What is your take on this article?

[TheHaitian]

Should the policies be change to adopt to the new modern family?

Why are we so focused about things being fair in the household?

Is the modern family really stressed, tired and rushed? Or is that a choice?

A good friend of mine just went back to work this Monday and she was sad all week. I told her: if it is really bothering you that much, have you considered staying home?

She replied back all capital letters: Are you crazy? We cannot afford to take a 75k paycut (I am assuming her salary).

Off course being a stay at home mom wouldn't guarantee they would be less stressed, tired or rushed.

Anyway... What is your take? Should the government get more involved?

mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/upshot/stressed-tired-rushed-a-portrait-of-the-modern-family.html?referer=&_r=0

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

[gooddecisions]

No, I don't feel like this is something the government can solve. It was a real eye-opener for me how little time I have now that I have children. I think it's just what happens when you add in taking care of children on top of all your other adult responsibilities. You're stressed and stretched thin if you stay at home with them and you're stressed and stretched thin if you continue to work. It is what it is. Being a parent is hard.

[TheHaitian]

Nov 6, 2015 11:56:09 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Can I have some?

[TheHaitian]

Nov 6, 2015 12:06:12 GMT -5 gooddecisions said:

No, I don't feel like this is something the government can solve. It was a real eye-opener for me how little time I have now that I have children. I think it's just what happens when you add in taking care of children on top of all your other adult responsibilities. You're stressed and stretched thin if you stay at home with them and you're stressed and stretched thin if you continue to work. It is what it is. Being a parent is hard.

I agree 100%... I have friends that are:
- both working parents
- 1 working parent 1 stay at home probe
- 1 working parent 1 part time parent
- 1 working parent and 1 at school parent
- single parent

None of the arrangement above are perfect and they all got issues at some point or another. You just figure it out and make it work!

In some cases it might be obvious which option is best for the family, or you just wing it!

[souldoubt]

Life isn't easy. What some of the article or rather the sociologist is suggesting would shift the burden to employers and other employees to make life easier on people who chose to have kids. No one is spending as much time as they want at home/vacationing/enjoying their hobbies because of that whole needing to work to make money and survive thing.  I'm sure it's harder for parents who need time off for their kids to advance in their career if they're going up against people who are "more reliable" (i.e. not taking time off) because you promote the strongest employee usually.  It's not just working parents who are burdened or stressed and while they may have more or different responsibilities it's a decision they made. In a perfect world everyone would have it easier but in the real world in this case it would come at my expense or at the expense of anyone else who doesn't have kids yet, has kids that are out of the house, etc. No matter what we do here the fact is the rest of the world is catching up so while people are complaining about wages and hours worked (valid complaints) it's not going to get any easier and we can't continue to prop up a standard of living with national debt.

[myrrh]

I think a big part of the problem is that real wages haven't increased in decades while housing, medical, and childcare costs have skyrocketed. Thus for many couples, both need to work in order to afford to have a "middle class" lifestyle. Another big problem is that society in general has not caught up to this fact and schools and childcare situations still revolve around one stay at home parent.

For me, preschool is free (my kid got in the public school system pre-k as a lottery kid) but it is only 12:00 to 3:00 and no school on Wednesday so arrangements need to be made to transport him to school and he needs care during the non-school hours. My older kid is in first grade which is 9:00 to 4:00 except on Wednesdays which is 9:00 to 1:00. There is a fairly inexpensive before and after school program which is great, but there are limited spaces. And if there is a delay or snow day you are out of luck and need alternate arrangements. Plus there is pressure to volunteer and take your kids on all the field trips and after school activities (which often start at 4:00 or 5:00) which isn't really great for a working parent's career.

For older kids who are old enough to be in charge of their siblings for an hour or two a day, the schools don't allow kids to accept kids off the bus; it must be a parent or other sanctioned adult. I can understand somewhat but it makes things hard.

Then there is the summer scramble, where I see a lot of money being spent on summer camps and those usually don't cover the entire summer vacation so lots of kids are at work for a week after school ends and again the week before school starts.

If we as a society recognized the need for safe affordable childcare year around it would be SUCH a boon to working parents.

