The Money Mustache Community

Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: r3dt4rget on May 12, 2015, 02:08:47 PM

Title: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: r3dt4rget on May 12, 2015, 02:08:47 PM
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/millennial-parents-sink-under-weight-of-low-pay-debt-child-care/ar-BBjGahM

Quote
From the outside, it looks like Katie Fenton has it all.

The marketing manager is married with a five-month-old baby, lives in a spacious home, has a career and is pursuing an advanced degree.

Quote
“My husband works full time and picked up a second job,” Fenton said. “I had to go back to work after only three months of maternity leave.”

With monthly bills that include some $1,200 a month for childcare and $2,500 to pay the mortgage, the Fentons are among the one in five Millennials who are living in poverty, a 40% increase from fifteen years ago, according to a new study from nonprofit Young Invincibles called "Finding Time: Millennial Parents, Poverty and Rising Costs."

Quote
“Millennial parents are falling into the pit of financial instability faster than non-parents, because the economy has not stabilized from the Great Recession,” said Terri Liselle, author of The Millennial Woman (Amazon Digital Services, 2014).

*shakes head*

How can people with college degree's fail to understand basic personal finance? A facepunch goes out to anyone paying $2500/month for a mortgage who claims they live in poverty.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: zephyr911 on May 12, 2015, 02:24:20 PM
Because clearly someone put a gun to their head and made them buy a $500K home, or whatever they got for $2500/mo. Good gawd, that rivals the combined debt service on my primary residence, two SFRs, and two duplexes....
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: dycker1978 on May 12, 2015, 02:30:36 PM
16% of my income to pay for my child per year... wow do their kids have a lot of special needs.  My kids cost no where near that much.  A couple of hundred a month for food and clothes... the rest I would have anyways... and they are teenagers... wow!!!
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: LalsConstant on May 12, 2015, 02:32:54 PM
What a strange article, it starts as this case study and ends with some proposed legislation that wouldn't seem to be relevant to the story in the first part.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Kaspian on May 12, 2015, 02:38:50 PM
Absolutely bloody amazing how Quote #1 outlines the exact reasons for the problem, yet Quote #3 is blamed as the problem.  Our fantastic new social endemic--you can have it all and if you can't, it's somebody else's fault.  (Bonus marks if you blame some faceless shadow such as "rich people", "Wall  Street", "politicians", "immigrants", or "the economy".)
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: MarciaB on May 12, 2015, 02:44:59 PM
They live in San Diego, which is an insane real estate market.

Actually, let me restate. They choose to live in San Diego, which is an insane real estate market.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: zephyr911 on May 12, 2015, 02:50:17 PM
They live in San Diego, which is an insane real estate market.

Actually, let me restate. They choose to live in San Diego, which is an insane real estate market.
Wanna know why I don't live in San Diego? Hint: I don't care how nice the weather is, I don't wanna struggle just to make ends meet and end up with nothing to show for it decades later. I'm losing my tolerance for people's total lack of awareness about the impact of their lifestyle choices.

People in a hot market like that can settle for less, or quit bitching about prices. End of story.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: LiveLean on May 12, 2015, 03:25:00 PM
Nice tool shed you're living in for $2,500/month. Plus you get to pay among the highest taxes in the U.S.

Reminds me of a friend who moved his young family from the Tampa Bay area to San Diego -- purely lifestyle decision - and pretty much quadrupled his expenses without upgrading the size of his home.

You stay classy, San Diego.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: v10viperbox on May 12, 2015, 03:36:29 PM
Nice tool shed you're living in for $2,500/month. Plus you get to pay among the highest taxes in the U.S.

Reminds me of a friend who moved his young family from the Tampa Bay area to San Diego -- purely lifestyle decision - and pretty much quadrupled his expenses without upgrading the size of his home.

You stay classy, San Diego.

Bring them out I make money every time we flip or fix up a home out here. More people coming all the time, the city has no real plan for growth makes for easier pickings on flipping and rentals.

Personal choice and all that jazz. I could be FIRE easy in the Midwest with winter but working a few more years for no snow is a no brainier for me.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: RFAAOATB on May 12, 2015, 03:42:21 PM
Bottom Line: If you can't afford childcare, or you can't afford to live off one salary, you should be on birth control until your circumstances improve.  Mercy to the children brought into the world by parents who can't afford them the lifestyles they imagined.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: chicagomeg on May 12, 2015, 03:45:41 PM
Nice tool shed you're living in for $2,500/month. Plus you get to pay among the highest taxes in the U.S.

Reminds me of a friend who moved his young family from the Tampa Bay area to San Diego -- purely lifestyle decision - and pretty much quadrupled his expenses without upgrading the size of his home.

You stay classy, San Diego.

Bring them out I make money every time we flip or fix up a home out here. More people coming all the time, the city has no real plan for growth makes for easier pickings on flipping and rentals.

Personal choice and all that jazz. I could be FIRE easy in the Midwest with winter but working a few more years for no snow is a no brainier for me.

You can make all the personal choices you want, as long as you don't expect me to feel sorry for you when I'm cozy in front of the fire while you're still working. :) Unfortunately, the people in the article just want pity w/o accepting any personal responsibility.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: trailrated on May 12, 2015, 03:58:02 PM
How can they be "living in poverty" two of their bills alone are $3,700/month which is $44,400/year. They have to be making significantly more than that. While they are drowning in payments and debt, you cannot describe that income as poverty.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: NoraLenderbee on May 12, 2015, 05:51:39 PM
How can they be "living in poverty" two of their bills alone are $3,700/month which is $44,400/year. They have to be making significantly more than that. While they are drowning in payments and debt, you cannot describe that income as poverty.

Yup. If you're "in poverty" after you've spent 44K on mortgage and childcare, you don't have a poverty problem. You have an overspending problem.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: mizzourah2006 on May 12, 2015, 07:21:47 PM
How can they be "living in poverty" two of their bills alone are $3,700/month which is $44,400/year. They have to be making significantly more than that. While they are drowning in payments and debt, you cannot describe that income as poverty.

That was exactly what stood out to me. Pretty sure that's not poverty. It may be "living paycheck to paycheck" but that's not poverty.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 12, 2015, 11:55:54 PM
I thought "poverty" meant the absence of income or assets, not the absence of common sense.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: minority_finance_mo on May 13, 2015, 05:44:07 AM
I thought "poverty" meant the absence of income or assets, not the absence of common sense.

Though the latter seems as common and far more debilitating.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: zephyr911 on May 13, 2015, 06:39:40 AM
Bring them out I make money every time we flip or fix up a home out here. More people coming all the time, the city has no real plan for growth makes for easier pickings on flipping and rentals.

Personal choice and all that jazz. I could be FIRE easy in the Midwest with winter but working a few more years for no snow is a no brainier for me.
I get that.
My ultimate destination is either the Pacific Northwest (most family members) or Hawaii (childhood home).
Current strategy is to exploit govt $$ and LCOL in AL to ensure a successful and poverty-free early retirement regardless of which move we make. In the meantime, drawing down our physical footprint both accelerates NW growth and reduces our entry cost for those markets.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: golden1 on May 13, 2015, 11:42:23 AM
This isn't poverty, this is being "house poor".  There are so many of these that I see living in the Boston suburbs.  Everyone has to live in the best suburb so that Jr. can get the best education (or so they think) so they mortgage themselves to the hilt to live in Newton, Lexington or Belmont, paying 40%+ of their incomes to mortgage and then struggling to pay the other bills.  Seriously, they are better off living in more affordable suburbs and either homeschooling, private schooling or getting tutors to supplement the public school education. 
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: RunHappy on May 13, 2015, 11:45:46 AM
Daycare is crazy expensive.  I know several people who pay more for childcare than they do their mortgage. 
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Merrie on May 13, 2015, 11:57:49 AM
I think it's weird that this article goes on to talk about changing work schedules and hours. The case study has nothing to do with the article. That part sounds like it belongs on an article about people getting their schedules changed last minute at Starbucks or Home Depot. Those jobs aren't really "career" jobs and people in that position aren't typically "building their career".

As for the actual dilemma... agreed, this is being house-poor due to living in a HCOL area. As a Millennial parent who's also house-poor and drowning in student debt, I feel for these people up to a point... that point is when they waste a ton of money on manicures, dinners out, fancy clothes, new cars, etc. And I acknowledge there are choices we could have made differently to avoid or mitigate our present circumstances, as is probably also the case for these people, but these kinds of articles never discuss how to avoid getting into this predicament in the first place!

“I had to go back to work after only three months of maternity leave.”

This is more of a "shame" for the US government than for the woman in the article; 3 months of maternity leave is unfortunately pretty princely in this country. I too was "lucky" enough to get 3 months of maternity leave, all unpaid; by other countries' standards this is very low.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Syonyk on May 13, 2015, 02:00:30 PM
Nice tool shed you're living in for $2,500/month.

Hey.  Tool sheds rent for $800, at least in San Francisco.

http://www.refinery29.com/san-francisco-shed-for-rent
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: RFAAOATB on May 13, 2015, 02:16:11 PM
This is more of a "shame" for the US government than for the woman in the article; 3 months of maternity leave is unfortunately pretty princely in this country. I too was "lucky" enough to get 3 months of maternity leave, all unpaid; by other countries' standards this is very low.

Is there anything wrong with the rule of thumb that if you can not afford 3 months of unpaid leave than you can not afford a baby?  If you can not afford to live off one income or two incomes minus daycare than you can not afford a baby?  Hell Suze Orman recommends keeping an 8 month emergency fund.  Surely your maternity leave replacement can come from that.

Why do we want to be encouraging people so close to the wire that 3 months of no pay is a disaster to bring another mouth to feed in this world?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Zinsch on May 13, 2015, 03:10:06 PM
Because we need to face the reality that people will have babys, whether they can afford them or not.
Do you really want mothers going back to work days after giving birth? I think, as a society, we can do better.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: RFAAOATB on May 13, 2015, 03:34:48 PM
Because we need to face the reality that people will have babys, whether they can afford them or not.
Do you really want mothers going back to work days after giving birth? I think, as a society, we can do better.

What I want is subsidized no thought birth control for as many women as possible until they are financially ready to be mothers.  Make it as accepted and expected as vaccinations such that only the weirdos would refuse and be ostracized for it.  Every girl going into high school will have a check the box birth control implant along with their other vaccination records.  For sexual equality, research should be done to offer no thought birth control options for men until they are ready.

Also, people should have enough emergency savings should cover exercising their FMLA rights.

Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: nanu on May 13, 2015, 03:36:18 PM
John Oliver just had this segment a few days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIhKAQX5izw
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: RFAAOATB on May 13, 2015, 03:40:46 PM
John Oliver just had this segment a few days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIhKAQX5izw

If paid maternity/paternity leave is important to you, you should work for a company that offers it.  If you can't get hired at one of those companies, you should save enough money to cover your unpaid FMLA leave or be able to live off your partner's income.  Failing that, take care not to create another human.  Why is that last part so difficult?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 13, 2015, 05:40:30 PM
John Oliver just had this segment a few days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIhKAQX5izw

If paid maternity/paternity leave is important to you, you should work for a company that offers it.  If you can't get hired at one of those companies, you should save enough money to cover your unpaid FMLA leave or be able to live off your partner's income.  Failing that, take care not to create another human.  Why is that last part so difficult?

Because most birth control doesn't work reliably even when used correctly.

I know too many people who have gotten knocked up using Depo-Provera, the Pill, a diaphragm, condoms, and sometimes two or three different methods at once. Even when used correctly, those things have a failure rate. The IUD is the most reliable of all, but many insurance companies won't cover it. When it comes to female reproductive health, therefore doctors frequently refuse to give you access to anything not covered by insurance, even if you pay out of your own pocket.

(This is routine with many medicines relevant to women: if your particular insurance policy won't cover a treatment, or if most policies don't, women's health clinics generally refuse to provide medicine or tests for female related problems at all, even if you are a cash customer. For whatever reason, the same standard never seems to apply for elective surgeries like face lifts or boob jobs... just the things that are related to our reproductive organs. If you don't believe me, call around trying to get a Gardasil vaccine for a 30-year-old female who doesn't want cervical cancer.)

The much-touted "abstinence" concept, so well beloved by reactionaries, has a failure rate too. You see, it's possible to get Mickey Finned, outnumbered, attacked from behind, or just plain overpowered. Females don't always get to decide whether they have sex. Sometimes, when a woman is in a relationship, if she wants to have a place to sleep at night she simply has to put out regardless of whether she wants to. This is a fact of life: sometimes you have to go along to get along. Hopefully the birth control doesn't fail... but sometimes it does. Chemical birth control, in particular, is an inexact science.

There are further consequences when birth control fails, at least in the United States. Abortions are being restricted more and more aggressively by all levels of government, and morning-after drugs are becoming difficult or even impossible to come by. In fact, women who are suffering miscarriages are often unable to fill their prescriptions at pharmacies: pharmacists now have a religious entitlement to deny these women service, because the medicine that helps speed up a miscarriage and avoid sepsis is sometimes used to help induce an early abortion. In a small town with a lot of religious people feeling a yen to go into pharmacy, sepsis is pretty much mandatory. If your child is stillborn and you can't get to a hospital in time, you run the risk of being charged with, and convicted of, some combination of feticide, murder, or child abuse.

In a perfect world, a person could get driven to the hospital, or cared for, by a partner. But there isn't always one in the picture. Just because you're pregnant doesn't mean that the person who put you in that condition can necessarily be persuaded to help pay for an abortion, much less child care. Sometimes they can't even be found or picked out of a lineup, which is probably just as well: if you carry the child to term, the father has rights regardless of how the child was conceived or whether the father was tried, convicted, and incarcerated for it. In fact, if you succumb to social pressure to carry the child to term and keep it, you may have just given an abuser or rapist a lifelong invitation into your life.

Only a complete imbecile would want to be pregnant, or risk pregnancy, unless she actually wanted children.

Having noticed which way the country was going, I paid through the nose for a tubal ligation when I was 24. Two of my friends talked doctors into performing hysterectomies on them at about the same age. But that kind of surgery is out of reach for many women. It's not just for financial reasons: doctors routinely refuse to perform sterilization surgery on women who aren't already married and burdened with children. Vasectomies are available to single, child-free men who want them, but there's a double standard when it comes to tubal ligations for women of the same age, marital status, and reproductive status. It's because of a pervasive myth that women are too stupid to understand whether they want to give birth. This means that, for most women in the USA, pregnancy is pretty much inevitable sooner or later.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: RFAAOATB on May 13, 2015, 05:59:18 PM
Indeed we need more subsidies for long term birth control.  If you're too poor for birth control, you're too poor for a child, and sexual activity is one of the few pleasures poor people can engage in nearly as easily as the well off.  Finding a way to take care of the males would cut the failure rate as well.

There's got to be more going on here.  Do we need more poor people?  I think we don't, but unless policies and incentives are aligned to keep the poors from making more poors then someone thinks they are a necessary resource.  Can we as a society do without an exploitative low wage labor supply?

Abortion is controversial, and in my opinion although safe and legal, not rare enough.  Preventing unwanted pregnancies through a vast wide birth control campaign would do a lot to make abortion more rare, and would be more compassionate than current piecemeal legislative restrictions going on now.

So, why should this country mandate paid parental leave, in effect subsidizing childbirth for those who can not normally afford it?  Should we not instead encourage the rich to have more children and the poor have less?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: nanu on May 13, 2015, 06:05:55 PM
Last I checked, your taxes also pay for public schools and other services only (or mostly) "the poors" make use of.
Should we stop funding those to further discourage "the poors" from "making more poors"?

For the record, I have my own issues with people bringing children into this world when they are unprepared to care for them (financially and otherwise).
But paid parental leave is also created to make the job market more equal and fair to women, as they tend to be the ones that give birth...
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: RFAAOATB on May 13, 2015, 06:41:48 PM
Last I checked, your taxes also pay for public schools and other services only (or mostly) "the poors" make use of.
Should we stop funding those to further discourage "the poors" from "making more poors"?

For the record, I have my own issues with people bringing children into this world when they are unprepared to care for them (financially and otherwise).
But paid parental leave is also created to make the job market more equal and fair to women, as they tend to be the ones that give birth...

Eliminate public schools?  Perish the thought but I am a product of public schools.  As education and introduction to citizenship is necessary for the prosperity of every citizen, it should be funded with public money.  Other services the poors make use of should be expanded such as nutrition assistance.  It is too popular to rail against the SNAP program by focusing on the relatively low level of abuse in its administration.  One way to make SNAP more popular is to give it to everyone rich or poor.  Give everyone a basic allowance for nutrition funded through taxes and it will lessen the stigma of those who really need it making less than optimal choices because it is an expected benefit of citizenship.  If we start with the proposition that everyone is entitled to a minimum nutrition allowance above what we currently have and we will fund it through taxation if need be, then perhaps we can engineer a world where either such allowance is cheerily paid for or no longer needed.

As it stands right now, paid parental leave is an employment perk and not a mandated right.  I'm not sure that it's in the same league as making sure our citizens don't starve.  We already have too many hungry people. No need to encourage creating more.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: ReadyToStash on May 13, 2015, 06:54:01 PM
"Required" birth control for women sounds fantastic...unless you're a woman. Every method of birth control has it's drawbacks. Imo too many young women are prescribed bc without really understanding what it does to their bodies. You can't just force someone to take a pill, implant, injection, etc without regard to how that actually alters their physiology. Not to mention the mere idea of that is a gross mis-step of government power.

I don't have the answers on how to stop the wrong people from becoming parents at the wrong time, but you're barking up the wrong tree.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: QueenAlice on May 13, 2015, 08:52:58 PM
Waaay off topic... ReadyToStash, is it your birthday? Why is there a piece of cake next to your age? I've never noticed that before...

(http://i.imgur.com/gl4xkcV.png?1)
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 14, 2015, 01:26:34 AM
Poverty:

(http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2012/01/24/9134784/Shack%20Home%20for%20PRWeb4.jpg)
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: CupcakeGuru on May 14, 2015, 05:22:36 AM
Poverty:

(http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2012/01/24/9134784/Shack%20Home%20for%20PRWeb4.jpg)

+1
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: ozzage on May 14, 2015, 05:36:33 AM
Do we need more poor people?  I think we don't, but unless policies and incentives are aligned to keep the poors from making more poors then someone thinks they are a necessary resource.  Can we as a society do without an exploitative low wage labor supply?

Holy. shit.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GuitarStv on May 14, 2015, 07:06:13 AM
Do we need more poor people?  I think we don't, but unless policies and incentives are aligned to keep the poors from making more poors then someone thinks they are a necessary resource.  Can we as a society do without an exploitative low wage labor supply?

Holy. shit.

Reminds me of this quote from the West Wing:


Donna : "Why are you a Republican?"
Cliff : "Because I hate poor people. I hate them, Donna. They're all so poor, and many of 'em talk funny, and don't have proper table manners... my father slaved away at the Fortune 500 company he inherited so that I could go to Choate, Brown and Harvard and see that this country isn't overrun by poor people and lesbians."

