when it learns that they are paying 4x more than competitors who have employees stay at the Marriot, changes its policy by having employees stay at the Ritz but charging them to cover some of the subsidy, instead of changing their policy and paying for employees to stay at a lower priced hotel. Apologies for the looong sentence.
Exactly! The "evil" part about this isn't that Google wants to reduce their subsidy from 37k to 12k it's that Google wants to reduce the subsidy w/o lowering costs.
That said no one is forcing the parents to use Google child care and they could presumably band together and go to the company that ran the original lower cost care service and have them open a cost effective center near by, or something to that effect.
That said no one is forcing the parents to use Google child care and they could presumably band together and go to the company that ran the original lower cost care service and have them open a cost effective center near by, or something to that effect.
If they were simply reducing the subsidy equally for everyone, the reaction wouldn't be quite the same.
Instead, they seem to be making the subsidy -- which includes the unique benefit of having children nearby onsite -- conditional on a high level of copayment. Only if you can already afford gold-plated child-care, then you get the additional Google subsidy and proximity. If the copayment is too dear, you wind up getting no subsidy, and your children wind up farther away.
It's like welfare for the already-well-off, which excludes the most needy.
Instead, they seem to be making the subsidy -- which includes the unique benefit of having children nearby onsite -- conditional on a high level of copayment. Only if you can already afford gold-plated child-care, then you get the additional Google subsidy and proximity. If the copayment is too dear, you wind up getting no subsidy, and your children wind up farther away.
It's like welfare for the already-well-off, which excludes the most needy.
I know one shouldn't question orthodoxy, but it seems insane to me to have children and then dump them all day, from a young age, with strangers. What's the point of having them if you're not raising them?
I'm guessing you don't have children.
Children being alone at home vs. being with lots of other children in daycare has many benefits.
First, over the years I've seen a lot of kids that stayed at home with mom that were not socialized well at all. Being in a group is how we evolved. It's natural and normal. Being at home with one parent all day is not normal at all.
Aside from socialization, being in the "home bubble" doesn't do a child's immune system any good. They need to be exposed to lots of stuff early in childhood to develop a strong immune system.
Children being alone at home vs. being with lots of other children in daycare has many benefits.
First, over the years I've seen a lot of kids that stayed at home with mom that were not socialized well at all. Being in a group is how we evolved. It's natural and normal. Being at home with one parent all day is not normal at all.
Aside from socialization, being in the "home bubble" doesn't do a child's immune system any good. They need to be exposed to lots of stuff early in childhood to develop a strong immune system.
I have three children. While I don't condone the "home bubble", I do strongly believe children need to be raised by their parents and not some daycare center. I have seen parents dropping kids off for 8-12 hours a day just to chase more money. Hell, we tried it ourselves. But guess what? You spend the money you have. If you can't make do with little, a little more isn't going to make a big difference.
Also, the kids being raised by strangers have behavior problems, not because they aren't socialized, but because there is a fundamental breakdown in the family structure.
We could debate this all day, but it probably isn't relevant for most here and no one way works for everyone.
Also, the kids being raised by strangers have behavior problems, not because they aren't socialized, but because there is a fundamental breakdown in the family structure.
We could debate this all day, but it probably isn't relevant for most here and no one way works for everyone.
Actually, we have eight, ranging from 7 to 25. (I'm an old guy, 53.)
Our kids are among the best "socialized" (as if that were the ultimate goal of life!) I've run across.
Yes, having a single child would be tough on that child in terms of learning to deal with others and their needs.
We educate them at home, or, rather, give them the tools & guidance to educate themselves, which is the only way it's ever going to happen.
It's been good that I've been working from home for 18+ years, running a "lifestyle" small software business (5 people distributed around the country).
Our kids are among the best "socialized" (as if that were the ultimate goal of life!) I've run across.
Yes, having a single child would be tough on that child in terms of learning to deal with others and their needs.
We educate them at home, or, rather, give them the tools & guidance to educate themselves, which is the only way it's ever going to happen.
It's been good that I've been working from home for 18+ years, running a "lifestyle" small software business (5 people distributed around the country).
Would you agree it is a tragedy when a newborn enters daycare? Infants crave attention and they loathe situations when their basic needs go unmet. Can an overworked daycare temp better ensure your baby's interests than you? I am assuming we're not having kids unless we can financially plan for a nimble future.
In preindustrial societies, children don't spend every moment with their parents. They roam around the village, and the adults and older children collectively keep an eye on them.
The problem now is, there's no village. The older children are segregated in separate schools, and most of the adults are at work. Daycare is, in effect, the closest substitute we've been able to invent for a village on this axis. It may not be the final answer. Which is why lisper's comment is so funny; it's not a problem society has even solved, let alone individuals.
The problem now is, there's no village. The older children are segregated in separate schools, and most of the adults are at work. Daycare is, in effect, the closest substitute we've been able to invent for a village on this axis. It may not be the final answer. Which is why lisper's comment is so funny; it's not a problem society has even solved, let alone individuals.
Have you ever read Bill Bryson's The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid: A Memoir (http://www.amazon.com/Life-Times-Thunderbolt-Kid-Memoir/dp/0...)?
He talks a good amount of growing up in Des Moines, Iowa where all the kids used to just go out Saturday morning to a nearby field, meet new kids, and spend the entire day there before coming back home to dinner. Right now it seems the kids are too focused on their tvs and computers to go out and actually partake in the backyard baseball games.
He talks a good amount of growing up in Des Moines, Iowa where all the kids used to just go out Saturday morning to a nearby field, meet new kids, and spend the entire day there before coming back home to dinner. Right now it seems the kids are too focused on their tvs and computers to go out and actually partake in the backyard baseball games.
I agree. I'm scared that societal norms and pressures discourage unscheduled time and/or letting kids do something on their own.
Based on my own observations, I think that what the kids spend their time doing is largely a function of the parent's need to have them do something.
I fondly recall spending escapist afternoons digging into the dirt underneath a bush with my Star Wars action figures and creating my own world.
Based on my own observations, I think that what the kids spend their time doing is largely a function of the parent's need to have them do something.