[cktc]

I think a lot of it is just attitude. I have a childless quasi BIL who keeps "joking" with my DH about how miserable we are going to be now that we are expecting. BIL is one of the most miserable people I know. We want a family. We'll make it work.

[Lizard Queen]

Yeah, I think that the government should make things a bit easier for educated, working parents to have kids.  As it is, government policies seem to encourage welfare dregs to have all the kids, while leaving the middle class to scramble in order to manage everything.  How could the government do this?  One way would be to increase childcare flex account limits.  It's been $5000/year for at least the last 6 years.  Maybe require overtime pay for anyone with a salary < oh, I don't know...something quite a bit more than $24,000.  Schools could be more accommodating of working parent schedules.  Personally, I preferred sending my kid to daycare fulltime, despite the cost.  At least there wasn't a crazy shuffling of schedules all of the time--all geared towards the convenience of the school/teachers.

[GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl]

I'm starting to get a little tired of these types of articles.

Where and when were any of us promised an easy, carefree, life?  No one said life would be sunshine and fruity drinks with umbrellas.  You can wallow in the tough stuff that is really, in the scheme of things, not that tough at all, or you can rise to the challenge and see the glass as half full. 

I'm on the far end of parenting.  It f'in flew by.  I mean before I knew it, my kids were sleeping through the night one day and applying to college the next.  What I can tell all of you with young kids or waiting to have kids is that you are wasting valuable, meaningful time with your kids stressing over all of this.  Kids are only completely dependent for a few short years.  Then their indepedence grows in leaps and bounds.  And then they are gone.  Depending upon how many kids you have and how far apart they are spaced, you are talking about 10 years of grinding it out.  10 years of sucking it up and getting it done and finding the many, many small awesome moments is not something to complain about.  If you choose to have children, then accept that your life as you know it will change and change significantly.  

I don't know.  I just think too many people expect life to be like happy, upbeat Kraft tv commercials where everyone is dancing around the spotlessly clean kitchen making a fabulous dinner.  Yes, there are moments like this.  But, someone has to clean the kitchen up afterwards.  And there will be many, many years to clean the house after your kids are gone.  

Make the concious decision to enjoy the ride -- the good, the bad, and the ugly of it.  Count your blessings every day.  If you have a roof over your head in a relatively safe neighborhood and food to eat and access to medical care and no one is bombing your town or an earthquake hasn't shattered your world or some despot isn't robbing you of your civil rights, then you have it pretty damn good.  

You're only as stressed as you allow yourself to be.  

(stepping off the soap box now)

[Deleted]

Worthwhile pursuits, done well, are always stressful and always require balance. Life on the farm 100 years ago wasn't easy, either. I would not have wanted my mother's vocation, which was being a SAHM to 5 kids with no domestic help and few convenience foods. We got to McDonald's every 6 months. Mom made everything else and she'd had it drilled into her that your family HAD to have a hot meal every night for dinner even if it was 98 degrees outside and you didn't have A/C.

I had years of driving 30 minutes to get the kid to daycare in the WRONG direction from work, driving to work, working all day, repeat at the of the day. (My Ex was useless. Kid logistics were my job.) That's what I chose and I'd choose it again, but maybe with a different husband. Now, of course, I wonder how I survived it, but I had a great career, saw a lot of wonderful places on the company dime, and gave DS a comfortable life including zero student loans for college. The stress is the price you pay for that life unless you're trust fund baby.

[The Captain]

I would be willing to have government social engineer society to pay for child care at the same time we give government the power to choose who should have children and how many they can have.

[cktc]

Nov 6, 2015 13:18:09 GMT -5 GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl said:

I'm on the far end of parenting.  It f'in flew by.  I mean before I knew it, my kids were sleeping through the night one day and applying to college the next.  What I can tell all of you with young kids or waiting to have kids is that you are wasting valuable, meaningful time with your kids stressing over all of this.  Kids are only completely dependent for a few short years.  Then their indepedence grows in leaps and bounds.  And then they are gone.  Depending upon how many kids you have and how far apart they are spaced, you are talking about 10 years of grinding it out.  10 years of sucking it up and getting it done and finding the many, many small awesome moments is not something to complain about.  If you choose to have children, then accept that your life as you know it will change and change significantly.  