(He goes on to indicate that he was joking.)
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: ReadyToStash on May 14, 2015, 09:24:25 AM
Waaay off topic... ReadyToStash, is it your birthday? Why is there a piece of cake next to your age? I've never noticed that before...

(http://i.imgur.com/gl4xkcV.png?1)

Yes it was my birthday yesterday! At first I thought you meant my comment was off topic. Which I guess it was, since it was referring to the above conversation that was also kind of off-topic...
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: mm1970 on May 14, 2015, 11:13:48 AM
John Oliver just had this segment a few days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIhKAQX5izw

If paid maternity/paternity leave is important to you, you should work for a company that offers it.  If you can't get hired at one of those companies, you should save enough money to cover your unpaid FMLA leave or be able to live off your partner's income.  Failing that, take care not to create another human.  Why is that last part so difficult?
Well, we will have to agree to disagree.  I would prefer that the country go the way of California and other states, who provide paid family leave through paycheck withdrawals (aka taxes), like SDI.

And that's why I vote!
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 14, 2015, 11:27:04 AM
John Oliver just had this segment a few days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIhKAQX5izw

If paid maternity/paternity leave is important to you, you should work for a company that offers it.  If you can't get hired at one of those companies, you should save enough money to cover your unpaid FMLA leave or be able to live off your partner's income.  Failing that, take care not to create another human.  Why is that last part so difficult?
Well, we will have to agree to disagree.  I would prefer that the country go the way of California and other states, who provide paid family leave through paycheck withdrawals (aka taxes), like SDI.

And that's why I vote!

+1. The US standard of maternity leave is pathetic, bordering on inhuman.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: CoreyTheMan on May 14, 2015, 12:46:20 PM
hmmmmmm.....I am not sure how I feel about this issue...on one hand I do think that women do deserve more rights when it comes to maternity issues and equality in the workplace but on the other hand who will pay the new added bill? The company? the state government aka state taxes? federal government aka federal taxes? and is it fair to charge everyone taxes when some people never have kids?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: vivophoenix on May 14, 2015, 12:48:29 PM
hmmmmmm.....I am not sure how I feel about this issue...on one hand I do think that women do deserve more rights when it comes to maternity issues and equality in the workplace but on the other hand who will pay the new added bill? The company? the state government aka state taxes? federal government aka federal taxes? and is it fair to charge everyone taxes when some people never have kids?

you mean like they charge everyone for roads, and public school and social security. taxes arent about being fair. its about whats going to over all improve society.

people fail to realize that leaving women behind in the work place burdens everyone. thats 50% of the population who arent allowed to flourish
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: MgoSam on May 14, 2015, 12:52:18 PM
hmmmmmm.....I am not sure how I feel about this issue...on one hand I do think that women do deserve more rights when it comes to maternity issues and equality in the workplace but on the other hand who will pay the new added bill? The company? the state government aka state taxes? federal government aka federal taxes? and is it fair to charge everyone taxes when some people never have kids?

you mean like they charge everyone for roads, and public school and social security. taxes arent about being fair. its about whats going to over all improve society.

people fail to realize that leaving women behind in the work place burdens everyone. thats 50% of the population who arent allowed to flourish

Yeah, I haven't seen Oliver's segment yet, but I think that maternity leave would be an overall net benefit for society and the economy. I don't have any numbers to justify this, but I will do some googling later.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 14, 2015, 01:03:09 PM
hmmmmmm.....I am not sure how I feel about this issue...on one hand I do think that women do deserve more rights when it comes to maternity issues and equality in the workplace but on the other hand who will pay the new added bill? The company? the state government aka state taxes? federal government aka federal taxes? and is it fair to charge everyone taxes when some people never have kids?

Watch the Youtube segment, it's very enlightening. All these arguments were made in the past, and in practice the effect of allowing women maternity leave is negligible on companies and creates a more stable work environment where as someone said, women can flourish.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Giro on May 14, 2015, 01:19:18 PM
I just love when people blame housing costs for their ridiculous spending.  I have a cousin who lives in San Diego.  He bought a very modest home for $180K.  He showed me the real estate market and he could have spent $480K for the exact same size house 12 miles from where he bought.  Oh and by the way, the taxes were also 3.5 times more than his taxes.  And the public school system in his district is still rated excellent.  I just cannot understand people.  I guess they don't like to drive 12 miles to the beach because that's just ridiculous.

Choices people.  There are affordable homes just about everywhere but you have to make a few sacrifices....like Starbucks isn't within walking distance.  I hear it all the time about how you just cannot find a house for less than 1/2 mil in certain parts of the country.  Well, you CAN you just don't want to. 

Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: vivophoenix on May 14, 2015, 01:19:27 PM
 thing is, if you assume for every brilliant or very able man, there is an equally brilliant woman, wouldn't it stand to reason you would want that woman to have all the resources to be brilliant. also that would mean a society could double its available brain power

a woman being forced to choose between giving birth or work for what ever reason( be it childcare, maternity leave, or even having time available to parent) doesnt benefit us as a whole.

as a society you want people to be born and you want smart people to be smart
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Helvegen on May 14, 2015, 01:23:18 PM
I'm a first or second year millennial who had an unplanned baby with zero in the bank. I had the luck of living in a country with pretty much free universal healthcare and I stayed home with the baby for the first year on a mix of non-income and income dependent social subsidies and my husband worked and went to school. We lived in a very small  apartment. The baby's room was what was supposed to be the dining room. We got almost everything for the baby second-hand from relatives. We lived on an extremely strict budget because not only were we piss poor, I had to send back money to the US for student loans. Thank you universe for the very favorable exchange rate, but still, it was at least 120 euro a month.

After the first year, I moved with our kid back to the US to get a job because it wasn't going to happen in that country. I had to live with my mother again to get established and wait for my husband's PR to come through. I got a job, got laid off from that job, husband got his PR, I got another job, moved out of my mother's house, husband couldn't get a job because he lacked good US work experience and the economy tanked, husband started volunteering in his field and eventually went back to school and got a part-time job. I then got laid off from my third job and took a part-time job to tide me over till I found a full-time one. That never happened, not in that state anyway. We decided to move back in with my mother for about 9-10 months to save money for a move cross-country. My husband would have much better employment prospects there. We saved up, he got laid off from his part-time job two months after graduation. We decided then it was time to get out of Dodge. We moved out here with, I think $6-7k and whatever UI he was eligible for. We only ended up using one week of it because we got FT job offers like crazy after moving here. We couldn't do that for the life of us where we came from.

Life is really good now, financially, in particular. We are bringing home amounts of money now, I would have just laughed myself to death if I had been told this was going to be our future before. We are saving 40% of our gross income. We can afford to go on vacation and the occasional dinner out. But those times a few years ago were really hard. We never had to get on food stamps or childcare assistance or Section 8 or whatever. We always had enough money for those things, but we didn't eat all that great and our daughter was taken care of by very good, but mostly unlicensed providers because that was all we could afford. Husband and I didn't always have health insurance, but our daughter was on CHIP, so at least that was taken care of. We didn't own a house (still don't), we drove duct taped cars (we still drive older, paid for cars), pretty much all of our clothes came from Goodwill (I'd say still 50%), our cell phones were ancient with the cheapest plan (well, we upgraded here a little), most household items came from IKEA or Craigslist (still true). Going out to eat? Ha, yeah right. But we made a serious commitment to live within to even below our means, even when it hurt. No credit card debt. No car debt. No (new) student loan debt. Most of all, no more children! So when I read sob stories of spoiled brats like in the article, I want to punch the monitor.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GuitarStv on May 14, 2015, 02:51:10 PM
thing is, if you assume for every brilliant or very able man, there is an equally brilliant woman, wouldn't it stand to reason you would want that woman to have all the resources to be brilliant. also that would mean a society could double its available brain power

a woman being forced to choose between giving birth or work for what ever reason( be it childcare, maternity leave, or even having time available to parent) doesnt benefit us as a whole.

as a society you want people to be born and you want smart people to be smart

No!  There's enough competition from foreigners as it is, now you want to flood the market with women?  As an overpaid white male worker this thought is terrifying to me.  Also, something about too many taxes and so forth.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: zephyr911 on May 14, 2015, 03:10:49 PM
No!  There's enough competition from foreigners as it is, now you want to flood the market with women?  As an overpaid white male worker this thought is terrifying to me.  Also, something about too many taxes and so forth.
<3
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: RFAAOATB on May 14, 2015, 04:24:56 PM
No!  There's enough competition from foreigners as it is, now you want to flood the market with women?  As an overpaid white male worker this thought is terrifying to me.  Also, something about too many taxes and so forth.

No need to be sexist about it.  There's nothing stopping a highly successful woman from convincing her male companion to be a stay at home.  The fact is there are too many jobs with too low wages.  If there were less jobs with higher wages, everyone would be happier.  The only thing I can't figure out is a sexually neutral way to distribute jobs so you don't end up with two assertively mated high achievers taking two jobs leaving a couple of slightly less competitive people with no jobs.

I think we need to make having a stay at home spouse the new status symbol instead of a fancy car or a fancy watch.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 14, 2015, 10:41:51 PM
No!  There's enough competition from foreigners as it is, now you want to flood the market with women?  As an overpaid white male worker this thought is terrifying to me.  Also, something about too many taxes and so forth.

No need to be sexist about it.  There's nothing stopping a highly successful woman from convincing her male companion to be a stay at home.  The fact is there are too many jobs with too low wages.  If there were less jobs with higher wages, everyone would be happier.  The only thing I can't figure out is a sexually neutral way to distribute jobs so you don't end up with two assertively mated high achievers taking two jobs leaving a couple of slightly less competitive people with no jobs.

I think we need to make having a stay at home spouse the new status symbol instead of a fancy car or a fancy watch.

He was making a joke, I think.

There have been a few historians who have focused on what life was like for women in the more distant past. Olwen Hufton is one who comes to mind.

Interestingly, a stay at home spouse was a status symbol in the late 1700's and afterwards. It was a big deal to be able to support a family on only one income, and to actually have a nuclear family instead of multiple generations living together in one household. Not everybody got married or even attempted to reproduce.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the members of the ruling and financial elite (male and female) really didn't work at all. You had peasants, who were mostly out in the fields or becoming servants and working in a wealthier person's home, and you had landowners who were mostly living it up. In the middle was the craft and trade class, where both men and women worked, but ironically it was generally the man who stayed in the "home", since that's where the shop was, and he was the highly qualified and experienced craftsman who was able to supervise the apprentices. The fisherman, for example, had to be out fishing, but someone else had to sell the fish. Someone had to go to the market with the goods, or work the front counter and manage the money while the master craftsman did what only he could do. That ended up being the women and girls in the household: there weren't enough pairs of hands otherwise. (Interestingly, that made household money management primarily a female sport in the skilled trade class). There were some nomadic individuals and professions, and the women did tend to stay closer to the tents and property instead of wandering around with a herd, however that's frequently because they were the ones engaged in making trade goods. That whole hunter/gatherer thing... it's impossible to be a "gatherer" if you stay inside the cave.

After the Industrial Revolution consolidated the textile and manufacturing industries into centralized factories (instead of things people did by themselves at home), the working-class norm was for both men and women to work, and for child care to be performed by elderly family members. The working class gradually replaced the peasants as farms got more mechanized and it became increasingly impractical and unhealthy to be a peasant.

The "bourgeoisie", and I mean this in the original context, not the Marxist context, was a class of people who gradually became the dominant middle class. They were small town or city people, typically small business owners or professionals. In those families, the women were sometimes co-owners of the business, or sometimes they had a side business separate from their husband's profession. If you read the novel "Madame Bovary", you'll see what the norm was like in the mid-1800's: every woman except the novel's airheaded heroine has a job. They either rent out rooms and keep boarders, or raise hens for eggs, or take in washing, or work as servants in someone else's households. Besides the extremely wealthy elite, only the most successful professionals could afford to keep an unemployed, stay-at-home spouse. Some regions of industrial countries were able to have this as an ideal to aspire to in the early 1900's, but it was very much a status symbol (and probably not much fun to actually do).

The 1950's, historically speaking, were a flash in the pan. With the only industrial economy left standing after WWII, no significant infrastructure damage, and very few personnel losses, the USA was in a unique position. Everyone needed manufactured goods in order to rebuild, and so if you were reasonably well educated, white, male, and in the right city, lucrative work was available. That's the only time in human history it's ever been possible for large numbers of people to support a stay-at-home spouse, with kids, on one income. For whatever reason, people decided that this kind of economic structure was somehow "traditional" and normal. In reality, it's the exception to the vast majority of human experience throughout recorded history.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: kite on May 16, 2015, 05:13:36 AM
I just love when people blame housing costs for their ridiculous spending.  I have a cousin who lives in San Diego.  He bought a very modest home for $180K.  He showed me the real estate market and he could have spent $480K for the exact same size house 12 miles from where he bought.  Oh and by the way, the taxes were also 3.5 times more than his taxes.  And the public school system in his district is still rated excellent.  I just cannot understand people.  I guess they don't like to drive 12 miles to the beach because that's just ridiculous.

Choices people.  There are affordable homes just about everywhere but you have to make a few sacrifices....like Starbucks isn't within walking distance.  I hear it all the time about how you just cannot find a house for less than 1/2 mil in certain parts of the country.  Well, you CAN you just don't want to.

This. 

Because surely the childcare worker is living in less costly housing. 
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Sofa King on May 16, 2015, 10:18:34 AM
I'm a first or second year millennial who had an unplanned baby with zero in the bank.

Unplanned?  Do you not understand how birth control works?

Mod Note: Avoid personal attacks and keep it on topic, please.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Syonyk on May 16, 2015, 10:41:11 AM
I'm a first or second year millennial who had an unplanned baby with zero in the bank.

Unplanned?  Do you not understand how birth control works?

"Mostly reliably, if done perfectly."  But still with a non-zero failure rate.  Throw in normal human issues with doing something perfectly every time, and it has a significant enough failure rate to be not actually as good as it's claimed to be.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 17, 2015, 10:12:33 PM
I'm a first or second year millennial who had an unplanned baby with zero in the bank.

Unplanned?  Do you not understand how birth control works?

"Mostly reliably, if done perfectly."  But still with a non-zero failure rate.  Throw in normal human issues with doing something perfectly every time, and it has a significant enough failure rate to be not actually as good as it's claimed to be.

Indeed. Stuff that manipulates human hormones is not an exact science. I know too many people who got pregnant while using "reliable" birth control perfectly, simply because the proportions of the chemicals they were prescribed didn't have the desired effect on their bodies.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Scandium on May 18, 2015, 06:36:11 AM
hmmmmmm.....I am not sure how I feel about this issue...on one hand I do think that women do deserve more rights when it comes to maternity issues and equality in the workplace but on the other hand who will pay the new added bill? The company? the state government aka state taxes? federal government aka federal taxes? and is it fair to charge everyone taxes when some people never have kids?

Watch the Youtube segment, it's very enlightening. All these arguments were made in the past, and in practice the effect of allowing women maternity leave is negligible on companies and creates a more stable work environment where as someone said, women can flourish.

Your avatar is Ron Swanson, yet you want more Big Government? :confused:

Anyway, if there was mandated parental leave (why should it only be offered to women?) it would have to be paid with higher taxes, and the same with cheaper daycare. So in the end we'd all be no better or worse off. Taxes in the US are lower than in places with government forced parental leave, so here people can save up that extra money and take unpaid time of. Same difference. Why is that so hard?

We pay more than most mortgages in daycare cost, but I don't demand that the government go out and take other people's money to subsidize it. We made a choice to have a child and if we didn't want this expense we wouldn't have had one. But making the government take from others on your behalf is much easier than personal responsibility isn't it..?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 18, 2015, 06:46:39 AM
Your avatar is Ron Swanson, yet you want more Big Government? :confused:

Actually yeah I do favour more governmental intervention, personally. I'm not very Swansonian to tell the truth.

Quote
Anyway, if there was mandated parental leave (why should it only be offered to women?)

It shouldn't; not at all. When my children were born I was entitled to 2-3 days off in SA, which is ridiculous.

Quote
it would have to be paid with higher taxes, and the same with cheaper daycare. So in the end we'd all be no better or worse off.

Since when does supporting human welfare through taxation leave us 'no better or worse off'? What else are the taxes for?   

Quote
Taxes in the US are lower than in places with government forced parental leave, so here people can save up that extra money and take unpaid time of. Same difference. Why is that so hard?

Unpaid time off sounds fine unless you're already living at the breadline, and if your job can be guaranteed to still be there when you return from your leave of absence. In fact, no, wait a second, nothing about unpaid maternity leave seems okay to me. Why should you be penalised for having a family?

Quote
We pay more than most mortgages in daycare cost, but I don't demand that the government go out and take other people's money to subsidize it. We made a choice to have a child and if we didn't wont this expense we wouldn't have had one. But making the government take from others on your behalf is much easier than personal responsibility isn't it..?

Off the topic of daycare which I'm quite ignorant of, do you really think it's acceptable that the US lags the entire rest of the world in the standard of entitled maternity/paternity leave? It's such a pro-corporate stance, and so ignorant of the ramifications of maternity leave, which are negligible in real terms - and everyone else seems to get by just fine, so why run to the side of the corporates? The tax burden of mothers on maternity leave is miniscule.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Scandium on May 18, 2015, 07:04:35 AM

Off the topic of daycare which I'm quite ignorant of, do you really think it's acceptable that the US lags the entire rest of the world in the standard of entitled maternity/paternity leave? It's such a pro-corporate stance, and so ignorant of the actual ramifications of maternity leave, which are actually negligible in real terms - and everyone else seems to get by just fine, so why run to the side of the corporates? The tax burden of mothers on maternity leave is miniscule.

I don't really have particularly strong opinions on the issue, and as a non-voting immigrant my opinion wouldn't really matter even if I did. But having moved from a country with mandated leave to the US I don't really have a big problem with it (and by the way; many of the upper-middle class people who whine the most about this could do the opposite of what I did and move to a country that has it but I don't see much of that..)

Having a baby is a choice (yesyes, except the extremely rare case of failed contraception). We made the choice and I don't want the government to push the consequences of that onto other people. It's that simple. I don't care about value, cost/benefit whatever, only freedom and fairness. These boards are largely about taking charge of your own life and being independent (the I in FIRE), relying on government force I find anathema to that. We saved money, had insurance and live frugally to cover my wife staying home with our baby. I'm proud of managing that on our own, I wouldn't want the state to take that over.

And before you go there; I do support a lot of government assistance to genuinely poor people. But that does not include time off for lawyer couples etc. Government assistance should help those in need, not remove all options for poor decision making from everyone.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 18, 2015, 07:17:37 AM

Having a baby is a choice (yesyes, except the extremely rare case of failed contraception). We made the choice and I don't want the government to push the consequences of that onto other people. It's that simple.