I fondly recall spending escapist afternoons digging into the dirt underneath a bush with my Star Wars action figures and creating my own world.
I've been thinking about the same thing. It seems a lot of the younger kids now have so many extracurricular activities that they do not have enough time for themselves.
I don't think it's as much parents are trying to just get the kids to do something so the kids won't be around as the parents trying to improve their kids education and life.
There are numerous articles describing how even pre schools are becoming more and more competitive. In such a world what can you do as a parent?
I don't think it's as much parents are trying to just get the kids to do something so the kids won't be around as the parents trying to improve their kids education and life.
There are numerous articles describing how even pre schools are becoming more and more competitive. In such a world what can you do as a parent?
If you want your kids to experience freedom, daycare centres are not a good choice. Its a really restrictive environment, your kids will get to play a lot of games but they won't have much depth in their lives. I don't mean that play is superficial, but they'll be shunted through different activities to keep them occupied and not be trouble for the staff.
My wife ran a daycare centre, and she's staying home to raise our kids. The best solution is to find the social activities in other places. Daycare is far from the end of the world, but I dont see it as the preferable option, just an easy and not the worst option.
My wife ran a daycare centre, and she's staying home to raise our kids. The best solution is to find the social activities in other places. Daycare is far from the end of the world, but I dont see it as the preferable option, just an easy and not the worst option.
When I was a kid, this is exactly how our (northeast Philly) neighborhood was. I never thought about it but I guess a lot of the older kids just didn't go to school.
it seems insane to me to have children and then dump them all day, from a young age, with strangers
It surprises me how rarely this gets said. It seems kind of obvious to me. In Canada a few years ago one party announced billions of funding for government-run daycare centers, while the other party (who won in the end) wanted to give the money as tax credits to parents. Seemed like a no-brainer to me, but I recall quite a controversy about how the latter proposal was "anti child care".
Perhaps the discourse is this way partly because of economics. Postwar economic growth was closely linked to women entering the workforce. A mass exodus of parents back into the home could have negative macroeconomic effects (that's the perception at any rate). From a conventional point of view, the "answer" is to prevent that from happening and commercialize child care itself.
It surprises me how rarely this gets said. It seems kind of obvious to me. In Canada a few years ago one party announced billions of funding for government-run daycare centers, while the other party (who won in the end) wanted to give the money as tax credits to parents. Seemed like a no-brainer to me, but I recall quite a controversy about how the latter proposal was "anti child care".
Perhaps the discourse is this way partly because of economics. Postwar economic growth was closely linked to women entering the workforce. A mass exodus of parents back into the home could have negative macroeconomic effects (that's the perception at any rate). From a conventional point of view, the "answer" is to prevent that from happening and commercialize child care itself.
Seemed like a no-brainer to me, but I recall quite a controversy about how the latter proposal was "anti child care".
The controversy was that the latter proposal was anti public child care. The rival proposals were pushing in different directions the economics of the decision of staying home with children vs. working and putting them in daycare.
The controversy was that the latter proposal was anti public child care. The rival proposals were pushing in different directions the economics of the decision of staying home with children vs. working and putting them in daycare.
It was also 'anti child care' because it was a pittance in terms of child-care expenses. No one can find anything like adequate daycare for $100 a month.
As the parent of a 2 month old, it's a difficult question we're facing right now. Who? How? When? Should my wife, with a doctorate in biochemistry, abandon her career completely and stay home? Should I? I'm not enthusiastic about those options. Should we hire someone? Not wild about that either. I think the best would be to kind of try and switch off, but it's going to require a lot of flexibility, and perhaps earning less money. The second is probably ok, depending on wherever it is we settle, the second may not be forthcoming from many employers. Sigh...
Hi davidw,
Here in Slovakia, the most common way to solve it is that mother will stay at home for two or three years (it is also called "mother's vacation"), and then resume her career. I think that in most cases, this is the most sane option. Some mothers would stay at home for 6 years - but even in this scenario, it doesn't mean the abandonment of the career, does it? Can't she return to work after a few years and resume where she left?
I believe the first years of a child are most magical for the parents to watch...and those moments will not return: if your wife will miss them by being in the workplace, they just will be missed forever. So take care and enjoy being with your kid as often as you can afford!
Here in Slovakia, the most common way to solve it is that mother will stay at home for two or three years (it is also called "mother's vacation"), and then resume her career. I think that in most cases, this is the most sane option. Some mothers would stay at home for 6 years - but even in this scenario, it doesn't mean the abandonment of the career, does it? Can't she return to work after a few years and resume where she left?
I believe the first years of a child are most magical for the parents to watch...and those moments will not return: if your wife will miss them by being in the workplace, they just will be missed forever. So take care and enjoy being with your kid as often as you can afford!
If you quit your job for 3-6 years, you lose a large part of what it takes to make money: if you are technical, you lose skills, if you are in sales, you lose contacts, etc. The truth of the matter is, in Slovakia (as well as most other places) the men want the women to take care of babies, and the women agree. It has nothing to do with it being "the most sane option", or the "first years being the most magical". If it were that simple, the men would be lining up to quit their jobs for a few years of magic and then come back, no harm done.
In reality, the men are not keen on staying at home, and for good reason - you lose your marketability, and poetic ideas of parenthood aside, it's not all that magical to take care of a screaming, pooping kid who is too young to engage in activities that adults find interesting.
If am probably coming across a little harsh but having grown up female in the Eastern Block, I am predictably annoyed that the men from my part of the world are quick to preach to women what they don't want to practice themselves. If you think staying at home is so great, why do you immediately say David's wife should do it?
In reality, the men are not keen on staying at home, and for good reason - you lose your marketability, and poetic ideas of parenthood aside, it's not all that magical to take care of a screaming, pooping kid who is too young to engage in activities that adults find interesting.
If am probably coming across a little harsh but having grown up female in the Eastern Block, I am predictably annoyed that the men from my part of the world are quick to preach to women what they don't want to practice themselves. If you think staying at home is so great, why do you immediately say David's wife should do it?
> I believe the first years of a child are most magical for the parents to watch...and those moments will not return: if your wife will miss them by being in the workplace, they just will be missed forever. So take care and enjoy being with your kid as often as you can afford!