Thank you, thank you, thank you, ever so much for this post! As a first time expectant mommy, getting bombarded with so much crap, it's just so nice to read stuff like this. 

[quince]

No to government being more involved, although I think I can get behind increased caps on dependent care flex plans.

People should care about things being "fair" at home, in that both partners in a two-parent household should do what they need to/are able to do to take care of the family.  If you're a woman and your spouse isn't pulling his weight in childcare/home maintenance while both of you are full-time employed, for heaven's sake, stop making kids with the dude as soon as you figure it out and assess whether or not he helps or hinders. That's an issue in individual relationships, not something that policy should fix. Same if you're a man and you're unhappy with the balance of work in the relationship.

Rethink what you "should" have as a family and what your day should be like.  Pretty sure that kids don't need tons of expensive activities to be shuttled around to- and even when middle-class families had a SAHP by default, pretty sure that all the kids didn't have music lessons/dance/sport/swim all at once, all the time. We have so many options now, some people think that means we have to do it ALL- we don't. We just have to pick what is important to us, and do those things.

Being a parent IS hard. You have x number of creatures dependent on you- they will suck up your time and energy and resources for YEARS.  I think studies have shown that parents are generally less happy than non parents. Most of them wouldn't take back the decision to reproduce, though- having children has value to people beyond short-term happiness and material comfort.  It shouldn't be a surprise that having kids takes more work than not having kids, and people decide to do it anyway. There's plenty of social engineering/financial incentives to have kids (tax credits/etc) -there is no reason parents should be subsidized more than they already are- I said this back when I was planning never to have children, and still am saying it now that I am about to have two.

[giramomma]

I do think it's silly that the U.S. at the national level doesn't have some standard maternity leave policy.  But, at a societal level, I think that's where it ends.


ETA: So much of parenting is really a crap shoot. It's a crap shoot what kind of kid you get. It's a crap shoot if your kids listen to you and take your advice. And, so much is out of your control as a parent.

I think this concept can cause stress for parents with more means. I mean, if you are on a career path in life..you are generally operating under a different frame. Would those with good careers say "Oh, yes, It was a total crap shoot that I ended up being VP, senior this or that." Nope. You get the yadda "Worked my ass off. Made all the right decisions. And Results!"

I think if I have less means, I'm OK with parenting being a crap shoot. Because more of my life is like that..And therefore, less stressed about parenting or living up to how the "haves" say I should.

ETAA: When my DS was 1, someone told me parenting was the most humbling experience they had ever done. Humbling. That's an interesting choice.

[GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl]

I also think far too many people go into parenting with an unrealistic view of what having kids is like.

Kids are not something you do in your spare time.  You don't march them out all adorable for family pictures and then tuck them back into a closet until the next event.  They don't know how to talk or to use a bathroom or to clean their rooms or how to behave in restaurants.  They don't care that you have a big presentation in the morning.  They don't care that you are tired or hungry or need a "mommy/daddy's night out".  They are selfish and self-absorbed and self-centered.  But, guess what?  Kids are supposed to be selfish and self-absorbed and self-centered.  It's how the human race has managed to survive all of these eons.  Parents, on the other hand, have to give up their selfishness and their self-absorption and their self-centeredness and teach their kids how to grow up and, hopefully, become self-sufficient adults.  In other words, it is no longer about the parents.  Some parents make that switch with ease.  Some fight it tooth and nail and then whine about how hard it is to do everything.  

[Tiny]

Is the article hinting that just because you have kids- you should still be able to spend your time and money the SAME way you did before you had kids? It sure sounds like that's what being complained about. That parents don't have the time to spend on hobbies or going out with friends once they have kids and that they don't have as much disposable income so they can't spend on hobbies or going out with friends because they have kid(s). And it seems to be hinting that a pay raise and working fewer hours would give them back their social/personal time.

Maybe I read the article in the wrong frame of mind...