Yes naturally, in most cases it's a choice. And yet, to reiterate, the entire rest of the world (with the distinguished exception of Swaziland, Lesotho and Papua New Guinea) seems fine with reconciling the fact that women made a choice to have a baby with granting them a period of leave entitlement in which to adapt to the baby and give it a period of breastfeeding and bonding with the mother, that doesn't necessitate the parents digging into savings and risking the wife's job to make possible. From the viewpoint of literally everybody else, America's worker rights are primitive.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: eyePod on May 18, 2015, 07:25:19 AM
16% of my income to pay for my child per year... wow do their kids have a lot of special needs.  My kids cost no where near that much.  A couple of hundred a month for food and clothes... the rest I would have anyways... and they are teenagers... wow!!!

It's because of daycare.

We're going to be in this boat in the fall. We're having a 2nd baby but my wife is also getting a pay doubling (post-doc). This will more than cover the 2nd child in daycare but it's also not what we want long term. We'll have to keep discussing this as we move forward in life or if we have another kid.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: dplasters on May 18, 2015, 07:36:41 AM
Wow, and last I was aware we subsidize children cause you know, having an aging and shrinking population is really hard on the economy.  I guess we gotta draw the line at the idea that someone should be entitled to some paid time off for squeezing out the future tax base of this country.

But yeah, no, hormonal sterilization of the poor or fiscally unsound seems like the moral, ethical and economically sound choice.  Totally.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Scandium on May 18, 2015, 07:59:39 AM

Having a baby is a choice (yesyes, except the extremely rare case of failed contraception). We made the choice and I don't want the government to push the consequences of that onto other people. It's that simple.

Yes naturally, in most cases it's a choice. And yet, to reiterate, the entire rest of the world (with the distinguished exception of Swaziland, Lesotho and Papua New Guinea) seems fine with reconciling the fact that women made a choice to have a baby with granting them a period of leave entitlement in which to adapt to the baby and give it a period of breastfeeding and bonding with the mother, that doesn't necessitate the parents digging into savings and risking the wife's job to make possible. From the viewpoint of literally everybody else, America's worker rights are primitive.

Sure, whatever. Good thing you don't live here then, so I'm not quite sure why you care either. But reading foreign newspapers it seems having strong opinions about US domestic matters is a popular sport with people who don't live here.. If I wasn't ok with it I'd move somewhere else. That's up to the US voting public.

But to clarify your statements; the FMLA does mandate three months unpaid leave, plus vacation and sick leave. And I believe it guaranties the parent's job once they return too. In addition the states have separate requirements. Where I live the father could also use sick time to stay home for two weeks for instance. Naturally california have stronger requirements.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: golden1 on May 18, 2015, 08:03:40 AM
I am not sure why it is so hard to grasp the fact that while having a child is (sort of) a choice for many women, the result of not subsidizing family leave penalizes the innocent child more than anyone else, who has no voice in whether he/she chose to be called into existence.  Once the child exists, it is on the best interest in a modern society to make sure the child is well cared for, and that includes the early months, when the child is completely dependant and needs a lot of care.

Here is what I mean by "sort of" a choice for women and birth control:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/14/sunday-review/unplanned-pregnancies.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/14/sunday-review/unplanned-pregnancies.html?_r=1)

As you can see, birth control is a pretty inexact science, even if you able to afford all the methods.  The typical "cheaper" methods have very high failure rates in a 10 year period.  Even a woman with a tubal ligation has a 5 out of 100 chance of conceiving a child in that 10 year period.  Many of the other options that have low failure rate have a lot of complications.  Many women are intolerant to hormones, the hormonal implant (essure) has had some serious issues and if you are allergic to nickel, like many people are, including me, forget it.  IUDs are very good, but women can have issues with insertion, heavy bleeding, and hormones. 

Looking at those charts, maybe it makes more sense to have all men get vasectomies at age 13 and then if they decide to have children, they can get a reversal.  However, I think if that happened, the human race might be extinct in a few generations.  :P

Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 18, 2015, 08:06:51 AM
Sure, whatever. Good thing you don't live here then, so I'm not quite sure why you care either. But reading foreign newspapers it seems having strong opinions about US domestic matters is a popular sport with people who don't live here.. If I wasn't ok with it I'd move somewhere else. That's up to the US voting public.

I'm actually a full US (and UK) citizen and recently we've been talking more and more about returning there for the future of our kids and family. My own family is there too, and I spent a good part of my childhood in Texas.

Quote
But to clarify your statements; the FMLA does mandate three months unpaid leave, plus vacation and sick leave.

Unpaid leave is still punitive. What amount of mothers in the States do you think can actually afford unpaid leave? They're expected to have 2-3 months of income set aside just to fork out for the ability to have a child? That's absurd. 
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Scandium on May 18, 2015, 08:23:40 AM
Sure, whatever. Good thing you don't live here then, so I'm not quite sure why you care either. But reading foreign newspapers it seems having strong opinions about US domestic matters is a popular sport with people who don't live here.. If I wasn't ok with it I'd move somewhere else. That's up to the US voting public.

I'm actually a full US (and UK) citizen and recently we've been talking more and more about returning there for the future of our kids and family. My own family is there too, and I spent a good part of my childhood in Texas.

Quote
But to clarify your statements; the FMLA does mandate three months unpaid leave, plus vacation and sick leave.

Unpaid leave is still punitive. What amount of mothers in the States do you think can actually afford unpaid leave? They're expected to have 2-3 months of income set aside just to fork out for the ability to have a child? That's absurd.

Really? Why? If you can't save even up three months of cash to cover minimum living expenses (not like you'll be going out much in that time) how in the world do you expect to be able to cover the financial burden of raising a child?? Above someone mentioned that is estimated at $300K to age 18, so that's ~$1400 per month! In fact anyone who don't have even three months of emergency reserve should probably think twice about having a child at all.

also; my wife paid for Aflac insurance out of her paycheck for a couple of years which then covered a large part/most of her missing paycheck when she was on unpaid leave. There are options if one plan ahead, and with one of the biggest responsibilities in most people's lives, financial or otherwise, I think one should..
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 18, 2015, 08:34:41 AM
Really? Why?

Because 3 months of salary is a buttload of money to most people. It's the value of a car, in cash, upfront. Or, it's a chunk out of retirement. Or, in most people's cases, it's a year of rent, and they DO NOT have that kind of money to hand. And as young people, to wait until they do have it, they may be in the mid-30s before it becomes financially feasible. So your suggestion is, they just have to suck it up, rather than the state simply legislating it as they do bloody everywhere else. But nope, you gotta have your imperial system and paid maternity leave is for Europeans, right?

Quote
If you can't save even up three months of cash to cover minimum living expenses (not like you'll be going out much in that time) how in the world do you expect to be able to cover the financial burden of raising a child?? Above someone mentioned that is estimated at $300K to age 18, so that's ~$1400 per month! In fact anyone who don't have even three months of emergency reserve should probably think twice about having a child at all.

You're advocating unpaid leave as a form of liquidity crucible to test whether parents can bear to support a child?

Quote
my wife paid for Aflac insurance out of her paycheck for a couple of years which then covered a large part/most of her missing paycheck when she was on unpaid leave. There are options if one plan ahead, and with one of the biggest responsibilities in most people's lives, financial or otherwise, I think one should..

You'd be shocked to find out how unplanned our own lives were in this regard, yet we survived and our children continue to be fed and maintained. But now I find out we shouldn't have had our children to begin with so maybe a postnatal abortion is in order?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Syonyk on May 18, 2015, 08:51:34 AM
Looking at those charts, maybe it makes more sense to have all men get vasectomies at age 13 and then if they decide to have children, they can get a reversal.  However, I think if that happened, the human race might be extinct in a few generations.  :P

Eh, free high speed internet is cheaper and accomplishes the same thing.  High speed streaming porn and tube sites have neutralized the past ~5 years of teenagers to the point that a lot of them can't get it up in bed with a woman.  YBOP and other sites cover this in detail, but it's pretty bad.  :/

Unpaid leave is still punitive. What amount of mothers in the States do you think can actually afford unpaid leave? They're expected to have 2-3 months of income set aside just to fork out for the ability to have a child? That's absurd.

Yeah!  ... wait, what forum are we on again?

And, yes, I think having a few months of income set aside before having a child is reasonable.  The hospital bills aren't free either.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Scandium on May 18, 2015, 08:53:19 AM
Really? Why?

Because 3 months of salary is a buttload of money to most people. It's the value of a car, in cash, upfront. Or, it's a chunk out of retirement. Or, in most people's cases, it's a year of rent, and they DO NOT have that kind of money to hand. And as young people, to wait until they do have it, they may be in the mid-30s before it becomes financially feasible. So your suggestion is, they just have to suck it up, rather than the state simply legislating it as they do bloody everywhere else. But nope, you gotta have your imperial system and paid maternity leave is for Europeans, right?

what? Trying to ad-hominem me with the imperial system?! You're the US citizen. I'm European AND an engineer! SI FTW!

Not sure I follow you're math how three months of 1/2 a couple's income is equal to a car or a years rent ($12,000?). Median income is $50k per household, so half that for 3 months is $6,000. And that's before tax. And half the country make more than that. You're saying saving up $5,000 is an impossible task for most people? There are obviously a too-large number of poor people in the US who would struggle, but there are many more who should be able to save up 5 grand.. (IMO, but clearly not in yours)

Quote
If you can't save even up three months of cash to cover minimum living expenses (not like you'll be going out much in that time) how in the world do you expect to be able to cover the financial burden of raising a child?? Above someone mentioned that is estimated at $300K to age 18, so that's ~$1400 per month! In fact anyone who don't have even three months of emergency reserve should probably think twice about having a child at all.
You're advocating unpaid leave as a form of liquidity crucible to test whether parents can bear to support a child?
I'm not advocation that it should be, I'm saying it already is, naturally. Not like child expenses stop after the one year leave.
Oh the government provide for your leave, but now daycare is so expensive. Maybe they should cover that too? These babies sure do use a lot of diapers, this is really a burden on middle class families I think we need help. Wow, Jr. need more clothes, this is really expensive..
Quote
my wife paid for Aflac insurance out of her paycheck for a couple of years which then covered a large part/most of her missing paycheck when she was on unpaid leave. There are options if one plan ahead, and with one of the biggest responsibilities in most people's lives, financial or otherwise, I think one should..

You'd be shocked to find out how unplanned our own lives were in this regard, yet we survived and our children continue to be fed and maintained. But now I find out we shouldn't have had our children to begin with so maybe a postnatal abortion is in order?
Maybe a form of Goodwins rule should apply here. Once someone (falsely) imply their opponent mandated infanticide all rationale is clearly out the window..
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 18, 2015, 08:54:24 AM
Yeah!  ... wait, what forum are we on again?

A frugality and early retirement one, I thought. Remind me again how spending 2-3 months of income per childbirth accomplishes either of those goals.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Scandium on May 18, 2015, 08:57:44 AM
Yeah!  ... wait, what forum are we on again?

A frugality and early retirement one, I thought. Remind me again how spending 2-3 months of income per childbirth accomplishes either of those goals.

Important: FIRE achieved through your own badassity. Sure, I could also retire yesterday if the government decided Warren Buffed don't need all that money and I should get a million or two..
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 18, 2015, 09:00:58 AM

what? Trying to ad-hominem me with the imperial system?! You're the US citizen. I'm European AND an engineer! SI FTW!
:D I would never ad-hominem you.

Quote
Not sure I follow you're math how three months of 1/2 a couple's income is equal to a car or a years rent ($12,000?). Median income is $50k per household, so half that for 3 months is $6,000. And that's before tax. And half the country make more than that. You're saying saving up $5,000 is an impossible task for most people? There are obviously a too-large number of poor people in the US who would struggle, but there are many more who should be able to save up 5 grand.. (IMO, but clearly not in yours)

In many cases not; in the cases where it is a struggle, you're suggesting that they simply shouldn't be able to have children.

Quote
I'm not advocation that it should be, I'm saying it already is, naturally.
Childbirth for us was free and my wife was home. We managed it on an exceptionally frugal budget.

Quote
Not like child expenses stop after the one year leave.
Oh the government provide for your leave, but now daycare is so expensive. Maybe they should cover that too? These babies sure do use a lot of diapers, this is really a burden on middle class families I think we need help. Wow, Jr. need more clothes, this is really expensive..
I would suggest that looking at the European model of the extent of governmental contribution could be instructive. There's obviously a limit of what they should do to assist, but right now the US is far below standard. 

Quote
Maybe a form of Goodwins rule should apply here. Once someone (falsely) imply their opponent mandated infanticide all rationale is clearly out the window..
Lol I'm certainly not implying that, just being sarcastic. We had children without that kind of money; only lately we've gotten our finances into a better order and begun saving in earnestness; but to have waited till this age would have made the entire process much more difficult.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Malaysia41 on May 18, 2015, 09:31:14 AM
Interesting read. Thanks for that theGrimSqueaker.

Incidentally, ever since taking roman civ in HS, I've come to despise notions of 'the golden age'. (In your example - the golden 50s).  Every generation everywhere holds nostalgic notions of an age 50-100 yrs prior. This sterilized and gilded idea of what-once-was is held up as something we're owed, something we've been robbed of.  It's always smacked disingenuous to me.

(That said, Romans living under Caligula amd Nero maybe had a point and were justified in longing for the old days)
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: MgoSam on May 18, 2015, 09:54:48 AM
Interesting read. Thanks for that theGrimSqueaker.

Incidentally, ever since taking roman civ in HS, I've come to despise notions of 'the golden age'. (In your example - the golden 50s).  Every generation everywhere holds nostalgic notions of an age 50-100 yrs prior. This sterilized and gilded idea of what-once-was is held up as something we're owed, something we've been robbed of.  It's always smacked disingenuous to me.

(That said, Romans living under Caligula amd Nero maybe had a point and were justified in longing for the old days)

I recommend seeing the movie "Midnight in Paris."
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GetItRight on May 18, 2015, 10:36:00 AM
But to clarify your statements; the FMLA does mandate three months unpaid leave, plus vacation and sick leave.

Unpaid leave is still punitive. What amount of mothers in the States do you think can actually afford unpaid leave? They're expected to have 2-3 months of income set aside just to fork out for the ability to have a child? That's absurd.

What makes you feel entitled to 3 months of free money? Having a child is a choice, part of that choice is knowing that for the first part of the childs life he/she will be heavily dependent on the mother. You choose to have a child knowing you will not be able to work in the same capacity for some time. What your arrangement with your employer is, be it termination, unpaid/paid leave and length of leave, is between you and your employer. How you address any change of income during that period is between you and your partner. Everything is negotiable and you control your choices and the the resultant outcome.
Title: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 18, 2015, 10:57:34 AM
Quote
But to clarify your statements; the FMLA does mandate three months unpaid leave, plus vacation and sick leave.

Unpaid leave is still punitive. What amount of mothers in the States do you think can actually afford unpaid leave? They're expected to have 2-3 months of income set aside just to fork out for the ability to have a child? That's absurd.

What makes you feel entitled to 3 months of free money?

I'm done with having kids, this has nothing to do with me. But just generally it's considered in the overwhelming majority of countries to be a part of the social contract and a human, specifically female, right. Here in a 3rd world country women get 16 weeks leave. You're the black swans here, not me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GetItRight on May 18, 2015, 11:10:59 AM
I'm done with having kids, this has nothing to do with me. But just generally it's considered in the overwhelming majority of countries to be a part of the social contract and a human, specifically female, right. Here in a 3rd world country women get 16 weeks leave. You're the black swans here, not me.

The "overwhelming majority" would like others to rain free money on them. It is entirely irrelevant to any sort of discussion on what should be or what it ethical. Blind conformity to what others, be it an alleged majority or a minority, does not tend to lead to positive outcomes in my experience. Your ad hominem certainly does not make for a well thought out discussion point.

Maybe we can narrow down your thoughts on this. First, it's irrelevant whether this money is going to you personally, or any other person. You seem to be advocating mothers being given money for over 3 months without doing anything to earn it, as a mandate rather than as a company policy or negotiated part of a compensation package. Is that correct? If so, who should pay this money? Who should receive it?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Syonyk on May 18, 2015, 11:17:16 AM
Yeah!  ... wait, what forum are we on again?

A frugality and early retirement one, I thought. Remind me again how spending 2-3 months of income per childbirth accomplishes either of those goals.

I'll let you know once we've spent anywhere near that on our kid. She's been quite cheap so far...
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Bob W on May 18, 2015, 11:28:19 AM
Chiming in on birth control as mentioned previously in thread.

Don't get your hopes up   --- I ran a family planning clinic for 3 or 4 years.   Our local Doc told me 40% of his pregnant mommas were our clients and I believed him.   

I argued constantly with our nurse practitioner and encouraged her to only prescribe the pill plus condoms.    She would blame the mother when they turned up pregnant.   

Statistically even if you can follow the incredible rigorous regime for taking the pill exactly at the same time everyday and avoiding antacids,  antibiotics and many other medications and foods the companies themselves suggest only a 99% effectiveness rate.   Essentially they say that just 1 out of every 100 acts of intercourse results in pregnancies.  So for a young person it is pretty much a given they will become pregnant on the pill.   

 
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Kris on May 18, 2015, 11:32:33 AM
Chiming in on birth control as mentioned previously in thread.

Don't get your hopes up   --- I ran a family planning clinic for 3 or 4 years.   Our local Doc told me 40% of his pregnant mommas were our clients and I believed him.   

I argued constantly with our nurse practitioner and encouraged her to only prescribe the pill plus condoms.    She would blame the mother when they turned up pregnant.   

Statistically even if you can follow the incredible rigorous regime for taking the pill exactly at the same time everyday and avoiding antacids,  antibiotics and many other medications and foods the companies themselves suggest only a 99% effectiveness rate.   Essentially they say that just 1 out of every 100 acts of intercourse results in pregnancies.  So for a young person it is pretty much a given they will become pregnant on the pill.   

 

What?  No, that's not what that means.  It means that every time you have sex, you have a 1% chance of getting pregnant.  That's not the same as 1 our of every 100 results in a pregnancy. 
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GuitarStv on May 18, 2015, 11:36:07 AM
To the best of my knowledge . . . Oral sex is pretty safe regarding pregnancy.  Much lower pregnancy rates than penile-vaginal + any sort of contraceptive.  I've always wondered why this isn't really pushed as an alternative.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Scandium on May 18, 2015, 11:40:29 AM
To the best of my knowledge . . . Oral sex is pretty safe regarding pregnancy.  Much lower pregnancy rates than penile-vaginal + any sort of contraceptive.  I've always wondered why this isn't really pushed as an alternative.
Gay sex too. I think the government should push teenagers to at least try it.. Especially in rural areas in the south with the highest teen pregnancy rates.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: CoreyTheMan on May 18, 2015, 11:55:15 AM
I am super impressed and entertained by the conversation that took place between Ron Swanson and Scandium!! Both are making good points and i am thinking that a good solution lies somewhere in the middle between the two view points.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 18, 2015, 11:59:37 AM
Yeah!  ... wait, what forum are we on again?

A frugality and early retirement one, I thought. Remind me again how spending 2-3 months of income per childbirth accomplishes either of those goals.

I'll let you know once we've spent anywhere near that on our kid. She's been quite cheap so far...