Austria, where we are now, is similar, and we've both taken several months "off" (or as much 'off' as I can force myself to do:-) to spend time getting used to the new situation, and enjoying her. It's difficult to say that it should be entirely the woman's responsibility though, especially as my wife is also quite talented in her field, and taking something like three years off might put her permanently behind the curve.
Without a doubt, though, we both firmly believe in spending as much time as possible with her!
Austria, where we are now, is similar, and we've both taken several months "off" (or as much 'off' as I can force myself to do:-) to spend time getting used to the new situation, and enjoying her. It's difficult to say that it should be entirely the woman's responsibility though, especially as my wife is also quite talented in her field, and taking something like three years off might put her permanently behind the curve.
Without a doubt, though, we both firmly believe in spending as much time as possible with her!
With all due respect, did it never occur to you to get this all figured out BEFORE you had kids?
lisper, I hope you must be 21 or something. Maybe when you have kids, you will understand the difficulty of raising them, while trying to have some kind of career.
There are a lot of difficulties when raising kids, and both parents are well educated, and can have potential good careers. I don't have kids, but my sister has, and she decided to stay for half a year home, then they got a nanny. She had to find a job that had flexible hours, so she could be home early enough, and she works hard. She has a masters in finance, and an MBA, and she decided to get a job that pays less, but that has better hours, and a lot of her salary goes to the nanny.
Before having kids, their planning was different, that they were going to send the kids in day-care, but the local options were not that good at all, and my niece was getting sick very frequently, so they had to change the plans, and for a month or so they were in a dilema on what to do.
Your comment had a very arrogant tone, and it came out preachy and self righteous. Maybe you didn't mean it, but that's how it came.
There are a lot of difficulties when raising kids, and both parents are well educated, and can have potential good careers. I don't have kids, but my sister has, and she decided to stay for half a year home, then they got a nanny. She had to find a job that had flexible hours, so she could be home early enough, and she works hard. She has a masters in finance, and an MBA, and she decided to get a job that pays less, but that has better hours, and a lot of her salary goes to the nanny.
Before having kids, their planning was different, that they were going to send the kids in day-care, but the local options were not that good at all, and my niece was getting sick very frequently, so they had to change the plans, and for a month or so they were in a dilema on what to do.
Your comment had a very arrogant tone, and it came out preachy and self righteous. Maybe you didn't mean it, but that's how it came.
Wow, I don't think I've ever been so offended by something on this site. Your implication that I haven't thought about the future of my daughter is... something I hope you never say to any other parent.
We've done our best to think about the future, but it's unknowable.
We've done our best to think about the future, but it's unknowable.
I don't think he meant to be so offensive. He may just not realize how hard this problem is.
The fact is, finding a perfect solution for taking care of small children in an industrial society is probably an insoluble problem. And if so it's not one you can solve before having kids, or after them.
The fact is, finding a perfect solution for taking care of small children in an industrial society is probably an insoluble problem. And if so it's not one you can solve before having kids, or after them.
> I don't think he meant to be so offensive.
Looking at it again, I hope that he wrote quickly without really thinking about what his words meant.
Looking at it again, I hope that he wrote quickly without really thinking about what his words meant.
You still haven't thought about what his words meant.
You said you were facing a certain problem "now", 2 months after the child was born.
You could have made your decision about how to handle it prior to the child being born. If you'd done that, you would not be facing the problem now, it would be decided. But you didn't.
He asked about why you didn't decide in advance. You got offended by the implication that you hadn't decided in advance. That was something you said yourself, so it's unreasonable to be offended by it, or to blame him for noticing you said it.
You said you were facing a certain problem "now", 2 months after the child was born.
You could have made your decision about how to handle it prior to the child being born. If you'd done that, you would not be facing the problem now, it would be decided. But you didn't.
He asked about why you didn't decide in advance. You got offended by the implication that you hadn't decided in advance. That was something you said yourself, so it's unreasonable to be offended by it, or to blame him for noticing you said it.
Do you have any kids? Do you realize how unpredictable it is to plan things for your child, for example, how sick the child is going to be, or how well-tempered?
My post is simply about logic and who said what. Nothing more. Why can't you read it rationally?
And, BTW, if you and other parents can't read it rationally, why should I believe you handle parenting matters rationally? Parenting matters are more difficult and more emotional than reading a simple forum post.
And, BTW, if you and other parents can't read it rationally, why should I believe you handle parenting matters rationally? Parenting matters are more difficult and more emotional than reading a simple forum post.
Here is the rational answer you seem to want. (a) This problem is so hard you can probably never solve it satisfactorily, and (b) you can't know what it's going to be like to have kids before you have them, or what your kids will be like. So however much thought you expend on the question before having kids, you're still going to be working on it afterward.
Society has a response to (a) and (b). It is called a social net, based on solidarity: it works like insurance schemes should (not speaking of fraudulent market schemes, e.g. the US health insurance).
I think the biggest problem is, that you despise pooling resources into social systems purportedly designed to help in (a) and (b). "Old" Europe has suffered enough in WWII to recognize the importance of it, and erect such a system, which is frowned upon by "risk tolerant entrepreneurship" (they have enough personal wealth to fall back on). This social net you are missing is being therefore dismantled in the EU as well, since it is regarded as uncompetitive compared to the US or China. It is a race to the bottom (if you compete with slaves, you become a slave*), of which the GOOG kindergarten is just a sign.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener
We live in Europe, and no, handouts not really the answer we're looking for. We're aiming at a flexible schedule for both of us in order to both have time with our daughter. The safety net stuff is nice in some ways, but it's not really what we're after.
[deleted]
I didn't argue with that, or ask for an answer of that type, or say that davidw did anything wrong other than misread lisper's post.
I thought the waterfall development link basically answered the question about advanced planning. I'm mostly interested in the emotional fragility of parents and wanted to see what would happen if I pointed out that logic does not back up his reaction.
I thought the waterfall development link basically answered the question about advanced planning. I'm mostly interested in the emotional fragility of parents and wanted to see what would happen if I pointed out that logic does not back up his reaction.
"I'm mostly interested in the emotional fragility of parents and wanted to see what would happen if I pointed out that logic does not back up his reaction."