[Lizard Queen]

Nov 6, 2015 13:21:51 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I would be willing to have government social engineer society to pay for child care at the same time we give government the power to choose who should have children and how many they can have.

That's kind of the gist of my argument.  As a society, who are we encouraging to reproduce, and who are we discouraging?  Don't we want to encourage people who are responsible and have careers to have children?  By the way things are structured, I'd say we don't.

[CCL]

Nov 6, 2015 13:56:06 GMT -5 GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl said:

I also think far too many people go into parenting with an unrealistic view of what having kids is like.

Kids are not something you do in your spare time.  You don't march them out all adorable for family pictures and then tuck them back into a closet until the next event.  They don't know how to talk or to use a bathroom or to clean their rooms or how to behave in restaurants.  They don't care that you have a big presentation in the morning.  They don't care that you are tired or hungry or need a "mommy/daddy's night out".  They are selfish and self-absorbed and self-centered.  But, guess what?  Kids are supposed to be selfish and self-absorbed and self-centered.  It's how the human race has managed to survive all of these eons.  Parents, on the other hand, have to give up their selfishness and their self-absorption and their self-centeredness and teach their kids how to grow up and, hopefully, become self-sufficient adults.  In other words, it is no longer about the parents.  Some parents make that switch with ease.  Some fight it tooth and nail and then whine about how hard it is to do everything.  

At what age though? After about age six or so I steered them away from being selfish, self-absorbed and self-centered. I know too many of those helicopter parents. Personally, I don't think policies should necessarily be changed to accommodate, but maybe on an individual basis with their employers.

[Ombud]

My DD was the 1st woman in 6 generations to not be gainfully employed and we don't even know how to respond to the concept that SAHP work --- I mean, don't the kids spend HOURS at school?

[gooddecisions]

I could totally get on board with a public school system that operated 8-5 and only took federal holidays. Kids could have 4 weeks excused vacation time and 2 weeks excused sick time. 5-6 hours of the day would be dedicated to structured class time and there would be other periods dedicated to lunch, physical activities (recess, sports), art programs (band, drama, art, etc), independent study hall for homework/projects, clubs and any other activities that are currently considered "after-school". Kids could get out after the 6 hours if they had a job or parents who needed them home. I don't know how it would work, but something like this would be ideal.

[midjd]

Does "encouraging" or "discouraging" having kids really make that much of a practical difference? I think we overestimate the amount of influence the government/employers have on this decision. If someone wants kids, they're going to do whatever they can to have them (often, whether they can afford them or not) -- and if they don't, I don't think they're going to be won over by the $1600 tax credit or a dependent care FSA.

[Lizard Queen]

Nov 6, 2015 14:31:49 GMT -5 midjd said:

Does "encouraging" or "discouraging" having kids really make that much of a practical difference? I think we overestimate the amount of influence the government/employers have on this decision. If someone wants kids, they're going to do whatever they can to have them (often, whether they can afford them or not) -- and if they don't, I don't think they're going to be won over by the $1600 tax credit or a dependent care FSA.

It's not so much about the money as the logistics/schedules/stress of it all.  I bet more flexible schedules would go a long way in alleviating stress for working parents.  Instead, you have workplace expectations of 45+ hours per week of work and little time off, combined with  incompatible school schedules.

[MJ2.0]

Nov 6, 2015 13:56:06 GMT -5 GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl said:

I also think far too many people go into parenting with an unrealistic view of what having kids is like.

Kids are not something you do in your spare time.  You don't march them out all adorable for family pictures and then tuck them back into a closet until the next event.  They don't know how to talk or to use a bathroom or to clean their rooms or how to behave in restaurants.  They don't care that you have a big presentation in the morning.  They don't care that you are tired or hungry or need a "mommy/daddy's night out".  They are selfish and self-absorbed and self-centered.  But, guess what?  Kids are supposed to be selfish and self-absorbed and self-centered.  It's how the human race has managed to survive all of these eons.  Parents, on the other hand, have to give up their selfishness and their self-absorption and their self-centeredness and teach their kids how to grow up and, hopefully, become self-sufficient adults.  In other words, it is no longer about the parents.  Some parents make that switch with ease.  Some fight it tooth and nail and then whine about how hard it is to do everything.  