Good for you; it sounds like she's healthy with no major issues, and it sounds like nobody was injured or picked up an infection during the birth. That's not the norm; according to some reading I've done the rate of "complications" in American births is greater than 50%, although not all complications are life threatening or expensive. So a complicated birth of some kind is actually the norm and the C-section rate is sitting at around 30%. It also sounds as though your particular health care provider didn't push a lot of extra services on you or bill you for products or services not received. That's not the norm in the USA either.

Medical care providers aren't exactly forthcoming about cost estimates, nor are they disposed to honor the estimates they give. It's not unusual for extra services to be loaded up, for over-the-counter medicine to be marked up by a factor of 10 or more, or for patients to be billed for care or products they don't actually receive. Budgeting for a birth is extremely difficult when nobody will be honest about what they're going to charge you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/health/american-way-of-birth-costliest-in-the-world.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That "2-3 months of income per birth" figure sounds like it might be an average of some sort. I wonder whether it's the mean, or the mode. It might be worthwhile to find out, because if there are a handful of super-expensive cases (extreme preemie or severe preeclampsia, for example), it might be mathematically practical to plan for the norm but purchase insurance for the extreme situations.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 18, 2015, 12:00:43 PM

The "overwhelming majority" would like others to rain free money on them.

Yeah and all those sick workers who expect time off work are shirkers, and holiday takers are sponges. And weekends are a proletariat conspiracy to undermine the great capitalist engine.

Quote
It is entirely irrelevant to any sort of discussion on what should be or what it ethical. Blind conformity to what others, be it an alleged majority or a minority, does not tend to lead to positive outcomes in my experience.

Maybe so, but I remind you that we are talking about the rest of the world versus the USA. It's quite germane I think, and it behooves you to consider whether you're sitting on the right side of the ethicality divide when your only company is sub south African states and a minor island country.
Quote
Maybe we can narrow down your thoughts on this. First, it's irrelevant whether this money is going to you personally, or any other person. You seem to be advocating mothers being given money for over 3 months without doing anything to earn it, as a mandate rather than as a company policy or negotiated part of a compensation package. Is that correct? If so, who should pay this money? Who should receive it?

I'm advocating that maternity leave be recategorised as a form of paid leave of absence. The idea that it's unpaid is basically pro corporate and anti mother, especially lower class mothers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 18, 2015, 12:07:43 PM
Chiming in on birth control as mentioned previously in thread.

Don't get your hopes up   --- I ran a family planning clinic for 3 or 4 years.   Our local Doc told me 40% of his pregnant mommas were our clients and I believed him.   

I argued constantly with our nurse practitioner and encouraged her to only prescribe the pill plus condoms.    She would blame the mother when they turned up pregnant.   

Statistically even if you can follow the incredible rigorous regime for taking the pill exactly at the same time everyday and avoiding antacids,  antibiotics and many other medications and foods the companies themselves suggest only a 99% effectiveness rate.   Essentially they say that just 1 out of every 100 acts of intercourse results in pregnancies.  So for a young person it is pretty much a given they will become pregnant on the pill.   

 

What?  No, that's not what that means.  It means that every time you have sex, you have a 1% chance of getting pregnant.  That's not the same as 1 our of every 100 results in a pregnancy.

It depends on how often they hit it.

For a 1% failure rate resulting in pregnancy and a sample size of 100 boinkings, the expected value E would indeed be 1 pregnancy. Early in a committed relationship where two young, healthy people are going at it like a couple of bonobos due to the honeymoon effect, that sounds like less than a year's worth of mattress dancing.

But the statistic does include some assumptions about correct use of the technology. It seems to me that people who have more practice will be make fewer mistakes, whereas people with less practice or with limited access to the technology will be more likely to make mistakes or have failures.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: mamagoose on May 18, 2015, 12:13:52 PM
No!  There's enough competition from foreigners as it is, now you want to flood the market with women?  As an overpaid white male worker this thought is terrifying to me.  Also, something about too many taxes and so forth.

No need to be sexist about it.  There's nothing stopping a highly successful woman from convincing her male companion to be a stay at home.  The fact is there are too many jobs with too low wages.  If there were less jobs with higher wages, everyone would be happier.  The only thing I can't figure out is a sexually neutral way to distribute jobs so you don't end up with two assertively mated high achievers taking two jobs leaving a couple of slightly less competitive people with no jobs.

I think we need to make having a stay at home spouse the new status symbol instead of a fancy car or a fancy watch.

^This IS a status symbol where I live. Or the other status symbol is the mom who chooses to return to work and can afford a full-time nanny in her home.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: KCM5 on May 18, 2015, 12:59:52 PM
Chiming in on birth control as mentioned previously in thread.

Don't get your hopes up   --- I ran a family planning clinic for 3 or 4 years.   Our local Doc told me 40% of his pregnant mommas were our clients and I believed him.   

I argued constantly with our nurse practitioner and encouraged her to only prescribe the pill plus condoms.    She would blame the mother when they turned up pregnant.   

Statistically even if you can follow the incredible rigorous regime for taking the pill exactly at the same time everyday and avoiding antacids,  antibiotics and many other medications and foods the companies themselves suggest only a 99% effectiveness rate.   Essentially they say that just 1 out of every 100 acts of intercourse results in pregnancies.  So for a young person it is pretty much a given they will become pregnant on the pill.   

 

What?  No, that's not what that means.  It means that every time you have sex, you have a 1% chance of getting pregnant.  That's not the same as 1 our of every 100 results in a pregnancy.

It depends on how often they hit it.

For a 1% failure rate resulting in pregnancy and a sample size of 100 boinkings, the expected value E would indeed be 1 pregnancy. Early in a committed relationship where two young, healthy people are going at it like a couple of bonobos due to the honeymoon effect, that sounds like less than a year's worth of mattress dancing.

But the statistic does include some assumptions about correct use of the technology. It seems to me that people who have more practice will be make fewer mistakes, whereas people with less practice or with limited access to the technology will be more likely to make mistakes or have failures.

Those pregnancy failure rates are annual. So with a 99% success rate, of 100 average active women using it perfectly, one would get pregnant annually.

Good point about the failure rates - most charts have a perfect use rate and an average use rate. And those that are using it averagely are probably less likely to be able to handle having a child.

Also, I'd like to point out that only 50% of american workers are covered by FMLA and receive any guaranteed unpaid leave. Workers not covered by FMLA may or may not be covered by state law to allow maternity leave. If you're not covered by FMLA, a state law, or a company policy/reasonable manager, your only option for maternity leave is to be fired and hope you find another job when you're ready to go back to work. 
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GetItRight on May 18, 2015, 01:01:42 PM
Quote
Maybe we can narrow down your thoughts on this. First, it's irrelevant whether this money is going to you personally, or any other person. You seem to be advocating mothers being given money for over 3 months without doing anything to earn it, as a mandate rather than as a company policy or negotiated part of a compensation package. Is that correct? If so, who should pay this money? Who should receive it?

I'm advocating that maternity leave be recategorised as a form of paid leave of absence. The idea that it's unpaid is basically pro corporate and anti mother, especially lower class mothers.

How do you propose to sell employers on a long term paid absence? Did you ever try to negotiate that with any of your employers? What makes you think an employer would want to pay someone for a long term vacation presumably well beyond their more typical number or range of vacation or other PTO? If an employer did offer this do you suppose they may balance the expected expense with a lower salary to balance the overall compensation package? How would that be any more beneficial than just saving for the expected expenses and lower income when choosing to have a child? Why do you seem opposed to parents saving for this reduced income, or ensuring one partner has sufficient income to cover the total household expenses?

I do not understand how my stance of extended paid leave being anything other than a point of negotiation between employer and employee, or how to cover the expenses of a child being anything other than the business of the parents, is anti mother. You haven't made any compelling arguments. What I have said is neither pro corporate or pro mother, but rather it is entirely neutral. If what you propose (3+ months of paid leave?) is mutually beneficial then it will eventually become the norm instead of the exception, barring outside influence.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: vivophoenix on May 18, 2015, 01:08:39 PM
Quote
Maybe we can narrow down your thoughts on this. First, it's irrelevant whether this money is going to you personally, or any other person. You seem to be advocating mothers being given money for over 3 months without doing anything to earn it, as a mandate rather than as a company policy or negotiated part of a compensation package. Is that correct? If so, who should pay this money? Who should receive it?

I'm advocating that maternity leave be recategorised as a form of paid leave of absence. The idea that it's unpaid is basically pro corporate and anti mother, especially lower class mothers.

How do you propose to sell employers on a long term paid absence? Did you ever try to negotiate that with any of your employers? What makes you think an employer would want to pay someone for a long term vacation presumably well beyond their more typical number or range of vacation or other PTO? If an employer did offer this do you suppose they may balance the expected expense with a lower salary to balance the overall compensation package? How would that be any more beneficial than just saving for the expected expenses and lower income when choosing to have a child? Why do you seem opposed to parents saving for this reduced income, or ensuring one partner has sufficient income to cover the total household expenses?

I do not understand how my stance of extended paid leave being anything other than a point of negotiation between employer and employee, or how to cover the expenses of a child being anything other than the business of the parents, is anti mother. You haven't made any compelling arguments. What I have said is neither pro corporate or pro mother, but rather it is entirely neutral. If what you propose (3+ months of paid leave?) is mutually beneficial then it will eventually become the norm instead of the exception, barring outside influence.

are we still arguing about this?

these same arguments were used against, sick leave, vacation, weekends, an eight hour workday, unemployment insurance, pensions....pretty much anything that doesnt allow corporations to work people into the ground.

sometimes everything isnt about the bottom line. it isnt even about what is ' fair'  you expect society to have children. turns out the only one capable of doing that in a society are women.

why do you penalize women for doing what is best for society?

not to mention aside from discouraging giving birth, it also discourages woman from advancing in the work place.

its anti mother because it forces people, mainly the female people, to jump through extra hoops for doing things that are completely natural.

although you make think not getting paid for 3-6 months up to her. men dont have the same onus put on them of deciding whether to work or have a family.

to be honest i think there should be paternity leave as well, just not as long.. cause lets be real why should only the mother have this opportunity to bond and help out around the house.

having kids is natural and working is natural, why should you have to choose one over the other?

sure you could make the argument that its between an employer and employee, cause we all know how well that's worked in the past.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: mizzourah2006 on May 18, 2015, 01:17:35 PM

Having a baby is a choice (yesyes, except the extremely rare case of failed contraception). We made the choice and I don't want the government to push the consequences of that onto other people. It's that simple.

Yes naturally, in most cases it's a choice. And yet, to reiterate, the entire rest of the world (with the distinguished exception of Swaziland, Lesotho and Papua New Guinea) seems fine with reconciling the fact that women made a choice to have a baby with granting them a period of leave entitlement in which to adapt to the baby and give it a period of breastfeeding and bonding with the mother, that doesn't necessitate the parents digging into savings and risking the wife's job to make possible. From the viewpoint of literally everybody else, America's worker rights are primitive.

I guess I'm kind of confused. Are you referring to paid leave entitlement or just leave entitlement? According to FMLA all employees of companies with 50 or more employees are entitled to 12 weeks off for family or medical related issues, which includes having children. In your post you just mention leave entitlement and say it is not a policy in the US and thus why we are primitive.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: KCM5 on May 18, 2015, 01:21:59 PM

Having a baby is a choice (yesyes, except the extremely rare case of failed contraception). We made the choice and I don't want the government to push the consequences of that onto other people. It's that simple.

Yes naturally, in most cases it's a choice. And yet, to reiterate, the entire rest of the world (with the distinguished exception of Swaziland, Lesotho and Papua New Guinea) seems fine with reconciling the fact that women made a choice to have a baby with granting them a period of leave entitlement in which to adapt to the baby and give it a period of breastfeeding and bonding with the mother, that doesn't necessitate the parents digging into savings and risking the wife's job to make possible. From the viewpoint of literally everybody else, America's worker rights are primitive.

I guess I'm kind of confused. Are you referring to paid leave entitlement or just leave entitlement? According to FMLA all employees of companies with 50 or more employees are entitled to 12 weeks off for family or medical related issues, which includes having children. In your post you just mention leave entitlement and say it is not a policy in the US and thus why we are primitive.


Well, FMLA doesn't cover all Americans (somewhere around 50%, I believe) so it is accurate to say that we don't have any leave entitlement, paid or unpaid.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: mizzourah2006 on May 18, 2015, 01:30:48 PM

Well, FMLA doesn't cover all Americans (somewhere around 50%, I believe) so it is accurate to say that we don't have any leave entitlement, paid or unpaid.

Because the other 50% are small employers. Is it really fair to expect a company with 10 employees to give one of them 12 weeks off? Who covers her work for the 12 weeks? It may not be ideal, but you really can't expect a company with so few employees to just stop doing that part of the work while someone has a child.


Also, all this talk about paid leave for women who have children being provided by the govt. Why just women? I think if we are going to provide paid leave it should be for any parent that feels it is in the best interest of their child. Providing paid leave for just women is so 1950s and primitive. Equal rights and all.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Scandium on May 18, 2015, 01:39:34 PM

why do you penalize women for doing what is best for society?

This is the major philosophical difference. I do not support the premise that the state should actively push what's "best for society". That is a recipe for oppression, although with good intentions. I've seen this in Scandinavia, where every limitation of liberties (for things that affect nobody but the individual) are justified, and supported by the majority, for the "social good". If this is the state's goal it can justify anything from taking candy from your hand, forced exercise, or saving for retirement for you (which of course occurs at a mandated 68.42 years old..). So except with a few exceptions (state parks come to mind) I do not support any "social good" excuse for meddling in the lives of individuals.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: KCM5 on May 18, 2015, 01:41:14 PM

Well, FMLA doesn't cover all Americans (somewhere around 50%, I believe) so it is accurate to say that we don't have any leave entitlement, paid or unpaid.

Because the other 50% are small employers. Is it really fair to expect a company with 10 employees to give one of them 12 weeks off? Who covers her work for the 12 weeks? It may not be ideal, but you really can't expect a company with so few employees to just stop doing that part of the work while someone has a child.


Also, all this talk about paid leave for women who have children being provided by the govt. Why just women? I think if we are going to provide paid leave it should be for any parent that feels it is in the best interest of their child. Providing paid leave for just women is so 1950s and primitive. Equal rights and all.

Yes, a small employer should be able to cover for a 12 week leave of absence. That's just good business practice. Regarding where the money comes from, it is all country dependent, but the pay could be covered in something similar to unemployment insurance, which is paid in by both employer and employee or just employer, depending. Then the person taking leave draws from that fund. So an employer would hire a temp if they need to and their personnel expenses would not increase significantly because they wouldn't be paying for the employee on leave as that would come out of the fund.

The argument generally isn't for just women, but paid parental leave to bond with the baby and some amount of time just for the parent that birthed the baby to recover from the physical act of childbirth.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: RFAAOATB on May 18, 2015, 01:43:48 PM
sometimes everything isnt about the bottom line. it isnt even about what is ' fair'  you expect society to have children. turns out the only one capable of doing that in a society are women.

why do you penalize women for doing what is best for society?

not to mention aside from discouraging giving birth, it also discourages woman from advancing in the work place.

Would wealth inequality be lessened and society be better if we encourage the rich to have more children and the poor to have less children?  Not providing paid parental leave could be one way to nudge this in the right direction.

I see it as a rich couple having ten children and each inheriting 1/10th of a fortune while a poor couple has one child in their mid 30s when they can afford it that has 2 parents and 4 grandparents sending whatever money they can down to lift this chosen child out of poverty.  Right now there are many more poor people than rich people, but if this pattern holds eventually there will be lessened inequality.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: mizzourah2006 on May 18, 2015, 01:53:59 PM

Well, FMLA doesn't cover all Americans (somewhere around 50%, I believe) so it is accurate to say that we don't have any leave entitlement, paid or unpaid.

Because the other 50% are small employers. Is it really fair to expect a company with 10 employees to give one of them 12 weeks off? Who covers her work for the 12 weeks? It may not be ideal, but you really can't expect a company with so few employees to just stop doing that part of the work while someone has a child.


Also, all this talk about paid leave for women who have children being provided by the govt. Why just women? I think if we are going to provide paid leave it should be for any parent that feels it is in the best interest of their child. Providing paid leave for just women is so 1950s and primitive. Equal rights and all.

Yes, a small employer should be able to cover for a 12 week leave of absence. That's just good business practice. Regarding where the money comes from, it is all country dependent, but the pay could be covered in something similar to unemployment insurance, which is paid in by both employer and employee or just employer, depending. Then the person taking leave draws from that fund. So an employer would hire a temp if they need to and their personnel expenses would not increase significantly because they wouldn't be paying for the employee on leave as that would come out of the fund.

The argument generally isn't for just women, but paid parental leave to bond with the baby and some amount of time just for the parent that birthed the baby to recover from the physical act of childbirth.

Have you ever worked for a small employer? I worked for a company that had 4 other employees, one of which was the CEO. One person did all the IT work, one person was a consultant, and the other person was in sales (I was the consulting associate in a part-time role while in grad school). If the IT person that did all of the coding to ensure that our product could be used by our clients went out on maternity leave for 12 weeks who could take over her work? Surely not me, I knew next to nothing about SQL at the time. There was no other person that worked there that was even remotely qualified to take over that work. Should the CEO of this tiny company hire 2 people for each role and lose money, just in case someone may be out for 12 weeks for an issue? Is that good business practice?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: KCM5 on May 18, 2015, 01:57:50 PM
Have you ever worked for a small employer? I worked for a company that had 4 other employees, one of which was the CEO. One person did all the IT work, one person was a consultant, and the other person was in sales (I was the consulting associate in a part-time role while in grad school). If the IT person that did all of the coding to ensure that our product could be used by our clients went out on maternity leave for 12 weeks who could take over her work? Surely not me, I knew next to nothing about SQL at the time. There was no other person that worked there that was even remotely qualified to take over that work. Should the CEO of this tiny company hire 2 people for each role and lose money, just in case someone may be out for 12 weeks for an issue? Is that good business practice?

That's where the hiring a temp or contractor comes in. This isn't a novel idea, almost literally the rest of the world does it.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: MgoSam on May 18, 2015, 02:02:12 PM
Have you ever worked for a small employer? I worked for a company that had 4 other employees, one of which was the CEO. One person did all the IT work, one person was a consultant, and the other person was in sales (I was the consulting associate in a part-time role while in grad school). If the IT person that did all of the coding to ensure that our product could be used by our clients went out on maternity leave for 12 weeks who could take over her work? Surely not me, I knew next to nothing about SQL at the time. There was no other person that worked there that was even remotely qualified to take over that work. Should the CEO of this tiny company hire 2 people for each role and lose money, just in case someone may be out for 12 weeks for an issue? Is that good business practice?

That's where the hiring a temp or contractor comes in. This isn't a novel idea, almost literally the rest of the world does it.