= trolling
= trolling
"and wanted to see what would happen"
So you didn't really care what people had to say, you were just trying to bait them? i.e. you were being a troll on purpose?
So you didn't really care what people had to say, you were just trying to bait them? i.e. you were being a troll on purpose?
The thing is - one of the biggest factors in making the decision is the child! And you cannot know what the child is like, until it is there, and even then it takes a while to get to know it. Children are unique, and very different, one from another. What will be best for one will not be for another.
[deleted]
His tone was harsh, but I don't think that indignation is a fair response to the question. Did something change in your lives that made this problem unpredictable? Were one of you planning on staying home with the children, only to have finances shift such that you both have to work?
Obviously, you don't have to answer him in detail, but you could do more than simply scold the guy for asking. I know plenty of couples who never thought deeply about finances before they launched into parenthood.
Obviously, you don't have to answer him in detail, but you could do more than simply scold the guy for asking. I know plenty of couples who never thought deeply about finances before they launched into parenthood.
> Obviously, you don't have to answer him in detail
I don't mind talking about my own job situation, but don't really feel comfortable talking about my wife's.
To keep it brief, my wife and I could live in any number of countries and both of us could find jobs in most of them. With choice comes a lot of thinking and a great weight of responsibility. Live in Italy, make less money, and have the grandparents nearby to help out? Live in the US, make more money at better jobs and pay someone? Stay in Austria with a nice social welfare system, and reasonable jobs? All of those have further variables and derivatives and basically end up being very much impossible to calculate a priori (and there are elements that are private and I don't wish to share publicly).
In any case, I think most parents would respond with some indignation if their commitment to their children were questioned. It's just something that's probably not very polite to do outside of a small circle of friends and family.
I don't mind talking about my own job situation, but don't really feel comfortable talking about my wife's.
To keep it brief, my wife and I could live in any number of countries and both of us could find jobs in most of them. With choice comes a lot of thinking and a great weight of responsibility. Live in Italy, make less money, and have the grandparents nearby to help out? Live in the US, make more money at better jobs and pay someone? Stay in Austria with a nice social welfare system, and reasonable jobs? All of those have further variables and derivatives and basically end up being very much impossible to calculate a priori (and there are elements that are private and I don't wish to share publicly).
In any case, I think most parents would respond with some indignation if their commitment to their children were questioned. It's just something that's probably not very polite to do outside of a small circle of friends and family.
Ah...that's a more difficult problem than your original post made it seem. I can see how you'd be upset by the response, since you know the details of the situation.
For what it's worth, I don't think he was questioning your commitment to your children, so much as the forethought you put into the process. He just didn't do it in a diplomatic way.
For what it's worth, I don't think he was questioning your commitment to your children, so much as the forethought you put into the process. He just didn't do it in a diplomatic way.
Being someone who probably overthinks some things in my life, I tend to equate "not thinking about" with "not placing much importance on something". However, being something of a complex system, between family, work, society, and other factors, it's just impossible to calculate, even though we have clear, if rough ideas about what we'd like, and how we think things ought to be.
He wasn't really asking it was a rhetorical question and he was the one "scolding". I don't think he is "entitled" to an answer and think "davidw" was extremely polite in response to the tone of the previous comment.
Oh, come on. His question was obviously in response to your statements about what happens to your careers, not about whether or not you had thought about your daughter's future.
It's not like the career question is unforeseeable. Many people put off having kids due to that exact issue. You can be offended all you like, but if you really didn't have a solid answer to that question before you had your child, I do think you were being irresponsible.
It's not like the career question is unforeseeable. Many people put off having kids due to that exact issue. You can be offended all you like, but if you really didn't have a solid answer to that question before you had your child, I do think you were being irresponsible.
If you put off having kids until things are 'perfect', you may never have any. Even then, something might go wrong - say a serious, chronic illness, a company tanks at the wrong moment, or any number of other completely unforeseeable events. We've thought long and hard about any number of things, but there are simply too many variables. And I think it's extremely presumptuous and unfriendly to go casting aspersions about someone you don't know on a site like this that aims to have a strong, friendly community.
Hopefully he just dashed off a quick response without really thinking about it.
Hopefully he just dashed off a quick response without really thinking about it.
You're broadening the scope of the debate again. I said you should have a plan in place for issues like who compromises their career. How does that balloon into "put off having kids until things are perfect"?
Of course, there are extenuating circumstances which can waylay any planning; I never intended to imply that there weren't. Go back and read my post, and you'll see that my criticism was conditional. If you did have a plan in place, and then extenuating circumstances derailed those plans, then fine.
Twice now you've taken statements that were pointed at a specific issue and acted as if they were broad indictments of your parenting skills that amounted to nothing more than ad hominem attacks. False umbrage hardly contributes to a strong and friendly community.
Of course, there are extenuating circumstances which can waylay any planning; I never intended to imply that there weren't. Go back and read my post, and you'll see that my criticism was conditional. If you did have a plan in place, and then extenuating circumstances derailed those plans, then fine.
Twice now you've taken statements that were pointed at a specific issue and acted as if they were broad indictments of your parenting skills that amounted to nothing more than ad hominem attacks. False umbrage hardly contributes to a strong and friendly community.
The debate is very broad in scope because many things are interconnected.
My umbrage was anything but false: the idea that we had taken the arrival of a child so lightly as to not consider and plan for the future most certainly implies negative things about me and my wife, especially considering that people here really don't have that much knowledge of our situation.
pg's response was quite astute: we thought and planned beforehand, but things change rapidly, and in ways that are unpredictable. One small, simple example is that I thought at this stage, since our daughter is basically in the eating/pooping/sleeping phase, it would be easy to get back to work, and leave most of it to my wife, since she has to feed her in any case. However, it's quite difficult to concentrate on work, and I really enjoy helping out and spending time with the baby, even if she doesn't do much. There are plenty of other things that aren't like we'd imagined them either.
Basically, unless you have experience with kids yourself, I think that it's not so easy to understand what it's like.