I admit that was me. I have/had an unrealistic expectation about how pretty much all of my life would go - school, dating, marriage, and definitely parenthood. I didn't get all the feels being around DS 24/7 while on maternity leave - I toggled between checking to make sure he wasn't dying of SIDS, trying to decide between sleep and food, and wanting to hurl myself out a window. It was hard. It is hard. I am in a near constant battle between my own desire to be selfish and my obligations to DS. It's gotten a LOT better now that he's older. I can see more through his eyes and it makes me so happy. It's now getting harder for me to drop him off to X because I miss him a lot when he's gone. Him wandering in my bed in the middle of the night isn't an annoyance anymore, and I live for his spontaneous hugs with "I love you, Mommy". I don't think I'm a baby person. I love this stage, but I'm sad because I know it will be over way too soon.

[Peace Of Mind]

Every time I click on a link to read something I get bumped off!    Any way - I agree with Myrrh and GRG for the most part but do think things need to change with the times also.  Around here mom's still get stuck with most everything that needs to be done and travel times have doubled no matter what you are doing, prices have doubled, and stress levels have tripled with all the activities and helicoptering parents seem to need to do these days.  I also agree with the article that paid leave should be gender neutral. 

Nov 6, 2015 13:56:06 GMT -5 GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl said:

I also think far too many people go into parenting with an unrealistic view of what having kids is like.

Kids are not something you do in your spare time.  You don't march them out all adorable for family pictures and then tuck them back into a closet until the next event.  They don't know how to talk or to use a bathroom or to clean their rooms or how to behave in restaurants.  They don't care that you have a big presentation in the morning.  They don't care that you are tired or hungry or need a "mommy/daddy's night out".  They are selfish and self-absorbed and self-centered.  But, guess what?  Kids are supposed to be selfish and self-absorbed and self-centered.  It's how the human race has managed to survive all of these eons.  Parents, on the other hand, have to give up their selfishness and their self-absorption and their self-centeredness and teach their kids how to grow up and, hopefully, become self-sufficient adults.  In other words, it is no longer about the parents.  Some parents make that switch with ease.  Some fight it tooth and nail and then whine about how hard it is to do everything.  

LOL!   Everybody should be a step parent first to know these things before they get stuck for the next 18 or so years.   

That's why I never had kids.  I was a step parent and then I found out the hospital didn't have a return policy.     And because I wanted those fruity drinks and stuff.

[The Captain]

Nov 6, 2015 14:09:05 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Nov 6, 2015 13:21:51 GMT -5 The Captain said:

I would be willing to have government social engineer society to pay for child care at the same time we give government the power to choose who should have children and how many they can have.

That's kind of the gist of my argument.  As a society, who are we encouraging to reproduce, and who are we discouraging?  Don't we want to encourage people who are responsible and have careers to have children?  By the way things are structured, I'd say we don't.

I understand what you are saying and am to a limited extent probably influenced by it.

DH and I have 5 advanced degrees between us.  Yet we stopped at one child, for a lot of reasons honestly, but not last among them is the fact that we wanted to make sure DD could attend college and graduate without crippling debt.  We'll have enough saved for her, but would have been hard pressed (even with our good salaries) to do it for two or more. 

When DD was in daycare (that we fully paid for) you could tell who was state subsidized and who wasn't.  The state subsidized have 2-4 siblings usually all pretty close to each other in age with a single parent dropping off and picking up (schedules tend to be pretty regular).  The full pays usually were only children, or at most two. Yea, it really pissed me off when I heard someone bitching about having to come up with a $25/week co-pay each for three kids because who can afford that?!? (We were paying over $200 per week for DD).

Over 60% of the kids at DD's daycare were state subsidized.  At the time DD was in daycare there was no caps or waiting lists in IL, it was all income based. AND we were not in a particularly poor area.

So the folks who can't provide for their first child are subsidized heavily and really have limited reasons to stop at one or two.

I just don't think raising the bar on subsidizing other's choices is the right answer either. Because ultimately someone will have to pay and I pay enough in taxes as it is.  