Neither are cheap or as effective as a full-time employee, and some aren't positions where you can just bring someone in and have them working. That's where there are exceptions for small business.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: KCM5 on May 18, 2015, 02:05:54 PM
Have you ever worked for a small employer? I worked for a company that had 4 other employees, one of which was the CEO. One person did all the IT work, one person was a consultant, and the other person was in sales (I was the consulting associate in a part-time role while in grad school). If the IT person that did all of the coding to ensure that our product could be used by our clients went out on maternity leave for 12 weeks who could take over her work? Surely not me, I knew next to nothing about SQL at the time. There was no other person that worked there that was even remotely qualified to take over that work. Should the CEO of this tiny company hire 2 people for each role and lose money, just in case someone may be out for 12 weeks for an issue? Is that good business practice?

That's where the hiring a temp or contractor comes in. This isn't a novel idea, almost literally the rest of the world does it.

Neither are cheap or as effective as a full-time employee, and some aren't positions where you can just bring someone in and have them working. That's where there are exceptions for small business.

Good thing it takes 9 months to grow a baby, then.

Edited to add:

That was snarky, sorry. Anyway, the point we should be arguing is not feasibility, because it is clearly feasible to require paid or unpaid leave for new parents. It's done all over the world. Really, this is a question of values. Clearly we're on different pages (different books?) when it comes to that.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Jack on May 18, 2015, 02:29:17 PM
Have you ever worked for a small employer? I worked for a company that had 4 other employees, one of which was the CEO. One person did all the IT work, one person was a consultant, and the other person was in sales (I was the consulting associate in a part-time role while in grad school). If the IT person that did all of the coding to ensure that our product could be used by our clients went out on maternity leave for 12 weeks who could take over her work? Surely not me, I knew next to nothing about SQL at the time. There was no other person that worked there that was even remotely qualified to take over that work. Should the CEO of this tiny company hire 2 people for each role and lose money, just in case someone may be out for 12 weeks for an issue? Is that good business practice?

Having a baby isn't exactly a surprise; there's generally about 9 months warning. Shouldn't that be plenty of notice to go find a temp or contractor to hire to fill that role for 12 weeks?

(Keep in mind that any of the employees in a small company could quit with two weeks notice, or indeed get hit by a bus and leave without any notice at all. If the business can't handle the sudden loss of an employee it's screwed anyway, regardless if FMLA is the reason for that loss or not.)
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GetItRight on May 18, 2015, 02:58:03 PM
Having a baby isn't exactly a surprise; there's generally about 9 months warning. Shouldn't that be plenty of notice to go find a temp or contractor to hire to fill that role for 12 weeks?

Having a baby isn't exactly a surprise; it's a choice and comes with about 9 months warning. Shouldn't that be plenty of time to get your finances is order to fund your choice of taking 12 weeks off work?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: smilla on May 18, 2015, 04:35:11 PM
In Canada how it works is through employment insurance.  Every employee contributes 1.88% of their gross pay up to an annual max (~1000) and the employer contributes 1.4x the employee share.  This EI fund is then available for unemployment including parental leave.

I believe 12 months at 60% of regular wages is allowed per baby, so mom & dad can each take 6mos concurrently or consecutively, or 1 parent can take the full 12mos or it can be split another way.

I'm sure employers hated it at first, and maybe wages didn't go up as quickly as usual but I imagine after a year or two things went back to normal.

It isn't that big of a deal on the negative side and on the positive side, ensuring women aren't left as far behind by bearing the next gen of taxpayers, it's a pretty big deal indeed.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GuitarStv on May 18, 2015, 04:38:31 PM
To the best of my knowledge . . . Oral sex is pretty safe regarding pregnancy.  Much lower pregnancy rates than penile-vaginal + any sort of contraceptive.  I've always wondered why this isn't really pushed as an alternative.
Gay sex too. I think the government should push teenagers to at least try it.. Especially in rural areas in the south with the highest teen pregnancy rates.

I'd support this plan.  At least it's more likely to be effective than abstinence programs.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GetItRight on May 18, 2015, 04:55:47 PM
In Canada how it works is through employment insurance.  Every employee contributes 1.88% of their gross pay up to an annual max (~1000) and the employer contributes 1.4x the employee share.  This EI fund is then available for unemployment including parental leave.

I believe 12 months at 60% of regular wages is allowed per baby, so mom & dad can each take 6mos concurrently or consecutively, or 1 parent can take the full 12mos or it can be split another way.

If an individual believes she brings enough value to the company to merit this type of deal then negotiate for it. Everything is negotiable. Another option is private insurance, instead of government mandated at gunpoint "insurance". Aflac, a private unemployment/disability insurance company, offers maternity coverage. I believe it's relatively short term but if there is a demand, government does not get in the way, and not all employers offer similar insurance or compensation, then the void will be filled by insurance companies. You'd have to run the numbers but it's probably cheaper to just be financially responsible and plan with your SO to be able to afford the choice of having a child, but insurance can be an option for those who are not smart enough to live within their means.

There's nothing more expensive than something "free" from the government or enforced at gunpoint by the government. All government can do is steal from others, take a chunk off the top for itself as overhead, and give the rest to someone else... all while threatening violence of course.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: ender on May 18, 2015, 06:52:08 PM
I think it's weird that this article goes on to talk about changing work schedules and hours. The case study has nothing to do with the article. That part sounds like it belongs on an article about people getting their schedules changed last minute at Starbucks or Home Depot. Those jobs aren't really "career" jobs and people in that position aren't typically "building their career".

This part of the article I did agree with (though mathematically it's obvious the couple is not in the target audience here).

For people who are making minimum wage or these types of jobs, the inability to effectively plan financially is made even worse by shifts being cancelled or hours dropped or being sent home early.

I can guarantee if those of us on salaried pay showed up to work and at 9am our bosses sent us home saying "you're off the rest of today - unpaid" and forced you to work completely inconsistent hours each week and sometimes you'd get 20 and sometimes 39 (but you only know a few days in advance!) that there'd be a heck of a lot more people in financial problems with those jobs.

Working a job with a schedule like that is awful enough as a PT job, I can't even imagine what it'd be like for someone trying to actually take care of their financial life.

The idea of quitting because you don't get enough hours is so alien to most of us working salaried (who would often gladly give up hours) but is a huge problem with folks in these sorts of hourly jobs.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GetItRight on May 18, 2015, 09:47:23 PM
Ender, I'd quit in a heartbeat and move on to greener pastures if my employer didn't pay. I'm hourly. If my employer said to take the rest of the day off unpaid I'd be happy to have time to get other things done. These days I usually hit 40 hours sometime on Thursday and if I leave early or don't show up Friday it's usually a problem when something comes up if I'm not immediately available so even if I don't go in I'm chained to my phone and being near a computer in case I'm needed. Usually work some on the weekends too. Can't wait to FIRE, or at least be FI and be comfortable setting some boundaries.

It's as simple as learning a marketable skill that is in demand. Too short sighted or not motivated? Then deal with the low pay and short hours.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: mm1970 on May 19, 2015, 10:32:54 AM
No!  There's enough competition from foreigners as it is, now you want to flood the market with women?  As an overpaid white male worker this thought is terrifying to me.  Also, something about too many taxes and so forth.

No need to be sexist about it.  There's nothing stopping a highly successful woman from convincing her male companion to be a stay at home.  The fact is there are too many jobs with too low wages.  If there were less jobs with higher wages, everyone would be happier.  The only thing I can't figure out is a sexually neutral way to distribute jobs so you don't end up with two assertively mated high achievers taking two jobs leaving a couple of slightly less competitive people with no jobs.

I think we need to make having a stay at home spouse the new status symbol instead of a fancy car or a fancy watch.

He was making a joke, I think.

There have been a few historians who have focused on what life was like for women in the more distant past. Olwen Hufton is one who comes to mind.

Interestingly, a stay at home spouse was a status symbol in the late 1700's and afterwards. It was a big deal to be able to support a family on only one income, and to actually have a nuclear family instead of multiple generations living together in one household. Not everybody got married or even attempted to reproduce.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the members of the ruling and financial elite (male and female) really didn't work at all. You had peasants, who were mostly out in the fields or becoming servants and working in a wealthier person's home, and you had landowners who were mostly living it up. In the middle was the craft and trade class, where both men and women worked, but ironically it was generally the man who stayed in the "home", since that's where the shop was, and he was the highly qualified and experienced craftsman who was able to supervise the apprentices. The fisherman, for example, had to be out fishing, but someone else had to sell the fish. Someone had to go to the market with the goods, or work the front counter and manage the money while the master craftsman did what only he could do. That ended up being the women and girls in the household: there weren't enough pairs of hands otherwise. (Interestingly, that made household money management primarily a female sport in the skilled trade class). There were some nomadic individuals and professions, and the women did tend to stay closer to the tents and property instead of wandering around with a herd, however that's frequently because they were the ones engaged in making trade goods. That whole hunter/gatherer thing... it's impossible to be a "gatherer" if you stay inside the cave.

After the Industrial Revolution consolidated the textile and manufacturing industries into centralized factories (instead of things people did by themselves at home), the working-class norm was for both men and women to work, and for child care to be performed by elderly family members. The working class gradually replaced the peasants as farms got more mechanized and it became increasingly impractical and unhealthy to be a peasant.

The "bourgeoisie", and I mean this in the original context, not the Marxist context, was a class of people who gradually became the dominant middle class. They were small town or city people, typically small business owners or professionals. In those families, the women were sometimes co-owners of the business, or sometimes they had a side business separate from their husband's profession. If you read the novel "Madame Bovary", you'll see what the norm was like in the mid-1800's: every woman except the novel's airheaded heroine has a job. They either rent out rooms and keep boarders, or raise hens for eggs, or take in washing, or work as servants in someone else's households. Besides the extremely wealthy elite, only the most successful professionals could afford to keep an unemployed, stay-at-home spouse. Some regions of industrial countries were able to have this as an ideal to aspire to in the early 1900's, but it was very much a status symbol (and probably not much fun to actually do).

The 1950's, historically speaking, were a flash in the pan. With the only industrial economy left standing after WWII, no significant infrastructure damage, and very few personnel losses, the USA was in a unique position. Everyone needed manufactured goods in order to rebuild, and so if you were reasonably well educated, white, male, and in the right city, lucrative work was available. That's the only time in human history it's ever been possible for large numbers of people to support a stay-at-home spouse, with kids, on one income. For whatever reason, people decided that this kind of economic structure was somehow "traditional" and normal. In reality, it's the exception to the vast majority of human experience throughout recorded history.
This was a good read.  I read a book (from the library, of course) called The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz that also discussed this.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: mm1970 on May 19, 2015, 10:39:05 AM
Quote
Anyway, if there was mandated parental leave (why should it only be offered to women?) it would have to be paid with higher taxes, and the same with cheaper daycare. So in the end we'd all be no better or worse off. Taxes in the US are lower than in places with government forced parental leave, so here people can save up that extra money and take unpaid time of. Same difference. Why is that so hard?
I would say that because of the wide disparity in incomes.

As a member of a married couple, both engineers, who had our kids in our 30's and 40's, it was easy for me.
Other people, in lower paying jobs, would have a much harder time.  And no, I don't think that means that a 30-year old woman and her 36-year old husband, in low paying but established jobs, should "wait" or "not have kids".  What I've seen out there is a vast disparity between the haves and have-nots (gotten worse during my lifetime).  Higher taxes, subsidized daycare "evens the playing field", so to speak.

I watched "A Place at the Table" over the last two nights, and it brings up a lot of points and questions.  There was one mom there, a single mom, who was unemployed for a year - and thus, on public assistance/ food stamps.  She was articulate, and wanted to go to college, but could not afford it.  Eventually, she got a job, and was incredibly proud and excited.  3 months later, her shelves were bare.  Once she had a job, she was no longer eligible for SNAP or subsidized child care, and there was simply not enough money for food.

So, putting the "She shouldn't have had two children" aside - because they are here - how do you fix that?  No wonder people stay on welfare and SNAP. 
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: mm1970 on May 19, 2015, 10:49:46 AM
Quote
Maybe we can narrow down your thoughts on this. First, it's irrelevant whether this money is going to you personally, or any other person. You seem to be advocating mothers being given money for over 3 months without doing anything to earn it, as a mandate rather than as a company policy or negotiated part of a compensation package. Is that correct? If so, who should pay this money? Who should receive it?

I'm advocating that maternity leave be recategorised as a form of paid leave of absence. The idea that it's unpaid is basically pro corporate and anti mother, especially lower class mothers.

How do you propose to sell employers on a long term paid absence? Did you ever try to negotiate that with any of your employers? What makes you think an employer would want to pay someone for a long term vacation presumably well beyond their more typical number or range of vacation or other PTO? If an employer did offer this do you suppose they may balance the expected expense with a lower salary to balance the overall compensation package? How would that be any more beneficial than just saving for the expected expenses and lower income when choosing to have a child? Why do you seem opposed to parents saving for this reduced income, or ensuring one partner has sufficient income to cover the total household expenses?

I do not understand how my stance of extended paid leave being anything other than a point of negotiation between employer and employee, or how to cover the expenses of a child being anything other than the business of the parents, is anti mother. You haven't made any compelling arguments. What I have said is neither pro corporate or pro mother, but rather it is entirely neutral. If what you propose (3+ months of paid leave?) is mutually beneficial then it will eventually become the norm instead of the exception, barring outside influence.
I know you aren't asking me, but I'd simply go with the California method of increased taxes.  They increased our taxes in 2005 (unemployment taxes) to cover Paid Family Leave (which is when the leave was extended to fathers).  It also covers Pregnancy Disability Leave.

No need to "sell" employers - though you can see where certain employers with highly trained employees already provide paid leave.  My old company, not HQ'd in CA, provided maternity leave (I was in CA, so I did not use it), and my newer company actually paid me the difference between pregnancy disability and my salary.  In return they get a dedicated employee (who is trained, that they do not have to replace).  I could get a crap ton more money somewhere else, but the flexibility provided here, and the maternity benefit (which was provided ONLY to me - they changed the policy the following year - and there has only ever been one other woman to have a baby here anyway) - is worth it to me to stay.

Note that for 3 straight months before I had my second child, my boss had an illness and two surgeries, and two of my coworkers had business trips and extended vacations.  The result was that I did my job + another person's job for 3 straight months (at least they weren't all gone at the same time).  In comparison?  My 11 weeks off was nothing.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: mm1970 on May 19, 2015, 10:59:17 AM
Ender, I'd quit in a heartbeat and move on to greener pastures if my employer didn't pay. I'm hourly. If my employer said to take the rest of the day off unpaid I'd be happy to have time to get other things done. These days I usually hit 40 hours sometime on Thursday and if I leave early or don't show up Friday it's usually a problem when something comes up if I'm not immediately available so even if I don't go in I'm chained to my phone and being near a computer in case I'm needed. Usually work some on the weekends too. Can't wait to FIRE, or at least be FI and be comfortable setting some boundaries.

It's as simple as learning a marketable skill that is in demand. Too short sighted or not motivated? Then deal with the low pay and short hours.
It's actually not that simple.  Not everyone has the skills, the brain power, or the time.  There aren't an endless supply of jobs for people.

For example, I'm not an IT person, or a programmer.  I'm pretty smart, an engineer, but if the *only* job out there that paid well and required skills was one of those?  I'd be screwed.

I personally think that being willing to work hard is important.  And I don't really care if it's an "unskilled" job - there is nothing shameful about working hard at an unskilled job, because there are a lot of those jobs out there.

It's not even unmotivated or short sighted.  What if you are  motivated, but don't have the time because you have a job and 2 kids?  (Or don't have the money to pay for training/ classes).  That's hardly unmotivated or short sighted.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 19, 2015, 12:13:38 PM
So, putting the "She shouldn't have had two children" aside - because they are here - how do you fix that?  No wonder people stay on welfare and SNAP.

Indeed. It's also because our economy and society is set up is based on an economic situation that no longer exists.

When times are good, zoning laws, building codes, and vehicle safety codes adapt to reflect a higher level of affluence and resource ability. Minimum dwelling sizes, the requirement that all apartments have a kitchen, and zoning laws that restrict the use of a home as a boarding-house or hostel come to mind. So do minimum car safety standards. When times are good, luxuries become decencies, and decencies become necessities.

Unfortunately, when times get bad, the law doesn't relax to accommodate economic reality. It becomes illegal to offer less than a specific (inflated) standard, so people who want to consume less frequently can't.

There are no bunkhouses anymore, except in special cases like military barracks and youth hostels. Good luck renting space in a hostel long-term, or getting space in a barracks if you're not military. It's no longer legal for landlords to offer shared-room accommodations, except in special cases like dorm housing for university students. Good luck getting that, if you're not a student at the university. The rooming houses for single men or women? The boarding houses or mini-apartments with shared bathrooms, for single mothers with children? Gone... and illegal to start up due to newer, more upscale zoning and HOAs. Because NIMBY.

As matters stand, with the US economy that exists and the low-income housing options that are available within the law, it takes the time and resources of about five average people to provide a safe, stable home for children in a working-class or middle-class neighborhood. This might be through income, or labor, or part time emergency child care, or some combination of the above.

An extremely productive individual who is five times more productive than average can pull off raising kids solo without relying on Uncle Sam, because he or she has extra skills and earns more money. The average person simply can't earn enough while still providing child care to have much of a cash cushion, and it's humanly impossible to be in two places at once. So when a kid gets sick or the adult's job goes away, the entire family goes off the rails and has to rely on friends, family, or government for help.

Economic opportunity isn't universal enough for the nuclear family model or the single-income family model to be viable on a grand scale in the USA anymore.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GetItRight on May 19, 2015, 12:39:39 PM
I know you aren't asking me, but I'd simply go with the California method of increased taxes.  They increased our taxes in 2005 (unemployment taxes) to cover Paid Family Leave (which is when the leave was extended to fathers).  It also covers Pregnancy Disability Leave.

That would be fine if individuals were permitted to opt out of that tax, which of course would mean they could never collect from that program for any of the things it pays for or subsidizes.

No need to "sell" employers - though you can see where certain employers with highly trained employees already provide paid leave.  My old company, not HQ'd in CA, provided maternity leave (I was in CA, so I did not use it), and my newer company actually paid me the difference between pregnancy disability and my salary.  In return they get a dedicated employee (who is trained, that they do not have to replace).  I could get a crap ton more money somewhere else, but the flexibility provided here, and the maternity benefit (which was provided ONLY to me - they changed the policy the following year - and there has only ever been one other woman to have a baby here anyway) - is worth it to me to stay.

If you provide value to the company they will offer you something, give what you request, or at least make something work. For most employees, the company I work for gives laptops to women when they are about to go out on maternity leave and they can work in a part time or more flexible capacity if their type of work allows it or extend their leave a bit, ease the transition back to the office, etc. Some of these women would be difficult to train replacements, others have been fairly generic interchangeable office drones. Depends on length of employment, perceived value, manager, etc. but this company has tended to try to make things work both for the company and the individual at least in terms of leave of absence. For good employees they go beyond the minimum defined in the policy, and it does tend to make people feel more invested in and a part of the company and less likely to jump ship for a slightly higher pay elsewhere.