My umbrage was anything but false: the idea that we had taken the arrival of a child so lightly as to not consider and plan for the future most certainly implies negative things about me and my wife, especially considering that people here really don't have that much knowledge of our situation.
pg's response was quite astute: we thought and planned beforehand, but things change rapidly, and in ways that are unpredictable. One small, simple example is that I thought at this stage, since our daughter is basically in the eating/pooping/sleeping phase, it would be easy to get back to work, and leave most of it to my wife, since she has to feed her in any case. However, it's quite difficult to concentrate on work, and I really enjoy helping out and spending time with the baby, even if she doesn't do much. There are plenty of other things that aren't like we'd imagined them either.
Basically, unless you have experience with kids yourself, I think that it's not so easy to understand what it's like.
I haven't said anything outside of "If you had no plans for post-baby career changes, then you were being irresponsible." If the debate is any broader than that, it's only because you are taking that simple, focused statement and falsely taking it to mean something else. And I don't need (or want) any more information about your oh-so-unique situation, or kids of my own, in order for my simple statement to be true.
If you and your partner didn't make plans for your careers before having a child, then suck it up and accept that you were irresponsible. If you did make those plans, then put your reading comprehension hat on and stop with the broken-heart act. Christ.
If you and your partner didn't make plans for your careers before having a child, then suck it up and accept that you were irresponsible. If you did make those plans, then put your reading comprehension hat on and stop with the broken-heart act. Christ.
Right. And to help you not to make similar mistakes in the future: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model.
Of course life is completely deterministic and predictable given the current information we have.
One of my old bosses had a similar problem. When she has her twins, both her and her husband had excellent carrers. What they decided was that she would stay home with the kids for two years, while the other worked. The idea was that should would be "out of touch" for a short enough time that she could get back in without much loss.
Then when it was her turn to work, her husband arranged to work part time from home. The kids were self sufficient enough that he could focus on his programming for short stints during the day and for longer periods at night when his wife got home. He was able to do enough work to "stay in the game." In fact, he liked it so much he decided to do it for another 2 years.
At that point the girls were in pre-school, so had about 3 hours each day to get work done while they were gone, could then play with them the rest of the day, and finish his work at night when his wife was there.
The girls are now 6 and in school for most of the day. He's looking at going back to work full time, but given how much he enjoys working from home, he may just keep doing that for a while.
Then when it was her turn to work, her husband arranged to work part time from home. The kids were self sufficient enough that he could focus on his programming for short stints during the day and for longer periods at night when his wife got home. He was able to do enough work to "stay in the game." In fact, he liked it so much he decided to do it for another 2 years.
At that point the girls were in pre-school, so had about 3 hours each day to get work done while they were gone, could then play with them the rest of the day, and finish his work at night when his wife was there.
The girls are now 6 and in school for most of the day. He's looking at going back to work full time, but given how much he enjoys working from home, he may just keep doing that for a while.
In my utopia it would be very much usual to be able to pursue a career part time/job-sharing while your children are young (or if you just prefer to be able to do other things outside your job). So each parent could work half- or three-quarters- time and thus share child care (with a moderate amount of external help), whilst still both pursuing their careers.
I imagine it is tough, but on the other hand, is it not only a couple of years (3 to 4 - then kids go to kindergarden and school)? Abandoning one's career might not be what is called for, merely taking a little break?
Who? How? When?
You. The way you made her. The Famous 20% time?
You. The way you made her. The Famous 20% time?
I seriously do not understand you.
Who else is in a better position to take responsibility and care, than you (& partner)?
How else could you do it if not with love?
Your partner + you: 20% off is 1+1 days a week. Make grandparents happy, that makes +1+1 days. Each of you can take 2 days off a month. And this is even without parental leave for three years.
After that, daycare is your answer: socializing is an essential need for humans.
Who else is in a better position to take responsibility and care, than you (& partner)?
How else could you do it if not with love?
Your partner + you: 20% off is 1+1 days a week. Make grandparents happy, that makes +1+1 days. Each of you can take 2 days off a month. And this is even without parental leave for three years.
After that, daycare is your answer: socializing is an essential need for humans.
I grew up in daycare, and I am not sure why anyone would call taking a kid to play with other kids all day "dumping children with strangers". It's plain fun, and obviously after day one, the strangers are longer strangers.
Implying that only insane (read: ignorant and uncaring) parents would choose to work and leave their kids to play with other kids during the day is just typical conservative scaremongering. I am sure there are bad daycare centers out there, but then there are bad stay-at-home mothers out there also. One is not good and the other is not evil, both are choices made by equally intelligent and caring people.
Implying that only insane (read: ignorant and uncaring) parents would choose to work and leave their kids to play with other kids during the day is just typical conservative scaremongering. I am sure there are bad daycare centers out there, but then there are bad stay-at-home mothers out there also. One is not good and the other is not evil, both are choices made by equally intelligent and caring people.
Everyone is a good parent until they become one.
Great line. It is, however, orthogonal to the subject of institutionalized child care.
Smart people I know who don't have children are often a source of great observations about child rearing in general and even specific parenting situations. That's the positive side of your point, and I've used it many times to get a read on what I might be missing.
The mistake they make is not in their observations, which as I said are often very rational, but in assuming that they themselves would do better. What makes parenting hard is that your emotions are involved in a way that is far deeper and more complicated than anything you've experienced before. It's easy to be a "good" parent when that condition is absent, for the same reason it's easy not to get hypothermia in Florida.
Smart people I know who don't have children are often a source of great observations about child rearing in general and even specific parenting situations. That's the positive side of your point, and I've used it many times to get a read on what I might be missing.
The mistake they make is not in their observations, which as I said are often very rational, but in assuming that they themselves would do better. What makes parenting hard is that your emotions are involved in a way that is far deeper and more complicated than anything you've experienced before. It's easy to be a "good" parent when that condition is absent, for the same reason it's easy not to get hypothermia in Florida.
it seems insane to me to have children and then dump them all day, from a young age, with strangers
I agree with you when it is an entire family of mother/father, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc. raising children. But I can see how a mother (or father) alone at home all day with children may not be able to provide the same environment as a day care with several adults and many other children.
I agree with you when it is an entire family of mother/father, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc. raising children. But I can see how a mother (or father) alone at home all day with children may not be able to provide the same environment as a day care with several adults and many other children.