[quince]

I have entertained the idea of turning our walk in closet into a bedroom for our son.    When he's older he can tell his friends about his parents making him live in the closet.

(We're looking into a 2 bedroom apartment, because 4 people in a 1 bedroom will get a bit crowded.)

[ArchietheDragon]

Nov 6, 2015 14:31:49 GMT -5 midjd said:

Does "encouraging" or "discouraging" having kids really make that much of a practical difference? I think we overestimate the amount of influence the government/employers have on this decision. If someone wants kids, they're going to do whatever they can to have them (often, whether they can afford them or not) -- and if they don't, I don't think they're going to be won over by the $1600 tax credit or a dependent care FSA.

It worked in China.   Obviously we are not China, but our policies could certainly lean in that direction or the other and make a difference. 

[gooddecisions]

Nov 6, 2015 15:07:39 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Nov 6, 2015 14:09:05 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

That's kind of the gist of my argument.  As a society, who are we encouraging to reproduce, and who are we discouraging?  Don't we want to encourage people who are responsible and have careers to have children?  By the way things are structured, I'd say we don't.

I understand what you are saying and am to a limited extent probably influenced by it.

DH and I have 5 advanced degrees between us.  Yet we stopped at one child, for a lot of reasons honestly, but not last among them is the fact that we wanted to make sure DD could attend college and graduate without crippling debt.  We'll have enough saved for her, but would have been hard pressed (even with our good salaries) to do it for two or more. 

When DD was in daycare (that we fully paid for) you could tell who was state subsidized and who wasn't.  The state subsidized have 2-4 siblings usually all pretty close to each other in age with a single parent dropping off and picking up (schedules tend to be pretty regular).  The full pays usually were only children, or at most two. Yea, it really pissed me off when I heard someone bitching about having to come up with a $25/week co-pay each for three kids because who can afford that?!? (We were paying over $200 per week for DD).

Over 60% of the kids at DD's daycare were state subsidized.  At the time DD was in daycare there was no caps or waiting lists in IL, it was all income based. AND we were not in a particularly poor area.

So the folks who can't provide for their first child are subsidized heavily and really have limited reasons to stop at one or two.

I just don't think raising the bar on subsidizing other's choices is the right answer either. Because ultimately someone will have to pay and I pay enough in taxes as it is.  

A co-worker was talking to me about how expensive daycare is and how it was hard to make ends meet. I said tell me about it, I'll be paying about $800/week. She said oh wow, that's like a mortgage. And, I said- no a week, not a month, it's more like $3500/month. That's the equivalent of a monthly payment for a $750,000 mortgage. She was stunned. It turns out she was struggling with her $80/week bill. Granted, I have a higher paid position and she commutes from a lower COL area where daycare is less expensive. But, it's almost one of those things where it doesn't matter how cheap it is, it will always be too expensive.

[midjd]

Nov 6, 2015 14:50:13 GMT -5 Lizard Queen said:

Nov 6, 2015 14:31:49 GMT -5 midjd said:

Does "encouraging" or "discouraging" having kids really make that much of a practical difference? I think we overestimate the amount of influence the government/employers have on this decision. If someone wants kids, they're going to do whatever they can to have them (often, whether they can afford them or not) -- and if they don't, I don't think they're going to be won over by the $1600 tax credit or a dependent care FSA.

It's not so much about the money as the logistics/schedules/stress of it all.  I bet more flexible schedules would go a long way in alleviating stress for working parents.  Instead, you have workplace expectations of 45+ hours per week of work and little time off, combined with  incompatible school schedules.

That will make it easier on the people who already have kids and are dealing with the stress, but I'm still not sure it's going to be enough to encourage anyone who doesn't already want kids to have them. Pre-kids, I don't think many people put that much thought into the logistics of handling kid and house duties (YMers do, but we are atypical in many ways ). 

And I know there are some exceptions (Big 4 accounting, etc.) but around here the least flexible jobs are the low-wage ones. White collar workers have a lot more freedom to work from home, flex their hours, take PTO, etc. Making jobs more flexible -- if it does have any effect on birth rates -- is probably going to encourage the McJob workers more than the white-collar ones.