The problem is not all companies are like that, and not all employees are particularly valuable. If there is a far greater supply of workers who can do a given job well than there are jobs, then there usually won't be that level of flexibility.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Syonyk on May 19, 2015, 12:59:30 PM
I know you aren't asking me, but I'd simply go with the California method of increased taxes.

The taxes that are causing businesses and individuals to flee California for less hostile places?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GetItRight on May 19, 2015, 01:17:15 PM
It's actually not that simple.  Not everyone has the skills, the brain power, or the time.  There aren't an endless supply of jobs for people.

For example, I'm not an IT person, or a programmer.  I'm pretty smart, an engineer, but if the *only* job out there that paid well and required skills was one of those?  I'd be screwed.

I personally think that being willing to work hard is important.  And I don't really care if it's an "unskilled" job - there is nothing shameful about working hard at an unskilled job, because there are a lot of those jobs out there.

Supply and demand... It's as simple as making the decision to pursue a career and skillset that is in demand. If you are one of a million unemployed retail cashiers in a given area... You're looking at bottom dollar if you can find a job at all, because you're easily replaceable and it's a fairly short and cheap training period to bring a cashier up to speed from zero knowledge or skill than it is a Systems Architect or Structural Engineer. True fate is more or less sealed by early adulthood so far as IQ, so depending on biological and environmental factors becoming a structural engineer may not be realistic, but there are still plenty of skilled jobs either blue or white collar that one with a lower IQ can learn.

If my chosen field and area of expertise became saturated with unemployed comparable workers to the point where I could not get hired, I have several other skills to fall back on that are in entirely different areas which would be unaffected by such an excess supply of tech workers. I also have somewhat specialty skills in those areas I could market (and have, at times) independent of working for a company. One thing I've learned is to always have something to fall back to. The more cards you have to play the better you can weather tough times.

It's not even unmotivated or short sighted.  What if you are  motivated, but don't have the time because you have a job and 2 kids?  (Or don't have the money to pay for training/ classes).  That's hardly unmotivated or short sighted.

Having two kids without a reliable income stream or savings is absolutely short sighted. I fail to see how between two people with two kids, at least one parent can't find the time to learn a marketable skill and earn a living. Training and classes can be has for somewhere between cheap and free for most things (internet, DIY), at least to get to an entry level point.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: SK Joyous on May 19, 2015, 01:33:35 PM
I am so happy to be a Canadian right now, where we understand that growing economies require growing populations and, unless we want it ALL to need to be met through immigration then people living in the country need to have kids - AND we understand that if people work and pay into the employment insurance system that they should be able to use it when they go on maternity/parental leave - AND we understand that if everyone waited to be 'financially stable' enough to have a year's income saved up to have kids we would have a lot of babies born to older couples, with the resulting increased possibility of health issues - AND we understand that not all people are perfect and can make errors in birth control (or even just less than idea choices) and end up pregnant and we don't automatically shame them and punish their children by not allowing them employment leave with dignity and job security - AND we understand that 'poors' (I can't believe someone actually uses that term, that's disgusting) children can be just as smart, capable, productive, citizens as the 'rich', and live in a country with universal quality education and health care to give them this opportunity.  I'm sure there are other countries that understand all of these things too, but judging solely from the Americans on this thread, the U.S. is definitely not one of them.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Mr. Green on May 19, 2015, 02:14:29 PM
Quote
How can people with college degree's fail to understand basic personal finance? A facepunch goes out to anyone paying $2500/month for a mortgage who claims they live in poverty.
Because they were never taught it. Did you learn personal finance in high school? None of the ones around me taught it. The farthest public school went was teaching me how to balance a checkbook in 5th grade. Did your college teach you personal finance? Mine didn't and I even received a business minor. Sure some of the business concepts could be extrapolated into personal finance lessons if the person gets it but most don't. At the same time advertisers everywhere are ingraining children with the exact opposite mentality. Swipe a piece of plastic, pay later. Get a 30 year mortgage you can't afford; everyone is doing it.

How is it that anyone who becomes an adult in that kind of environment does understand basic personal finance?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: RFAAOATB on May 19, 2015, 03:45:11 PM
Why do we need a growing population?  Why do we need a growing economy?
With current ecological fears such as climate change, California water shortages, crop monoculture, high intensity meat farming, overfishing, peak oil, and pollution, it seems we have too many people putting too much stress on the planet.  Automation, technological advances in agriculture, the decrease in the manufacturing sector, and struggles with unemployment and low wages show there are more available workers than we need.

With a decreasing population with much of the decrease on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, there will be more steak and crab legs per capita and less in the aggregate leaving less stress on the environment.  There will be a higher percentage of people living in single family homes than in public housing.  There will be less unemployment and more meaningful employment.

Why can't we just flat out say children are a significant expense and should be encouraged for the rich and not encouraged for the poor?  Otherwise, what is the end goal of striving for economic growth beyond the level of sustainability?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Paul der Krake on May 19, 2015, 05:00:51 PM
Chiming in on birth control as mentioned previously in thread.

Don't get your hopes up   --- I ran a family planning clinic for 3 or 4 years.   Our local Doc told me 40% of his pregnant mommas were our clients and I believed him.   

I argued constantly with our nurse practitioner and encouraged her to only prescribe the pill plus condoms.    She would blame the mother when they turned up pregnant.   

Statistically even if you can follow the incredible rigorous regime for taking the pill exactly at the same time everyday and avoiding antacids,  antibiotics and many other medications and foods the companies themselves suggest only a 99% effectiveness rate.   Essentially they say that just 1 out of every 100 acts of intercourse results in pregnancies.  So for a young person it is pretty much a given they will become pregnant on the pill.   

 
Isn't that a prime example of selection bias? I assume people visiting planning clinics are not exactly the kind to have their shit together, and less likely to take the pill on a strict regimen.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GuitarStv on May 19, 2015, 05:06:59 PM
Why do we need a growing population?  Why do we need a growing economy?
With current ecological fears such as climate change, California water shortages, crop monoculture, high intensity meat farming, overfishing, peak oil, and pollution, it seems we have too many people putting too much stress on the planet.  Automation, technological advances in agriculture, the decrease in the manufacturing sector, and struggles with unemployment and low wages show there are more available workers than we need.

With a decreasing population with much of the decrease on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, there will be more steak and crab legs per capita and less in the aggregate leaving less stress on the environment.  There will be a higher percentage of people living in single family homes than in public housing.  There will be less unemployment and more meaningful employment.

Why can't we just flat out say children are a significant expense and should be encouraged for the rich and not encouraged for the poor?  Otherwise, what is the end goal of striving for economic growth beyond the level of sustainability?

Extra-terrestrial planetary conquest.

In all seriousness, the developed world doesn't have a population growth problem . . . most of it is running below replacement rates (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN)).  You will find a very high correlation world wide between low education of women and high birth rates.  Nothing to do with encouragement . . . the poor are more likely to be less educated, that's part of the reason they end up with more kids.  Fucking is a deeply ingrained and natural urge for most people, planning and consequences have to be taught.  Since we know that more poor people are going to get pregnant, it makes sense that we try to provide aid for them.  Not as an incentive, but to try and ensure the next generation turn out OK.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: RFAAOATB on May 19, 2015, 05:23:14 PM
In all seriousness, the developed world doesn't have a population growth problem . . . most of it is running below replacement rates

I would hope we run below replacement rate until there are no traffic jams on I-95, everyone who wants it has a single family home and no food insecurity, and aggregate demand is less than what the Earth can sustainably supply.

Female education and empowerment is very important to these goals.

We have to decide if it is a moral obligation that everyone is fed and sheltered.  If we decide that it is, then we have to make sure the number of people who need it is less than we can extract resources for.  If we decide that it is not, then we will continue to have a population of poverty suffering, and a source for rioting and revolution if things get bad enough.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Merrie on May 19, 2015, 07:35:06 PM
I think it's weird that this article goes on to talk about changing work schedules and hours. The case study has nothing to do with the article. That part sounds like it belongs on an article about people getting their schedules changed last minute at Starbucks or Home Depot. Those jobs aren't really "career" jobs and people in that position aren't typically "building their career".

This part of the article I did agree with (though mathematically it's obvious the couple is not in the target audience here).

For people who are making minimum wage or these types of jobs, the inability to effectively plan financially is made even worse by shifts being cancelled or hours dropped or being sent home early.

I can guarantee if those of us on salaried pay showed up to work and at 9am our bosses sent us home saying "you're off the rest of today - unpaid" and forced you to work completely inconsistent hours each week and sometimes you'd get 20 and sometimes 39 (but you only know a few days in advance!) that there'd be a heck of a lot more people in financial problems with those jobs.

Working a job with a schedule like that is awful enough as a PT job, I can't even imagine what it'd be like for someone trying to actually take care of their financial life.

The idea of quitting because you don't get enough hours is so alien to most of us working salaried (who would often gladly give up hours) but is a huge problem with folks in these sorts of hourly jobs.

I agreed with that part of the article as well. I just thought it was an odd juxtaposition, as clearly the couple profiled doesn't fit into this group. I did go through a brief period (a month or two) of not getting all the hours I needed and it was definitely pretty rough on our finances even though I'm a high earner. IIRC we survived without dipping into savings but barely.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Roland of Gilead on May 19, 2015, 07:54:49 PM

No need to be sexist about it.  There's nothing stopping a highly successful woman from convincing her male companion to be a stay at home.  The fact is there are too many jobs with too low wages.  If there were less jobs with higher wages, everyone would be happier.  The only thing I can't figure out is a sexually neutral way to distribute jobs so you don't end up with two assertively mated high achievers taking two jobs leaving a couple of slightly less competitive people with no jobs.

I think we need to make having a stay at home spouse the new status symbol instead of a fancy car or a fancy watch.

+1

I became a stay at home husband when my wife started making $270k a year while I was making $60k with a 1.5 hour commute.  After figuring the cost of the commute, 2nd car, clothes, dining out, insane tax bracket, we decided we could live off of her income alone.   I did all the house chores, made all the meals, ran finances and worked some on a side business.   I got a bit of grief from my parents for awhile (old school southerners who don't really think women can work) but that finally stopped over the years.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: SwordGuy on May 19, 2015, 08:03:52 PM
sometimes everything isnt about the bottom line. it isnt even about what is ' fair'  you expect society to have children. turns out the only one capable of doing that in a society are women.

why do you penalize women for doing what is best for society?

not to mention aside from discouraging giving birth, it also discourages woman from advancing in the work place.

Would wealth inequality be lessened and society be better if we encourage the rich to have more children and the poor to have less children?  Not providing paid parental leave could be one way to nudge this in the right direction.

I see it as a rich couple having ten children and each inheriting 1/10th of a fortune while a poor couple has one child in their mid 30s when they can afford it that has 2 parents and 4 grandparents sending whatever money they can down to lift this chosen child out of poverty.  Right now there are many more poor people than rich people, but if this pattern holds eventually there will be lessened inequality.

Don't inject pure logic into this discussion, it will just confuse or anger them. :)

Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Scandium on May 19, 2015, 08:12:59 PM
Why do we need a growing population?  Why do we need a growing economy?
With current ecological fears such as climate change, California water shortages, crop monoculture, high intensity meat farming, overfishing, peak oil, and pollution, it seems we have too many people putting too much stress on the planet.  Automation, technological advances in agriculture, the decrease in the manufacturing sector, and struggles with unemployment and low wages show there are more available workers than we need.

With a decreasing population with much of the decrease on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, there will be more steak and crab legs per capita and less in the aggregate leaving less stress on the environment.  There will be a higher percentage of people living in single family homes than in public housing.  There will be less unemployment and more meaningful employment.

Why can't we just flat out say children are a significant expense and should be encouraged for the rich and not encouraged for the poor?  Otherwise, what is the end goal of striving for economic growth beyond the level of sustainability?
Because I need contanst growth in my index funds to retire. By the time it all goes to shit, as it inevitably will, and people are killing each other over a box of raisins I intend to be dead.

If you think that is short sighted; the politicians who can actually do anything about this are usually elected for 4 years.. So yeah, good luck.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 20, 2015, 06:40:28 AM
Because I need contanst growth in my index funds to retire. By the time it all goes to shit, as it inevitably will, and people are killing each other over a box of raisins I intend to be dead.

Love that optimism gun.

Thing is unpaid maternity leave might be intended (by you at least) to prevent shortsighted poor financial planners from having too many kids, but in practice all it achieves is strongly disincentivising mothers from staying at home for an adequate period of time, as recommended by all doctors everywhere, depriving the baby of crucial bonding time, probably curtailing breastfeeding, and placing incredible stress on the mother to return back to the workplace while their infant goes into care.

The number of mothers who actually stay home on unpaid leave in America is woefully small, even when they can afford it perfectly well - like Marissa Mayer returning to Yahoo 2 weeks after delivery. It's a cultural pressure that is directed strongly against working mothers, and most people even if they can afford to are simply unwilling to forego several months of salary - and it creates a stigma against those who do.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GetItRight on May 20, 2015, 08:03:54 AM
Thing is unpaid maternity leave might be intended (by you at least) to prevent shortsighted poor financial planners from having too many kids, but in practice all it achieves is strongly disincentivising mothers from staying at home for an adequate period of time, as recommended by all doctors everywhere, depriving the baby of crucial bonding time, probably curtailing breastfeeding, and placing incredible stress on the mother to return back to the workplace while their infant goes into care.

If you don't want to take at least a few years off work, don't have a child. Babies need their mother more or less around the clock (food bags, dads don't have them) for around a year. Sure you can go to formula but it's expensive and detrimental to the child's health and intelligence. Breastfeeding long term is highly correlated with stronger immune systems and higher IQs. IQ is one of the best indicators of future success, income, stability, and so forth. A stable home environment with both mother and father and one stay at home parent at least through preschool or kindergarten age is also has a strong correlation to higher IQ. I can't fathom why anyone would deprive their child of the best chance of having a healthy and successful life, particularly when it's so simple and easy as breastfeeding and spending time with your child instead of pawning the child off on relatives or daycare.

Why bother having a kid if you're just going to keep spending most of your day at work, particular before the child in attending school? It seems so insane to me. When you decide to have a child, you know you should be taking a couple years off work. If you have a work part time from home or side gig (blog, editing, tutoring, etc.) then sure that works, but the typical 8-5 is not a realistic option for a couple years. I do not understand what your hangup is on work, focus on the child.

On another note, if I wanted to take 3 months unpaid off work for some personal goal, project, or vacation I probably could so long as I made reasonable preparation and was available in some capacity if there were emergencies. I wouldn't expect to be gone for 6-12 months or more and still have a job. The business goes on with or without you, if your life goes another direction then leave on good terms so the door is open in a couple years when you may want to go back.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 20, 2015, 08:25:11 AM
If you don't want to take at least a few years off work, don't have a child.

What on earth gives you the right to decree this on behalf of all parents everywhere? It worked for you so woop; we also had my wife stay at home at great personal sacrifice, but I do not expect it to also be mandated for other parents where the mother has chosen to work. Yes, ideally a mother should stay home, but I know plenty of cases where it's really better that she went back to work, either because the couple's finances were unable to handle her being at home, or because she couldn't cope with being a SAHM.

There's idealism - teenagers are too young to handle sexual relationships so they shouldn't be given sex ed or access to birth control, and there's realism - teenagers are going to have sex, so better they have good education and birth control than getting pregnant and STDs. Realistically, you're off in cloud cuckoo land where the only Americans who should have babies are self-sufficient mustachian engineers halfway to FIRE where the mother is happy to quit working once she starts giving birth.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GuitarStv on May 20, 2015, 09:14:13 AM
If you don't want to take at least a few years off work, don't have a child. Babies need their mother more or less around the clock (food bags, dads don't have them) for around a year.

This might be shocking for you to hear, but mothers can pump their breast milk, so no this whole thing doesn't have to be dumped on the woman in the relationship.

Sure you can go to formula but it's expensive and detrimental to the child's health and intelligence.  Breastfeeding long term is highly correlated with stronger immune systems and higher IQs.

Actually, the study that suggested a link between breast milk and IQ was flawed (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/about-that-breastfeeding-study/388309/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/about-that-breastfeeding-study/388309/)).  It also only suggested a correlation .  .  . not a cause.  You appear to have misinterpreted it.

Breastfeeding doesn't come easily or naturally to every woman or child.  There are well recorded benefits of breastfeeding, so it's certainly worth seriously trying.  However, it's physically impossible for some.  Trying to tell everyone that it's the only option that will ensure their kid is healthy and intelligent is both wrong and cruel.

IQ is one of the best indicators of future success, income, stability, and so forth.

Some other cool things about IQ http://www.iqtestexperts.com/iq-education.php (http://www.iqtestexperts.com/iq-education.php)http://psychology.about.com/od/intelligence/a/does-high-iq-equal-success.htm (http://psychology.about.com/od/intelligence/a/does-high-iq-equal-success.htm):

- Taking your kids on vacation lowers their IQ
- Putting your kid in school as soon as possible increases their IQ
- The longer your kid stays in school the higher their IQ will be
- People with very high IQ tend to have more difficulty through life than those with average IQ.
- Personality traits are about as important as IQ when predicting the outcome of a person's life

A stable home environment with both mother and father and one stay at home parent at least through preschool or kindergarten age is also has a strong correlation to higher IQ.

Correlation is not causation.  Again.  Typically higher income families can afford to have a parent stay at home.  Wealth is strongly correlated with intelligence of children as well.

I can't fathom why anyone would deprive their child of the best chance of having a healthy and successful life, particularly when it's so simple and easy as breastfeeding and spending time with your child instead of pawning the child off on relatives or daycare.

I can't fathom why anyone would judge others based on their own misunderstanding of evidence . . . but here we are.

Why bother having a kid if you're just going to keep spending most of your day at work, particular before the child in attending school?

Perhaps having a child is important to the person.  Delaying a child until your 40s or beyond greatly increases the chance of having a child born with developmental issues, and makes conception more difficult.

For the health of the child, sometimes it's necessary to give birth before retirement.

It seems so insane to me. When you decide to have a child, you know you should be taking a couple years off work.  If you have a work part time from home or side gig (blog, editing, tutoring, etc.) then sure that works, but the typical 8-5 is not a realistic option for a couple years. I do not understand what your hangup is on work, focus on the child.

This is fine if you are willing to give up your career.  Trying to get back into the work force after taking several years off is quite difficult, and it's likely going to come at a significant pay cut.  Putting a child in a well run daycare is an enriching environment.  I'm reasonably certain that it's a better environment for learning and social interaction than I could provide were I to stay home and look after our son all day, every day.

Working full time means less time is spent with your kid.  It doesn't mean that you don't spend every dinner, evening, and both days of the weekend with him/her.  It absolutely doesn't mean you can't be a good parent.  Some of us want to retire in a few years so that we can focus on our child full time . . . rather than giving up our careers and then working low paying jobs throughout his/her life.