[deleted]
Parents who had been paying $1,425 a month for infant care would see their costs rise to nearly $2,500
"$1,425" was the subsidized price? If someone told me day care cost that much, I'd fall on the floor, but that's the good price. A woman where I work pays 30 dollars a day, and that's far, far too much. Unbelievable waste. Absolutely unbelievable. $1,425 is more than my total monthly expenses. I could theoretically make my living by watching one child. Clearly, this is an industry just waiting for its Sam Walton.
"$1,425" was the subsidized price? If someone told me day care cost that much, I'd fall on the floor, but that's the good price. A woman where I work pays 30 dollars a day, and that's far, far too much. Unbelievable waste. Absolutely unbelievable. $1,425 is more than my total monthly expenses. I could theoretically make my living by watching one child. Clearly, this is an industry just waiting for its Sam Walton.
Unfortunately, this industry isn't very scaleable: how many children should one overseer watch, and still provide quality childcare? 2-7, IMHO, depending on the age of the children...
I'm saddened, but not shocked, that very smart people think you need to spend $40k/year in daycare for children. Misplaced parental guilt?
If you are a young couple with an infant in the Bay Area you don't have much of a choice. A friend of mine and his wife decided that they would be better off if she quit her job and took care of their two kids for a few years, as her take-home salary wasn't enough to pay for day care.
40k seems excessive. say you paid the teacher very well they would get what like 100k a year? So you are saying that 1 teacher can only watch 3 kids? There are entire families with more kids than that.
Heh. If the teacher was REALLY well paid, even for the Bay Area, they would get maybe 80k a year. The starting salary in Palo Alto (the highest in the bay area) is under 50k. A teacher with 10 years of experience will probably be making about 75k.
http://www.pausd.org/community/employment/teachers/teacher_s...
http://www.pausd.org/community/employment/teachers/teacher_s...
A preschool teacher typically makes 18-25K a year across the country; I would guess 30-35K is as high as it gets in even the most expensive parts of California (experienced or not).
This is the case, I think, in most cities, even where the cost of living is not as high as the Bay area. At best, one salary is enough for day care costs, but very little is left over.
Is the limiting factor good quality observers/teachers? Why don't they open their own daycare? It's a lot of work, but if a parent has quit their job any ways, what's a few more kids?
Quite simply: it's insurance and state-mandated minimum child-provider ratios! The least we ever paid for childcare was $820/month and that was a very good preschool that had extremely low staff turnover -- we were lucky. When my son was younger, the costs were higher: infants cost over $1000/month.
That said, many people here in MN do in-home daycare which is usually much less expensive. Usually it's a parent who has decided to stay home with her baby and gets the training and insurance to care for other children as well to cover the cost of her leaving her job. However, as you get to the preschool years, the quality varies radically. They may give good childcare, but the learning experiences can be slim to none. My son entered Kindergarten extremely well prepared and immediately outdistanced most of the other kids. Odds are that in-home daycare would not have prepared him for school as well.
That said, many people here in MN do in-home daycare which is usually much less expensive. Usually it's a parent who has decided to stay home with her baby and gets the training and insurance to care for other children as well to cover the cost of her leaving her job. However, as you get to the preschool years, the quality varies radically. They may give good childcare, but the learning experiences can be slim to none. My son entered Kindergarten extremely well prepared and immediately outdistanced most of the other kids. Odds are that in-home daycare would not have prepared him for school as well.
> what's a few more kids?
An insurance liability, for one thing.
An insurance liability, for one thing.
I spend about 2500/month for two children. I call it the macbook pro a month program :) So, about 30k/year, and about 5k of that is tax deductible (iirc). Misplaced parental guilt? Not really - it's just tough to find good care in the bay area for a low price without enduring a huge waiting list.
Don't Be Evil seems a bit like a levee system. Its easy when your town is small to keep it surrounded by levees and the flood waters at bay, but there comes a point when the town is just too big, a weak spot inevitably occurs and the flood waters come roaring in.
Why is daycare so expensive? Seems to me you need a room and two to three people to watch over the children. If you have 10 children in the room, and everyone costs 40000$, that would mean it costs 400000$ per year to rent a room and pay the salary for three people?
It seems child nurses earn a LOT more than the average IT person?
It seems child nurses earn a LOT more than the average IT person?
[deleted]
Consider any school. They have teachers, sure. And they have caterers, and cleaners, and contractors to maintain the infrastructure... There are a lot more people involved than just the direct service providers.
Caterers: preparing food for ten children isn't a big job, all they need is sandwiches and drink boxes which can be prepared in advance and taken out of the fridge.
Cleaners: It's only a room, it only needs to be cleaned once a day. Shouldn't be that expensive either.
Contractors to maintain the infrastructure: again, it's only a room, maintenance really shouldn't be that difficult.
It's obvious that there's a lot of money flowing into childcare, and it's not obvious where it's all going. It's certainly not going to the people who are doing the caring -- they make almost no money at all. Is it all going to into insurance and compliance with various regulations?
Cleaners: It's only a room, it only needs to be cleaned once a day. Shouldn't be that expensive either.
Contractors to maintain the infrastructure: again, it's only a room, maintenance really shouldn't be that difficult.
It's obvious that there's a lot of money flowing into childcare, and it's not obvious where it's all going. It's certainly not going to the people who are doing the caring -- they make almost no money at all. Is it all going to into insurance and compliance with various regulations?
> Caterers: preparing food for ten children isn't a big job, all they need is sandwiches and drink boxes which can be prepared in advance and taken out of the fridge.
You would horrify many parents in Italy with that statement:-) Truth be told, I don't think I can blame them, even if they do get a bit fixated at times. Their kids are healthier and don't have obesity problems because they start off eating right.
You would horrify many parents in Italy with that statement:-) Truth be told, I don't think I can blame them, even if they do get a bit fixated at times. Their kids are healthier and don't have obesity problems because they start off eating right.
Read the article - Google's daycare has fancy organic food.
Can I just take this opportunity to say that the term "organic foods" bugs me? I mean, of course it's organic -- it's food! With the possible exceptions of water and salt (one could argue about whether they're really food) surely all food is organic.
