Author Topic: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care  (Read 45126 times)

smilla

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 145
  • Location: Canada
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #100 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.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23048
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #101 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.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #102 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.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #103 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.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #104 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.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10859
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #105 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.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10859
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #106 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. 

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10859
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #107 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.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10859
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #108 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.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #109 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.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #110 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.

Syonyk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4610
    • Syonyk's Project Blog
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #111 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?

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #112 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.

SK Joyous

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
  • Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #113 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.

Mr. Green

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4485
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #114 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?

RFAAOATB

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 654
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #115 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?

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #116 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.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23048
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #117 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).  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.

RFAAOATB

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 654
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #118 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.

Merrie

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #119 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.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #120 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.

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8944
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #121 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. :)


Scandium

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2825
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #122 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.

cerebus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Africa
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #123 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.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #124 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.

cerebus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Africa
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #125 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.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23048
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #126 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/).  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.phphttp://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.

Scandium

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2825
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #127 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"..).
« Last Edit: May 20, 2015, 10:00:31 AM by Scandium »

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #128 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.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #129 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.

SK Joyous

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
  • Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #130 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.

KCM5

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #131 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).

Scandium

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2825
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #132 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. :/

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #133 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/).  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.phphttp://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


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.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23048
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #134 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/).  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.phphttp://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

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.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23048
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #135 on: May 20, 2015, 11:33:45 AM »
GetItRight, do you have a kid?

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10859
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #136 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.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10859
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #137 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...

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10859
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #138 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.

socal0218

  • Guest
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #139 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?

RunHappy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #140 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. 

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10859
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #141 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.)
« Last Edit: May 20, 2015, 01:23:13 PM by mm1970 »

rockstache

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7270
  • Age: 11
  • Location: Southeast
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #142 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.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2016, 11:49:28 AM by rockstache »

CheapskateWife

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1410
  • Location: Hill Country, TX - Being a blueberry in the Tomato Soup
  • FIRE'd and Loving it!
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #143 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!

The Money Monk

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 619
  • Location: Nevada
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #144 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).

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #145 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.

Kashmani

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 148
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #146 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?!

kite

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 900
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #147 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. 

cerebus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Africa
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #148 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

Scandium

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2825
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Millennial parents sink under weight of low pay, debt, child care
« Reply #149 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.