Respectfully, your comments appear to be uninformed and rather thoughtlessly offensive.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Scandium on May 20, 2015, 09:31:15 AM

If you don't want to take at least a few years off work, don't have a child. Babies need their mother more or less around the clock (food bags, dads don't have them) for around a year. Sure you can go to formula but it's expensive and detrimental to the child's health and intelligence. Breastfeeding long term is highly correlated with stronger immune systems and higher IQs. IQ is one of the best indicators of future success, income, stability, and so forth. A stable home environment with both mother and father and one stay at home parent at least through preschool or kindergarten age is also has a strong correlation to higher IQ. I can't fathom why anyone would deprive their child of the best chance of having a healthy and successful life, particularly when it's so simple and easy as breastfeeding and spending time with your child instead of pawning the child off on relatives or daycare.

Why bother having a kid if you're just going to keep spending most of your day at work, particular before the child in attending school? It seems so insane to me. When you decide to have a child, you know you should be taking a couple years off work. If you have a work part time from home or side gig (blog, editing, tutoring, etc.) then sure that works, but the typical 8-5 is not a realistic option for a couple years. I do not understand what your hangup is on work, focus on the child.

On another note, if I wanted to take 3 months unpaid off work for some personal goal, project, or vacation I probably could so long as I made reasonable preparation and was available in some capacity if there were emergencies. I wouldn't expect to be gone for 6-12 months or more and still have a job. The business goes on with or without you, if your life goes another direction then leave on good terms so the door is open in a couple years when you may want to go back.

The you surely must oppose maternity leave and subsidizes daycare, as those things lead to higher female labor participation rate and fewer stay at home moms (probably SAH dads too). Just see the Scandinavia countries. The year at home and a guarantied job on return ensure that women go back to work, which is good for the economy, but apparently bad for IQ..

And yeah, all those "X leads to stupid kids!" studies should be take with a huge grain of salt.

Anecdotally of my wife's 7-8 friends with kids in the US I think only one or two went back to work, the rest have been home for years and i can't imagine going back after all that time will be easy. The combination of low wages (especially for women) in the US and expensive daycare pushes a large, potentially productive, part of the population out of the labor force. Conversely I don't know any stay at home parents among my friends in Scandinavia. They take the year and then go back to work. Clearly Scandinavia is a cesspool of idiotic, ill-adjusted future criminals..

I agree with both cerebus and Guitar-steve (I read it as "steve"..).
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 20, 2015, 10:00:53 AM
I agree with both cerebus and Guitar-steve (I read it as "steve"..).
Indeed, I think those last posts are definitely worthy of e-fellatio.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GetItRight on May 20, 2015, 10:13:47 AM
If you don't want to take at least a few years off work, don't have a child.

What on earth gives you the right to decree this on behalf of all parents everywhere? It worked for you so woop; we also had my wife stay at home at great personal sacrifice, but I do not expect it to also be mandated for other parents where the mother has chosen to work.

What gives me the right? My natural rights as a human being include the right to opinions, that is mine based on the best outcome for the child and society as a whole (reduced poverty, crime, violence) based on the research I've read and personal observations. I find it interesting that many non-Americans tend to assume anyone who expresses an opinion or preference believes it should be enforced at gunpoint by government. I am not proposing anything be mandated at all, I support complete freedom of parents conduct their life and raise their children as they see fit so long as there is no aggression or violence involved.

Yes, ideally a mother should stay home, but I know plenty of cases where it's really better that she went back to work, either because the couple's finances were unable to handle her being at home, or because she couldn't cope with being a SAHM.

Ideally the mother should stay home with the child for around a year. After that it could be either the mother or father, at least until the child is off to school for most of the day. If the mother decides she doesn't want to be a SAHM then she should go back to work and the father should be a SAHD. I don't understand why you are so focused on the mother.

There's idealism - teenagers are too young to handle sexual relationships so they shouldn't be given sex ed or access to birth control, and there's realism - teenagers are going to have sex, so better they have good education and birth control than getting pregnant and STDs.

Having a baby is a choice, a luxury.  It comes with consequences. Not unlike the luxury of a car, house, or pet. Except it requires far more time daily for the next two decades or so. Just like any other luxury it should be planned and budgeted for.

Realistically, you're off in cloud cuckoo land where the only Americans who should have babies are self-sufficient mustachian engineers halfway to FIRE where the mother is happy to quit working once she starts giving birth.

You really seem to like both making assumptions and ad hominem attacks. You first claim I made an assertion that I didn't, and instead of making any sort of thought out argument against that fictitious claim, you attack me personally based on what you made up. That makes twice in your one post. Try harder. Plenty of folks are not savers or pursuing FIRE and are able to live a comfortable lifestyle with one parent staying at home and one working, I know a few and I wouldn't put them all in this section of the forum. Maybe they won't RE, but most will be just fine so long as at least a minor amount of thought is put into it.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: SK Joyous on May 20, 2015, 10:23:17 AM

If you don't want to take at least a few years off work, don't have a child. Babies need their mother more or less around the clock (food bags, dads don't have them) for around a year. Sure you can go to formula but it's expensive and detrimental to the child's health and intelligence. Breastfeeding long term is highly correlated with stronger immune systems and higher IQs. IQ is one of the best indicators of future success, income, stability, and so forth. A stable home environment with both mother and father and one stay at home parent at least through preschool or kindergarten age is also has a strong correlation to higher IQ. I can't fathom why anyone would deprive their child of the best chance of having a healthy and successful life, particularly when it's so simple and easy as breastfeeding and spending time with your child instead of pawning the child off on relatives or daycare.

Why bother having a kid if you're just going to keep spending most of your day at work, particular before the child in attending school? It seems so insane to me. When you decide to have a child, you know you should be taking a couple years off work. If you have a work part time from home or side gig (blog, editing, tutoring, etc.) then sure that works, but the typical 8-5 is not a realistic option for a couple years. I do not understand what your hangup is on work, focus on the child.


What an offensive, one-sided, judgemental, ridiculous statement this all is. What seems insane to you is irrelevant, individuals make choices that work for them and their families, and it is not up to you to judge or decide for them. Wow, just wow.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: KCM5 on May 20, 2015, 10:29:55 AM
Yes, ideally a mother should stay home, but I know plenty of cases where it's really better that she went back to work, either because the couple's finances were unable to handle her being at home, or because she couldn't cope with being a SAHM.

Ideally the mother should stay home with the child for around a year. After that it could be either the mother or father, at least until the child is off to school for most of the day. If the mother decides she doesn't want to be a SAHM then she should go back to work and the father should be a SAHD. I don't understand why you are so focused on the mother.

This is interesting. So it seems that according to your requirements for optimal child raising (that I don't agree with, given the research I've done, but that's beside the point) would be similar to the Canadian solution of allowing a year leave. Now, this doesn't have to be paid, it could be unpaid. But that would allow women to leave and reenter the workforce without ruining their careers. Interesting.

As an American that was given a generous 6 months, mostly unpaid, I can't imagine the stress of finding and beginning a new job had I not been able to go back to my old one while taking care of a 6 month old (or a one year old, as your outlined case would be).
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Scandium on May 20, 2015, 10:41:04 AM

If you don't want to take at least a few years off work, don't have a child. Babies need their mother more or less around the clock (food bags, dads don't have them) for around a year. Sure you can go to formula but it's expensive and detrimental to the child's health and intelligence. Breastfeeding long term is highly correlated with stronger immune systems and higher IQs. IQ is one of the best indicators of future success, income, stability, and so forth. A stable home environment with both mother and father and one stay at home parent at least through preschool or kindergarten age is also has a strong correlation to higher IQ. I can't fathom why anyone would deprive their child of the best chance of having a healthy and successful life, particularly when it's so simple and easy as breastfeeding and spending time with your child instead of pawning the child off on relatives or daycare.

Why bother having a kid if you're just going to keep spending most of your day at work, particular before the child in attending school? It seems so insane to me. When you decide to have a child, you know you should be taking a couple years off work. If you have a work part time from home or side gig (blog, editing, tutoring, etc.) then sure that works, but the typical 8-5 is not a realistic option for a couple years. I do not understand what your hangup is on work, focus on the child.


What an offensive, one-sided, judgemental, ridiculous statement this all is. What seems insane to you is irrelevant, individuals make choices that work for them and their families, and it is not up to you to judge or decide for them. Wow, just wow.

Indeed. And I don't see any reference to research that prove a child has to spend 24 hours a day with one of the parents to be "successful", whatever that means.

One year off is one thing, but staying home for 5-6 years?!  Again my experience is Scandinavia, but even there almost everyone goes to daycare/kindergarten at least by 3 years old. It is subsidized or run by the state. And they don't seem to have a huge problem with stupid unsuccessful kids or high crime.

This seem to be the case of the modern trend of "total parenthood". Where you have to do everything, and sacrifice everything, for your child's success otherwise you're a horrible parent. Nothing is too much! Don't you dare ever, ever(!) put yourself before your child even once or you're a monster. These requirements of course require the parent to stay home as long as possible, and also a huge number of expenses requiring 3-4 incomes.. Totally doable. :/
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GetItRight on May 20, 2015, 10:49:16 AM
If you don't want to take at least a few years off work, don't have a child. Babies need their mother more or less around the clock (food bags, dads don't have them) for around a year.

This might be shocking for you to hear, but mothers can pump their breast milk, so no this whole thing doesn't have to be dumped on the woman in the relationship.

Indeed I am aware of that, and I have advocated stay at home dad previously as an alternative. The whole thing isn't being dumped on the woman, just the feeding part. If a SAHM scenario all the income part is dumped on the man. If the woman wants to work at some point soon after birth it's perfectly fine for the man to stay home. The woman will have extra time spend pumping but that's a consequence of the choice and seems inefficient unless she is a significantly higher earner than the man. Everyone has a different situation and needs to evaluate what works best for them.


Sure you can go to formula but it's expensive and detrimental to the child's health and intelligence.  Breastfeeding long term is highly correlated with stronger immune systems and higher IQs.

Actually, the study that suggested a link between breast milk and IQ was flawed (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/about-that-breastfeeding-study/388309/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/about-that-breastfeeding-study/388309/)).  It also only suggested a correlation .  .  . not a cause.  You appear to have misinterpreted it.

Breastfeeding doesn't come easily or naturally to every woman or child.  There are well recorded benefits of breastfeeding, so it's certainly worth seriously trying.  However, it's physically impossible for some.  Trying to tell everyone that it's the only option that will ensure their kid is healthy and intelligent is both wrong and cruel.

Read my words that you quotes again. I specifically said a correlation (not causation) between breastfeeding (not necessarily breast milk) and higher IQ. The correlation is still there, and is stronger in boys than girls. It seems with a strong correlation for something that is easy for the vast majority to do that it is worthwhile. Cherry picking exceptions to the rule adds nothing of value here as there are always outliers.


IQ is one of the best indicators of future success, income, stability, and so forth.

Some other cool things about IQ http://www.iqtestexperts.com/iq-education.php (http://www.iqtestexperts.com/iq-education.php)http://psychology.about.com/od/intelligence/a/does-high-iq-equal-success.htm (http://psychology.about.com/od/intelligence/a/does-high-iq-equal-success.htm):

- Taking your kids on vacation lowers their IQ
- Putting your kid in school as soon as possible increases their IQ
- The longer your kid stays in school the higher their IQ will be
- People with very high IQ tend to have more difficulty through life than those with average IQ.
- Personality traits are about as important as IQ when predicting the outcome of a person's life

Interesting. http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2014/12/iq-costs-and-benefits.html (http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2014/12/iq-costs-and-benefits.html)


A stable home environment with both mother and father and one stay at home parent at least through preschool or kindergarten age is also has a strong correlation to higher IQ.

Correlation is not causation.  Again.  Typically higher income families can afford to have a parent stay at home.  Wealth is strongly correlated with intelligence of children as well.

Read my text you quoted above, again I never claimed causation, only correlation. I don't see why with strong correlations of certain practices to higher IQ that parents would choose to significantly differ from those, particular where their choice of actions is correlated with lower IQ and income, along with other negatives.


I can't fathom why anyone would deprive their child of the best chance of having a healthy and successful life, particularly when it's so simple and easy as breastfeeding and spending time with your child instead of pawning the child off on relatives or daycare.

I can't fathom why anyone would judge others based on their own misunderstanding of evidence . . . but here we are.

We all have opinions. Call it that or call it judging, either way is fine with me. The bottom line is I am not forcing anything on anyone. I'm sure those who have kids, don't breastfeed and don't spend significant time with them have their reasons. perhaps because they're busy working the daily grind so they can afford the kids and all the other luxuries non-mustachians are often slaves to, or perhaps reason I perceive are better. Their choices, their consequences whether good out bad.


Why bother having a kid if you're just going to keep spending most of your day at work, particular before the child in attending school?

Perhaps having a child is important to the person.  Delaying a child until your 40s or beyond greatly increases the chance of having a child born with developmental issues, and makes conception more difficult.

For the health of the child, sometimes it's necessary to give birth before retirement.

Choices. A child is a luxury, not a necessity.


It seems so insane to me. When you decide to have a child, you know you should be taking a couple years off work.  If you have a work part time from home or side gig (blog, editing, tutoring, etc.) then sure that works, but the typical 8-5 is not a realistic option for a couple years. I do not understand what your hangup is on work, focus on the child.

This is fine if you are willing to give up your career.  Trying to get back into the work force after taking several years off is quite difficult, and it's likely going to come at a significant pay cut.  Putting a child in a well run daycare is an enriching environment.  I'm reasonably certain that it's a better environment for learning and social interaction than I could provide were I to stay home and look after our son all day, every day.

Working full time means less time is spent with your kid.  It doesn't mean that you don't spend every dinner, evening, and both days of the weekend with him/her.  It absolutely doesn't mean you can't be a good parent.  Some of us want to retire in a few years so that we can focus on our child full time . . . rather than giving up our careers and then working low paying jobs throughout his/her life.

Respectfully, your comments appear to be uninformed and rather thoughtlessly offensive.

Again, choices. Choose luxury now and you pay for it one way or another. Either in lost time and experiences with the child or in lost income.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GuitarStv on May 20, 2015, 11:26:42 AM
If you don't want to take at least a few years off work, don't have a child. Babies need their mother more or less around the clock (food bags, dads don't have them) for around a year.

This might be shocking for you to hear, but mothers can pump their breast milk, so no this whole thing doesn't have to be dumped on the woman in the relationship.

Indeed I am aware of that, and I have advocated stay at home dad previously as an alternative. The whole thing isn't being dumped on the woman, just the feeding part. If a SAHM scenario all the income part is dumped on the man. If the woman wants to work at some point soon after birth it's perfectly fine for the man to stay home. The woman will have extra time spend pumping but that's a consequence of the choice and seems inefficient unless she is a significantly higher earner than the man. Everyone has a different situation and needs to evaluate what works best for them.

No, the feeding part isn't dumped on the woman.  For the reason I gave.

Sure you can go to formula but it's expensive and detrimental to the child's health and intelligence.  Breastfeeding long term is highly correlated with stronger immune systems and higher IQs.

Actually, the study that suggested a link between breast milk and IQ was flawed (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/about-that-breastfeeding-study/388309/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/about-that-breastfeeding-study/388309/)).  It also only suggested a correlation .  .  . not a cause.  You appear to have misinterpreted it.

Breastfeeding doesn't come easily or naturally to every woman or child.  There are well recorded benefits of breastfeeding, so it's certainly worth seriously trying.  However, it's physically impossible for some.  Trying to tell everyone that it's the only option that will ensure their kid is healthy and intelligent is both wrong and cruel.

Read my words that you quotes again. I specifically said a correlation (not causation) between breastfeeding (not necessarily breast milk) and higher IQ. The correlation is still there, and is stronger in boys than girls. It seems with a strong correlation for something that is easy for the vast majority to do that it is worthwhile. Cherry picking exceptions to the rule adds nothing of value here as there are always outliers.

You are implying that correlation equals causation by giving behavioural advice based on correlation.

If you're going to say that breastfeeding and not breast milk causes kids to have higher IQs, I'm going to need to see some evidence for that extraordinary claim.

IQ is one of the best indicators of future success, income, stability, and so forth.

Some other cool things about IQ http://www.iqtestexperts.com/iq-education.php (http://www.iqtestexperts.com/iq-education.php)http://psychology.about.com/od/intelligence/a/does-high-iq-equal-success.htm (http://psychology.about.com/od/intelligence/a/does-high-iq-equal-success.htm):

- Taking your kids on vacation lowers their IQ
- Putting your kid in school as soon as possible increases their IQ
- The longer your kid stays in school the higher their IQ will be
- People with very high IQ tend to have more difficulty through life than those with average IQ.
- Personality traits are about as important as IQ when predicting the outcome of a person's life

Interesting. http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2014/12/iq-costs-and-benefits.html (http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2014/12/iq-costs-and-benefits.html)

I'm not saying that having a high IQ is always bad.  Just pointing out a rather obvious flaw in your reasoning.  IQ is very heavily affected by education and environment.  Breastfeeding isn't going to magically override all of these effects and create an uberchild.

A stable home environment with both mother and father and one stay at home parent at least through preschool or kindergarten age is also has a strong correlation to higher IQ.

Correlation is not causation.  Again.  Typically higher income families can afford to have a parent stay at home.  Wealth is strongly correlated with intelligence of children as well.

Read my text you quoted above, again I never claimed causation, only correlation. I don't see why with strong correlations of certain practices to higher IQ that parents would choose to significantly differ from those, particular where their choice of actions is correlated with lower IQ and income, along with other negatives.

You tacitly claim causation when you give advice based on correlation.  The reason it's important to keep correlation and causation separate is because it's easy to draw the wrong conclusion and give bad advice if you don't.



Why bother having a kid if you're just going to keep spending most of your day at work, particular before the child in attending school?

Perhaps having a child is important to the person.  Delaying a child until your 40s or beyond greatly increases the chance of having a child born with developmental issues, and makes conception more difficult.

For the health of the child, sometimes it's necessary to give birth before retirement.

Choices. A child is a luxury, not a necessity.

See, I'd call a child a tiny human . . . and wouldn't equate one with a good or service.


It seems so insane to me. When you decide to have a child, you know you should be taking a couple years off work.  If you have a work part time from home or side gig (blog, editing, tutoring, etc.) then sure that works, but the typical 8-5 is not a realistic option for a couple years. I do not understand what your hangup is on work, focus on the child.

This is fine if you are willing to give up your career.  Trying to get back into the work force after taking several years off is quite difficult, and it's likely going to come at a significant pay cut.  Putting a child in a well run daycare is an enriching environment.  I'm reasonably certain that it's a better environment for learning and social interaction than I could provide were I to stay home and look after our son all day, every day.

Working full time means less time is spent with your kid.  It doesn't mean that you don't spend every dinner, evening, and both days of the weekend with him/her.  It absolutely doesn't mean you can't be a good parent.  Some of us want to retire in a few years so that we can focus on our child full time . . . rather than giving up our careers and then working low paying jobs throughout his/her life.

Respectfully, your comments appear to be uninformed and rather thoughtlessly offensive.