True, but can you think of a better single word (not a phrase) to convey non-industrial-as-currently-practiced? "Natural" has the same weakness you identify, so that's out also.
It's a bummer that there's no commonly accepted definition for organic, but it's probably because at least for now, the fight is against current practices (which explains the many alternatives that have sprung up), instead of being for a particular practice, which could be named more accurately and concisely.
It's a bummer that there's no commonly accepted definition for organic, but it's probably because at least for now, the fight is against current practices (which explains the many alternatives that have sprung up), instead of being for a particular practice, which could be named more accurately and concisely.
"Organic" can also mean "does not require external assistance".
For example, the Marines describe a unit as "organic" if it can operate without assistance from the other services (e.g. this is why the Marines have their own aviation and don't rely on the Air Force the way the Army do)
For example, the Marines describe a unit as "organic" if it can operate without assistance from the other services (e.g. this is why the Marines have their own aviation and don't rely on the Air Force the way the Army do)
Caterers are not a must I think - we didn't have any at school. Maintaining the infrastructure: isn't that usually included in the rent for a building? Maybe somebody should check where all the money for the schools goes ;-) But I think most teachers earn more than childcare nurses.
There's really not much here. Reads like a political hit piece, with "anonymous sources" relaying embarrassing quotes from Sergey Bin. I usually expect a lot better from NYTimes.
Hangon, so let me get this right...
Not only have Google basically doubled the cost of their childcare, but they're also charging people for the priveledge to be on the waiting list for that childcare?
They dont think this is a strange move at all?
Not only have Google basically doubled the cost of their childcare, but they're also charging people for the priveledge to be on the waiting list for that childcare?
They dont think this is a strange move at all?
I've always paid for our day care. But this is a bad idea because googlers would be more comfortable and spend more time working if day care were right there at work. Near work or near home are the two most convenient places. I'm told Mountain View is a cluster fuck for day care.
Of course they are missing a bigger opportunity in improving education here. Like universities, google should be experimenting with different kinds of education. They could make a big difference.
Of course they are missing a bigger opportunity in improving education here. Like universities, google should be experimenting with different kinds of education. They could make a big difference.
google should be experimenting with different kinds of education
Not quite true; Google is legally obligated to act in the best interests of its shareholders, and only that. That's true for any public company, and the board can go to jail if they aren't seen to be doing that. With great riches comes great responsibility...
Not quite true; Google is legally obligated to act in the best interests of its shareholders, and only that. That's true for any public company, and the board can go to jail if they aren't seen to be doing that. With great riches comes great responsibility...
It's a huge business opportunity.
If Google entered the education business its shareholders would (rightly) wonder what its competitive advantage in that market would be, and whether the margins (return on capital) would be more or less than its existing businesses. Seriously, what could Google bring to the table here?
Education has followed an industrial/factory model for many decades, with few exceptions. The founds of Google went through one of the exceptions: Montessori.
We need to update education, and a tech company is the right place to start. A simple example: build a natural language query system to allow a child to get any question answered immediately. May as well call it 411-GOOG 2.0
These issues are very much related to how google makes money today.
We need to update education, and a tech company is the right place to start. A simple example: build a natural language query system to allow a child to get any question answered immediately. May as well call it 411-GOOG 2.0
These issues are very much related to how google makes money today.
Given the Google preferred-voting structure, shareholders should know they're going to be subject to a lot of the owner-manager's whims in trying new projects and markets. Like their for-profit philanthropy subsidiary, Google.org. Or even in-sourced daycare project itself, rather than contracting it out to established providers.
I have a 7-month-old, and I believe that my wife has found the ideal care situation. She works, from home, part time. Hours are flexible, she can stay home with our daughter, and get most of her work done during naps or after I get home.
I believe as time goes on, this is going to become more and more common as there are more women in the workforce who are uninterested in waiting until their late 30s to have children and telecommuting gets to be more common.
It's constant hard work for her, but she would never trade her time with our daughter for the extra money from being full-time, even if that extra pay covered the child-care (which it wouldn't).
I believe as time goes on, this is going to become more and more common as there are more women in the workforce who are uninterested in waiting until their late 30s to have children and telecommuting gets to be more common.
It's constant hard work for her, but she would never trade her time with our daughter for the extra money from being full-time, even if that extra pay covered the child-care (which it wouldn't).
I note that it was a website banned here that first broke that story.
Why yes, indeedy:
6/13 http://valleywag.com/5016355/google-daycare-now-a-luxury-for...
6/16 http://valleywag.com/5016952/googles-daycare-debacle-the-kin...
A broken clock's at least right twice a day, eh?
6/13 http://valleywag.com/5016355/google-daycare-now-a-luxury-for...
6/16 http://valleywag.com/5016952/googles-daycare-debacle-the-kin...
A broken clock's at least right twice a day, eh?
Let's give them twice a year. And by reading here instead of there, I get it all filtered for free.
Edit: I went and looked at them. They're very similar to the NYT piece, only shorter. Perhaps HN should ban the NYT? :)
Edit: I went and looked at them. They're very similar to the NYT piece, only shorter. Perhaps HN should ban the NYT? :)
There are two elephants in the room here:
1. The exorbitant cost of the Bay Area (and other places like NYC, Boston, D.C., etc.) - there's a reason the Bay Area has the lowest ratio of children to overall population in the country. It's just not an affordable place to raise a family. It's essentially a giant suburbs without the traditional cost advantage of a suburb. You can live in Mountain View, Palo Alto, etc. for the price of living in a world class city like Chicago. You make that choice. Good for you.
2. Where are the grandparents? As someone from a more traditional culture, I don't quite understand the desire for couples to go it alone. Why not live near your parents or have them move to live near you? Grandparent-grandchild interaction is extremely valuable. It helps transmit your family values to your children while allowing your parents to stay mentally active and it also keeps them happy. It also significantly reduces childcare costs.
I'm not married yet and probably won't have kids for a few years but I really think this is the correct AND affordable approach:
*Evaluate where you are in life. There's no point waiting for the perfect time. Adversity is good for kids - it prevents them from growing up to be spoiled brats. I grew up in a Third World country and the only things my parents weren't cheap on were my health/nutrition, safety, and education. That's all that really matters. Have kids before you're too old.
A) If you have a lot of capital or high salary, stay where you are, and have one spouse work part time (can alternate), and suck it up till the kids are in school. Mix in a few days of daycare per week to allow for part-time.
B) If you don't have a lot of capital or a high salary, move somewhere cheap. Your spouse and you can both work full-time and afford daycare a few days a week.
In both situations, have the grandparents around! If you're an only child, it's easy - your parents will be there in a heartbeat. If you and your spouse are one of 2 kids, then your parents can alternate. If you and your spouse are one of 3 or more kids, live near your siblings. Raise your kids around your family.
1. The exorbitant cost of the Bay Area (and other places like NYC, Boston, D.C., etc.) - there's a reason the Bay Area has the lowest ratio of children to overall population in the country. It's just not an affordable place to raise a family. It's essentially a giant suburbs without the traditional cost advantage of a suburb. You can live in Mountain View, Palo Alto, etc. for the price of living in a world class city like Chicago. You make that choice. Good for you.
2. Where are the grandparents? As someone from a more traditional culture, I don't quite understand the desire for couples to go it alone. Why not live near your parents or have them move to live near you? Grandparent-grandchild interaction is extremely valuable. It helps transmit your family values to your children while allowing your parents to stay mentally active and it also keeps them happy. It also significantly reduces childcare costs.
I'm not married yet and probably won't have kids for a few years but I really think this is the correct AND affordable approach:
*Evaluate where you are in life. There's no point waiting for the perfect time. Adversity is good for kids - it prevents them from growing up to be spoiled brats. I grew up in a Third World country and the only things my parents weren't cheap on were my health/nutrition, safety, and education. That's all that really matters. Have kids before you're too old.
A) If you have a lot of capital or high salary, stay where you are, and have one spouse work part time (can alternate), and suck it up till the kids are in school. Mix in a few days of daycare per week to allow for part-time.
B) If you don't have a lot of capital or a high salary, move somewhere cheap. Your spouse and you can both work full-time and afford daycare a few days a week.
In both situations, have the grandparents around! If you're an only child, it's easy - your parents will be there in a heartbeat. If you and your spouse are one of 2 kids, then your parents can alternate. If you and your spouse are one of 3 or more kids, live near your siblings. Raise your kids around your family.
"employer-provided day care, at affordable prices, ought to be like health insurance, a benefit that every company provides as a matter of course."
If only this were true in more companies nowadays.
If only this were true in more companies nowadays.
It's expensive to raise a family in the United States. The economics and the culture are against it. Add to that the cost of raising a family with someone who turns out to be the wrong person: your expected income after marriage must be reduced by the probability of divorce times the cost of divorce. Children necessarily complicate matters.
The problem would be alleviated somewhat if more and more people owned their own businesses, instead of the situation we currently have, of numerous workers employed by a wealthy class. At some point, these workers should simply refuse to work for anyone substantially more wealthy than they are. The value to an employer of having a large pool of interchangeable labor is calculable. Who created that value? Not the employer: the people. And it is the people who should and who must demand that value they created for themselves.
The problem would be alleviated somewhat if more and more people owned their own businesses, instead of the situation we currently have, of numerous workers employed by a wealthy class. At some point, these workers should simply refuse to work for anyone substantially more wealthy than they are. The value to an employer of having a large pool of interchangeable labor is calculable. Who created that value? Not the employer: the people. And it is the people who should and who must demand that value they created for themselves.
as a side note why do I have to click through two pages of ads to see the 2nd page of the article? (I didn't hit 'print article' because I figured it was another click to see the whole page anyways)
These msm companies online (forbes, NYT, et. al) really have not figured it out yet.
These msm companies online (forbes, NYT, et. al) really have not figured it out yet.
Someone mentioned 2-7 kids per "overseer". Where I went to kindergarden, ratio was 20-30:1. Even later in elementary/high school, the ratio was 25-35 kids per teacher.
There are guidelines and laws about child/caretaker ratios. Infants need a lot more one-on-one time than older children.
I work at Google and this article has a few statements that make it clear the author's sources aren't credible (At least on this issue).
I wouldn't take this too seriously and I'm surprised that the Times:
1. Thought Google's daycare policy was worthy of the front page
2. Couldn't find a credible source who actual understands how and why the decision was made.
I wouldn't take this too seriously and I'm surprised that the Times:
1. Thought Google's daycare policy was worthy of the front page
2. Couldn't find a credible source who actual understands how and why the decision was made.
The Times is usually scrupulous about fact checking--except when it comes to supporting Imperial adventures and warmongering.
[deleted]
Didn't anyone learn anything from Bubble 1?
[deleted]
Today Google Preschool, tomorrow Google K through 12. :)
Further evidence that Google is NOT all that it is cracked up to be. The days of Google subsidizing child care would seem to be gone. Not that any other organization is much better at this particular problem, unfortunately.
I'm going to comment on a micropoint, since the main issues seem pretty well covered at this point.
<i>Having discovered that Google is not, in fact, the promised land, a number of Googlers have left recently to join start-ups, hotter companies like Facebook — and even Microsoft.</i>
Wait a second... Facebook is "hotter"? That seems unreal. It's not that Facebook is a bad company, per se, but I'd much rather work at Google. I can't imagine top-talent wanting to have Mark Zuckerberg, an arrogant 24-year-old, as a boss. I can't speak for tip-top talent, but even still I'd rather gargle a fistful of nuts and bolts.
<i>Having discovered that Google is not, in fact, the promised land, a number of Googlers have left recently to join start-ups, hotter companies like Facebook — and even Microsoft.</i>
Wait a second... Facebook is "hotter"? That seems unreal. It's not that Facebook is a bad company, per se, but I'd much rather work at Google. I can't imagine top-talent wanting to have Mark Zuckerberg, an arrogant 24-year-old, as a boss. I can't speak for tip-top talent, but even still I'd rather gargle a fistful of nuts and bolts.
As Google matures and they start cutting even more of these perks, the two groups will start growing even further apart. It's a serious organizational issue and Google will need to tackle it quickly.