Again, choices. Choose luxury now and you pay for it one way or another. Either in lost time and experiences with the child or in lost income.
[/quote]

You're going to lose time and experiences with the child either way.  It's a 'natural law' that you need to provide for your family.  Doing so involves work.  Work requires time away from your child.  Your recommended approach leads to increased time away from the child (for at least one parent) over a lifetime by requiring more work, so appears less optimal.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GuitarStv on May 20, 2015, 11:33:45 AM
GetItRight, do you have a kid?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: mm1970 on May 20, 2015, 11:35:32 AM
Quote
That would be fine if individuals were permitted to opt out of that tax, which of course would mean they could never collect from that program for any of the things it pays for or subsidizes.

It's part of state disability, so you do not get to opt out.

Example: at least three of my male coworkers have been on state disability for 1-3 months at a time due to back surgery, car accident, etc.  It's all one big pot.

And Paid Family Leave does not apply only to bonding with children.  It also allows for taking care of your parents, your wife going through chemo, etc.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: mm1970 on May 20, 2015, 11:36:21 AM
I know you aren't asking me, but I'd simply go with the California method of increased taxes.

The taxes that are causing businesses and individuals to flee California for less hostile places?

You are totally right.  I hear the Bay Area is a complete ghost town.

Ebb and flow...
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: mm1970 on May 20, 2015, 11:48:58 AM
It's actually not that simple.  Not everyone has the skills, the brain power, or the time.  There aren't an endless supply of jobs for people.

For example, I'm not an IT person, or a programmer.  I'm pretty smart, an engineer, but if the *only* job out there that paid well and required skills was one of those?  I'd be screwed.

I personally think that being willing to work hard is important.  And I don't really care if it's an "unskilled" job - there is nothing shameful about working hard at an unskilled job, because there are a lot of those jobs out there.

Supply and demand... It's as simple as making the decision to pursue a career and skillset that is in demand. If you are one of a million unemployed retail cashiers in a given area... You're looking at bottom dollar if you can find a job at all, because you're easily replaceable and it's a fairly short and cheap training period to bring a cashier up to speed from zero knowledge or skill than it is a Systems Architect or Structural Engineer. True fate is more or less sealed by early adulthood so far as IQ, so depending on biological and environmental factors becoming a structural engineer may not be realistic, but there are still plenty of skilled jobs either blue or white collar that one with a lower IQ can learn.

If my chosen field and area of expertise became saturated with unemployed comparable workers to the point where I could not get hired, I have several other skills to fall back on that are in entirely different areas which would be unaffected by such an excess supply of tech workers. I also have somewhat specialty skills in those areas I could market (and have, at times) independent of working for a company. One thing I've learned is to always have something to fall back to. The more cards you have to play the better you can weather tough times.

It's not even unmotivated or short sighted.  What if you are  motivated, but don't have the time because you have a job and 2 kids?  (Or don't have the money to pay for training/ classes).  That's hardly unmotivated or short sighted.

Having two kids without a reliable income stream or savings is absolutely short sighted. I fail to see how between two people with two kids, at least one parent can't find the time to learn a marketable skill and earn a living. Training and classes can be has for somewhere between cheap and free for most things (internet, DIY), at least to get to an entry level point.

Reliable income streams can dry up.  I think my biggest problem with certain aspects of our society (namely the people who see things in black/white) is that - I've known many people who are hard working and highly trained, and then their skills are no longer needed - when they are 50 and have kids in high school.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: socal0218 on May 20, 2015, 11:54:44 AM
Bottom Line: If you can't afford childcare, or you can't afford to live off one salary, you should be on birth control until your circumstances improve.  Mercy to the children brought into the world by parents who can't afford them the lifestyles they imagined.

THANK YOU! Why does no one ever say this? Is it politically incorrect to say if you can't afford to have children, don't have them? What is with people's desire to procreate when it is sending them to the poor house?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: RunHappy on May 20, 2015, 01:17:55 PM
Bottom Line: If you can't afford childcare, or you can't afford to live off one salary, you should be on birth control until your circumstances improve.  Mercy to the children brought into the world by parents who can't afford them the lifestyles they imagined.

THANK YOU! Why does no one ever say this? Is it politically incorrect to say if you can't afford to have children, don't have them? What is with people's desire to procreate when it is sending them to the poor house?

I would have to say most of my higher income friends would fall into this. 
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: mm1970 on May 20, 2015, 01:18:23 PM
Thing is unpaid maternity leave might be intended (by you at least) to prevent shortsighted poor financial planners from having too many kids, but in practice all it achieves is strongly disincentivising mothers from staying at home for an adequate period of time, as recommended by all doctors everywhere, depriving the baby of crucial bonding time, probably curtailing breastfeeding, and placing incredible stress on the mother to return back to the workplace while their infant goes into care.

If you don't want to take at least a few years off work, don't have a child. Babies need their mother more or less around the clock (food bags, dads don't have them) for around a year. Sure you can go to formula but it's expensive and detrimental to the child's health and intelligence. Breastfeeding long term is highly correlated with stronger immune systems and higher IQs. IQ is one of the best indicators of future success, income, stability, and so forth. A stable home environment with both mother and father and one stay at home parent at least through preschool or kindergarten age is also has a strong correlation to higher IQ. I can't fathom why anyone would deprive their child of the best chance of having a healthy and successful life, particularly when it's so simple and easy as breastfeeding and spending time with your child instead of pawning the child off on relatives or daycare.

Why bother having a kid if you're just going to keep spending most of your day at work, particular before the child in attending school? It seems so insane to me. When you decide to have a child, you know you should be taking a couple years off work. If you have a work part time from home or side gig (blog, editing, tutoring, etc.) then sure that works, but the typical 8-5 is not a realistic option for a couple years. I do not understand what your hangup is on work, focus on the child.

On another note, if I wanted to take 3 months unpaid off work for some personal goal, project, or vacation I probably could so long as I made reasonable preparation and was available in some capacity if there were emergencies. I wouldn't expect to be gone for 6-12 months or more and still have a job. The business goes on with or without you, if your life goes another direction then leave on good terms so the door is open in a couple years when you may want to go back.
The fact of the matter is that most people have to be practical.  Having two parents work for some is necessary, for others is a hedge against "bad things happening", and for some, they just like it. 

I was almost 36 and 42 when my kids were born - WELL established in my career by then.  I did manage to cut back my hours for a few years (total), but engineering is simply not "accepting" of that arrangement for women (or men).  I could "give up" and quit -OR- I could *stay* and prove that it works and try to make it better for the next people.

Also, when you do the math, it's not like we are abandoning our children to work camps and never see them.  I don't get where this idea comes from.  I did some little calculations.  You can see them attached.  This would be for my own personal experience and schedule - the AVERAGE child in daycare or preschool is there for only 30 hours a week - LESS than my kids were.

In short: 20%.  My child (children) spent 20%, approximately, of their time in "other care" (highly qualified, trained, loving care).  That's one hour in five.  That's like putting your kid in the gym daycare while you take a 60-min spin class and then shower, shave, blow-dry your hair, and put on makeup.  (Note: I don't do any of those things.)
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: rockstache on May 20, 2015, 02:16:16 PM
"We all have opinions. Call it that or call it judging, either way is fine with me. The bottom line is I am not forcing anything on anyone."

Sure we do. And if our opinions are offensive, we get called out on it.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: CheapskateWife on May 20, 2015, 03:12:13 PM
Back to the original topic (boy has this gotten foamy)...

I wonder if in general (not you fine millenials here in the forums of course) but if many millennials aren't just extending that awesome college experience to their expectations of what grown up life looks like.  If I had Daddy, or FAFSA, or crazy big assed loans that sent me to a beautiful college campus with annually refurbished dorms, state of the art gyms and swimming pools, rockwalls, theater productions, etc; I might expect to carry that same standard of living into my first real job and life after college. 

Real life is a bitch-slap in the face after that kind of college experience.  And then, on top of that, surprise!  You're pregnant!
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: The Money Monk on May 20, 2015, 06:17:26 PM

How can people with college degree's fail to understand basic personal finance? A facepunch goes out to anyone paying $2500/month for a mortgage who claims they live in poverty.

Seriously,whats that, like a  $300k house? Most of the criticisms of millennials are totally true (and that is coming from a millennial). I make about 30k self employed, and my GF makes like 80k, and my mortgage is $790 (about to be 650 when i finish refinancing).
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 20, 2015, 07:02:13 PM
Back to the original topic (boy has this gotten foamy)...

I wonder if in general (not you fine millenials here in the forums of course) but if many millennials aren't just extending that awesome college experience to their expectations of what grown up life looks like.  If I had Daddy, or FAFSA, or crazy big assed loans that sent me to a beautiful college campus with annually refurbished dorms, state of the art gyms and swimming pools, rockwalls, theater productions, etc; I might expect to carry that same standard of living into my first real job and life after college. 

Real life is a bitch-slap in the face after that kind of college experience.  And then, on top of that, surprise!  You're pregnant!

Here you've listed two more solid reasons to go to a local school while living with parents during undergrad (as if the cash savings weren't enough). Not only does a person not get used to state of the art dorms and a higher level of consumption than their skill sets can actually provide, but relationships are likely to be on the back burner until after graduation.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Kashmani on May 20, 2015, 07:15:33 PM
I am so happy to be a Canadian right now, where we understand that growing economies require growing populations and, unless we want it ALL to need to be met through immigration then people living in the country need to have kids - AND we understand that if people work and pay into the employment insurance system that they should be able to use it when they go on maternity/parental leave - AND we understand that if everyone waited to be 'financially stable' enough to have a year's income saved up to have kids we would have a lot of babies born to older couples, with the resulting increased possibility of health issues - AND we understand that not all people are perfect and can make errors in birth control (or even just less than idea choices) and end up pregnant and we don't automatically shame them and punish their children by not allowing them employment leave with dignity and job security - AND we understand that 'poors' (I can't believe someone actually uses that term, that's disgusting) children can be just as smart, capable, productive, citizens as the 'rich', and live in a country with universal quality education and health care to give them this opportunity.  I'm sure there are other countries that understand all of these things too, but judging solely from the Americans on this thread, the U.S. is definitely not one of them.

Agreed. As a European immigrant, I see what the inability to reconcile job and kids leads to - a fertility rate of 1.4, well below replacement level. It is illusory to believe that everyone can negotiate a maternity leave with an employer. We are all fungible. I am a highly paid professional, and after my last change of employers five years ago, it took three months for all traces of me disappearing at my old employer. Perhaps there are a few engineers on this board who have truly unique skills, but for the vast majority of people, that is simply not the case.

There are enough stories about workplaces not hiring women in their late 20s or early 30s because they might decide to have kids. I would much rather pay higher taxes for the Swedish or German model than reduce my taxes for the U.S. model. Frankly, you could offer me an extra $100k a year and I would not want to move to the U.S. Six weeks of maternity leave? Are you f***ing kidding me?!
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: kite on May 21, 2015, 06:10:13 AM

How can people with college degree's fail to understand basic personal finance? A facepunch goes out to anyone paying $2500/month for a mortgage who claims they live in poverty.

Seriously,whats that, like a  $300k house? Most of the criticisms of millennials are totally true (and that is coming from a millennial). I make about 30k self employed, and my GF makes like 80k, and my mortgage is $790 (about to be 650 when i finish refinancing).

Thanks.  This thread took a bizarre turn into blaming childbearing & family leave policies when those are red herrings.  Overpaying for one's home leaves you struggling regardless of when or whether kids come into the picture. 
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 21, 2015, 07:06:50 AM

Thanks.  This thread took a fascinating and productive turn into discussing childbearing & family leave policies.

Ftfy :D
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Scandium on May 21, 2015, 08:26:43 AM

Agreed. As a European immigrant, I see what the inability to reconcile job and kids leads to - a fertility rate of 1.4, well below replacement level.

The fertility rate is dropping and below replacement levels in most of europe too, even in places with generous leave policies. So I'm not sure it makes much of a difference.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: RFAAOATB on May 21, 2015, 10:28:54 AM

Agreed. As a European immigrant, I see what the inability to reconcile job and kids leads to - a fertility rate of 1.4, well below replacement level.

The fertility rate is dropping and below replacement levels in most of europe too, even in places with generous leave policies. So I'm not sure it makes much of a difference.

If this is a problem I guess it comes down to the following questions:
What should the global population be?
What is the sustainable resource extraction rate for this planet?  What is it on a per capita basis?  We always hear the first world is taking more than their fair share of resources.
Would we rather have nine billion people at a low consumption rate or one billion people at a high consumption rate?  I would prefer less people at a higher more luxurious consumption rate.  Are low wages a sign that on a per capita basis most of us are not worth the planetary resource extraction it takes to provide a decent life?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GuitarStv on May 21, 2015, 11:23:40 AM
Why do the one billion people have to be at a high consumption rate?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: RFAAOATB on May 21, 2015, 11:35:51 AM
Why do the one billion people have to be at a high consumption rate?

Because I want the option of steak and crab legs more than once a month.  Basically divide the planetary capacity by the population as a maximum allowable value.  If you're good with having less more power to you.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GuitarStv on May 21, 2015, 11:39:53 AM
It's every person thinking the way that you think that has brought about our current population and rate of consumption.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Syonyk on May 21, 2015, 12:06:39 PM
What should the global population be?

If the goal is sustainably supporting the population, radically lower than it is now.  It'll get there, eventually, one way or another.  Reality is a harsh mistress.

Quote
What is the sustainable resource extraction rate for this planet?  What is it on a per capita basis?  We always hear the first world is taking more than their fair share of resources.

Radically lower than what we're doing right now.  Orders of magnitude lower.

Quote
Would we rather have nine billion people at a low consumption rate or one billion people at a high consumption rate?  I would prefer less people at a higher more luxurious consumption rate.  Are low wages a sign that on a per capita basis most of us are not worth the planetary resource extraction it takes to provide a decent life?

Long term, try "a billion people or less at a low consumption rate" and you get closer to the likely reality.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GuitarStv on May 21, 2015, 12:09:20 PM
Is it bad that I see relocation to different planets throughout the galaxy as being a more likely scenario than convincing everyone on Earth to conserve (let alone curb population)?
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Syonyk on May 21, 2015, 12:13:13 PM
Is it bad that I see relocation to different planets throughout the galaxy as being a more likely scenario than convincing everyone on Earth to conserve (let alone curb population)?

Sure.  Now go figure out the feasibility of actually turning into a space faring race.  Go look at the energy required to get a decent payload out of the solar system in a reasonable time, and come back to me when you've worked out just how utterly infeasible this is short of some sort of massive breakthrough in our understanding of spacetime.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: zephyr911 on May 21, 2015, 12:22:31 PM
Sure.  Now go figure out the feasibility of actually turning into a space faring race.  Go look at the energy required to get a decent payload out of the solar system in a reasonable time, and come back to me when you've worked out just how utterly infeasible this is short of some sort of massive breakthrough in our understanding of spacetime.
I took that more as a statement about the likelihood of convincing humanity to change its ways for its own good...
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: eyePod on May 21, 2015, 12:25:51 PM
Yeah!  ... wait, what forum are we on again?

A frugality and early retirement one, I thought. Remind me again how spending 2-3 months of income per childbirth accomplishes either of those goals.

This is literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on this site. Jeez. That's like saying "eating anything that costs more than plain rice is dumb because everything is a purely financial decision." The point is to try and make conscious decisions and plan for the consequences as best as possible! This belongs on a how to be cheap forum, not the MMM one.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 21, 2015, 12:44:32 PM

Yeah!  ... wait, what forum are we on again?

A frugality and early retirement one, I thought. Remind me again how spending 2-3 months of income per childbirth accomplishes either of those goals.

This is literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on this site. Jeez. That's like saying "eating anything that costs more than plain rice is dumb because everything is a purely financial decision." The point is to try and make conscious decisions and plan for the consequences as best as possible! This belongs on a how to be cheap forum, not the MMM one.

Regardless of the virtues of MMM self sufficiency, I still fail to see any benefit in imposing 3 months of a woman's salary in order to provide a good beginning for a child. It's a pointless expense that arises from anti employee and anti female policies.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: GuitarStv on May 21, 2015, 12:45:59 PM
Is it bad that I see relocation to different planets throughout the galaxy as being a more likely scenario than convincing everyone on Earth to conserve (let alone curb population)?

Sure.  Now go figure out the feasibility of actually turning into a space faring race.  Go look at the energy required to get a decent payload out of the solar system in a reasonable time, and come back to me when you've worked out just how utterly infeasible this is short of some sort of massive breakthrough in our understanding of spacetime.

I didn't say it was likely.


I said more likely than convincing people to conserve.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Syonyk on May 21, 2015, 12:51:38 PM
It's a pointless expense that arises from anti employee and anti female policies.

... because all employers are infinite sources of money?

You haven't spent much time around small businesses, have you?
Title: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 21, 2015, 01:01:36 PM
It's a pointless expense that arises from anti employee and anti female policies.

... because all employers are infinite sources of money?

You haven't spent much time around small businesses, have you?

And yet somehow my South African employer manages just fine. And for that matter so do all employers everywhere else on earth. It's really not as much of a burden on the economy as it's being made out. It's basically a non issue. Otherwise the Canadian system also seems reasonable where it comes from a common tax pool. A woman may be expected to take 3 to 9 months of leave over a lifetime of employ.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: KCM5 on May 21, 2015, 01:40:56 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/21/us/nebraska-police-officer-killed/index.html

It's terribly sad that this woman was killed doing her work, but I'm not posting this because of that tragedy.

This woman, a police officer in Omaha, had a baby in Feb. She was born premature. So the mother went back to work while she was in the hospital to wait to take her leave until her daughter was released from the hospital. The most likely scenario is that she has 12 weeks of unpaid leave (could be 6 months if they're union, but seeing as she decided to do it this way I doubt it) and otherwise is not guaranteed her position if she takes longer. So she waited to take her leave until the child was released from the hospital, a practical decision but one she would not have had to make had she been allowed a reasonable amount of unpaid or paid leave - which in my book is at least 6 months to a year.
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: RunHappy on May 21, 2015, 02:23:06 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/21/us/nebraska-police-officer-killed/index.html

It's terribly sad that this woman was killed doing her work, but I'm not posting this because of that tragedy.

This woman, a police officer in Omaha, had a baby in Feb. She was born premature. So the mother went back to work while she was in the hospital to wait to take her leave until her daughter was released from the hospital. The most likely scenario is that she has 12 weeks of unpaid leave (could be 6 months if they're union, but seeing as she decided to do it this way I doubt it) and otherwise is not guaranteed her position if she takes longer. So she waited to take her leave until the child was released from the hospital, a practical decision but one she would not have had to make had she been allowed a reasonable amount of unpaid or paid leave - which in my book is at least 6 months to a year.

That is awful!  I read about her a couple of weeks ago. She basically went back to work 2-3 days after giving birth just so she could save her unpaid leave for when her child came home. 
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: Kris on May 21, 2015, 06:15:49 PM
I'll just leave this here...
Title: Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
Post by: cerebus on May 21, 2015, 10:33:39 PM
Anyway if mothers are allowed to take paid leave maybe it'll teach a good lesson to employers about the fiscal responsibility it takes to raise an employee.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk