Do Techies Care For Daycare?

DeICQLady writes "After browsing this, I remembered numerous days on my co-op when my mentor and other engineers had to come up with ways to entertain their children (when they had to be out of school, snowstorm, et al.) and had to do this instead of concentrating on work. I have not heard of many companies wanting to do anything about it. Is it that techies don't want (need?) it? Would it be to our advantage if companies were concerned about providing this for us? Why or why not?" The majority of "techies" are still young, male and single so daycare really isn't a factor for them until they are well into their careers. However, this majority is quickly dwindling and it may due to think about other 'perks' that the workplace can offer other than free cell phones and Internet access. What do you all think?

Comments

it may be frustrating

[Lord Omlette]

but if you let someone else handle your kids, do you want to take responsibility? would you rather come up with ways to entertain your kids or would you rather let them watch tv?

if they're old enough, give them lego, if they're not, give them duplo. but keep them with you... hell telecommute if you have to, but don't leave your kids unattended until they're 'old enough' to handle themselves.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057

Re:it may be frustrating

[Kierthos]

Well, I don't have kids, I'm not married, and I'm currently sans girlfriend, so I really can't see how this is an issue for me.

But, daycare seems to work just fine for lots of kids, so why would it be different for techies? Other then the fact that they tend to work a lot more hours a week, have incredibly odd schedules, can take a lot of trips to deal with on-site problems, and are generally lacking in social skills...

Why nothing at all... actually daycare may be the best thing for them... gives them time with normal people...

Oh, and telecommuting is not an option for everyone. A lot of businesses don't have the option, or severely restrict it.

Kierthos

Re:it may be frustrating

[JurriAlt137n]

But, daycare seems to work just fine for lots of kids

Excuse me? Did you look at the progress of the human race as a whole lately? You know, starvation, wars, religious disputes. Oh wait, we already did that before daycare kicked in. Oh well, go ahead, give your kids to KILLER NANNY.

Re:it may be frustrating

[angry old man]

Hey let's not forget about Day-Nursing Care for our grandparents! I don't want my techie-grandson runnING off To his fancy schmancy day job without dropping me off at the home on the way.

If you kids knew what was good for you, then you'd all get jobs that have day-care for your elders.

Re:it may be frustrating

[grammar fascist]

Killer nannys aren't the problem. It's the idea of kids in day care generally being raised by the other kids in day care. That's not good for the children. Their role models are either the adults there, who have no real reason to actually love the children (although many do), or the other children, or whatever crap they see on television.

I'll take my wife over any of those, any day.

Re:it may be frustrating

[Tackhead]

> daycare seems to work just fine for lots of kids, so why would it be different for techies?

Hey, throw a techie in front of a 21" monitor and give him a T1. If that ain't gonna get him gurgling with glee and keep him quiet and happy for the rest of the day, as well as give him an environment to learn something new, I don't know what will ;-)

Or were we talking about daycare for kids of techies, as opposed to techies themselves? (I always figured a job was basically daycare for geeks anyways, 'cept we get paid to attend!)

Re:it may be frustrating

[JurriAlt137n]

You're either a troll or you have a Ph D in psychology. Anyway, you're telling us what we all know, the problem is applying it in practice...

Re:it may be frustrating

[Shiva Lingham]

This is the problem with these sorts of benefits in the high-tech industry specifically; that "techies" are usually introverted technology fetishists, with little interest in the benefits that most "normal" people want (family healthcare, daycare, INTELLIGENT investment options).

Companies can just throw a few bones to the majority, hardcore techies (high-risk stock options in lieu of payment, assorted hi tech gadgets, nerf toys) and ignore the majority, who actually need substantive benefits.

I found an interesting article here on the concept of USEFUL benefits in the hi-tech industry.

Re:it may be frustrating

[uradu]

> I'll take my wife over any of those, any day.

Trouble is, she says the same thing about me. What--other than gender stereotypes--says that she should stay at home? She enjoys her career as much as I enjoy mine. And I enjoy mine way too much to give it up and stay home with kids.

The funny thing is that the stay-at-home-mom approach is most often offered up by people who have never spent any serious amount of time caring for young children and have very bizzare notions of the fulfilment that would bring. Dig deeper with many full time house wives and you will find layers upon layers of resentment and dissatisfaction. However, too many of them have been conditioned into accepting this as the norm, so they would feel like a bad parent if they ever admitted these feelings. There have been plenty of studies on this, it's nothing new.

This model worked for most of history because in most civilizations the female played a sacrificial role. She was not the equal of the male, so most avenues of self-fulfillment were closed to her. Besides, females have breasts, which are for feeding children, right? What better proof that they are meant to be the caretakers?

Re:it may be frustrating

[uradu]

> Then you have no business having children.

And you have no business telling me what my business is. Classic catch-22.

Re:it may be frustrating

[Attila]

The problem with your theory is that being a stay at home mom hasn't been the norm for many years. Perhaps these "layers of resentment and dissatisfaction" come from the conditioning of women in recent years to prove themselves as equal by rejecting the traditional female role, a role which may not have been a result so much of male oppression as female biology.

This is the message of modern feminism: you don't have a right to choose your role. You're expected to play with the boys. And when that involves what some might call "the right to self-fulfillment," but might more correctly be called "freedom from responsibility," children pay the price as they are cast aside like all the other toys "adults" want but soon tire of playing with.

Re:it may be frustrating

[Eccles]

What--other than gender stereotypes--says that she should stay at home?

She's got feeding apparatus. At least for the first few months, this is a big issue.

The problem, really, is that we aren't growing up in the world of our parents, where almost every mother stayed home with her young children. Some studies have found that daycare and homecare both work fairly well when there's at least four kids. Fewer, and the kids just aren't getting the socialization opportunities. There's that saying about "It takes an entire village to raise a child", and that's the key, learning from and playing with other children. I know kids who have a stay-at-home mom, and they aren't as social as the ones in daycare. I often wish my daughter had a twin, so she would have a playmate almost all the time with very similar interests.

Re:it may be frustrating

[SpacePunk]

Ya, right. Your sucking the life out of us as it is through Social Security, gramps. Take your ill-gotten Ponzi money, and get an apartment. While your at it, take some driving lessons, get your eye's checked, and lobby your Congressperson for government subsidized depends. Your gonna need em out on the street.

Re:it may be frustrating

[uradu]

From age 3 on I went regularly to kindergarten until school. That was a very enjoyable time and provided me with interaction opportunities my mother at home couldn't have given me.

My two-year-old twins (boy and girl) started going to daycare at age two. Being twins has definitely helped their personal development (the girl is by far the dominant one, as in most cases it seems). However, since they went to daycare, the boy has really flourished and developed at a much faster pace than before. While there are downsides to daycare (such as more frequent sickness), overall it's a definite advantage. Studies show time and again that kids who went to daycare and kindergarten later on socialize much more successfully.

Re:it may be frustrating

[Andrewkov]

Well, I don't have kids, I'm not married, and I'm currently sans girlfriend, so I really can't see how this is an issue for me.

You may want to try spending a bit less time on Slashdot.

Re:it may be frustrating

[gorilla]

While there are downsides to daycare (such as more frequent sickness), overall it's a definite advantage.

Actually, this is an advantage. Studies have shown that kids who go to daycare and get sick there, get less sick when they go to school.

Re:it may be frustrating

[Grab]

Someone has to look after a child. For most ppl, they'd rather keep this in the family, so it's either the husband or the wife who does it. Granted, the woman can breast-feed, but many women these days would rather not, so that evens things up.

The problem is that whilst the feminists were (rightly) campaigning for equality, they didn't think that someone would have to stay at home to look after the kids. This came down the education system, and our generation is the product of that theory. So suddenly we've got a generation of males AND females who don't have the education to look after children. Don't forget that the previous "cultural conditioning" included informal teaching in how to look after kids, cook, keep house, and so on.

If we want equality, allow men to stay at home. The problem here is that the house-husband is only ever (even by feminists) portrayed as a figure of fun, a down-trodden henpecked wimp, so that's not exactly appealing! Although housewives may have had a raw deal in the opportunity stakes, they had a known position in society, and wouldn't be mocked for being in that position.

And another problem is the skills. Schools need (MUST!) have classes for both sexes on home economics and childcare - if the boys can't cook, how can they look after the children?

Personally, I'd be quite happy to look after any children myself and my wife have, and continue my electronics and software as a hobby at home. If my wife was earning more than I was and/or was in a rewarding career at the time, I'd be quite prepared to jack it in. If anyone's married and doesn't feel the same way, frankly you don't deserve to be married - you just want a servant, not a wife as an equal.

Uradu, the resentment that housewives have felt is not due to what they're doing, it's simply bcos they were pressured into it instead of taking it on voluntarily. If we have a choice - and we do now - then there's no reason to resent it.

Grab.

Re:it may be frustrating

[uradu]

> the resentment that housewives have felt is not due to what they're doing, it's simply bcos they
> were pressured into it instead of taking it on voluntarily.

Absolutely, I can't disagree with that. I personally know career women that had children and chose to give up their careers for them, and that's what they wanted all their lives. It fulfills them being a parent.

But this is not true of all women, probably not even most. It's just that women in general are conditioned by society to be the giver and to demure, even if they have strong personalities. I look at my wife, normally a very strong and assertive person, and still around the house she's sort of silently picking up the slack. In most households women do considerably more work than men. If it were the other way around, most men would vehemently complain. I often recognize this about myself and hate myself for it and strive harder to change it. But a lifetime of conditioning is hard to counteract :-) Just look at children growing up, girls are much more ofter called to task on household chores than boys.

I feel the argument for men staying home is as strong as the one for women staying home. It's a matter of personal aspirations and values.

My personal view is that society has degenerated into an environment very hostile for raising children. The whole workplace mechanics have evolved into a very strong separation of work and personal life. I feel that if companies provided an environment where children could spend the day in relative proximity to their parents, this could have a huge impact on the dynamics of the family. There are some progressive companies that have started to offer daycare for their employees with ready access for the parents to the kids throughout the day. This could work fairly well for large companies, blue or white collar factories.

As technology evolves and telecommuting becomes more mainstream, I can see a future where companies decentralize themselves into satellite offices with more informal work environments and integrated child care facilities. This could bring us somewhat back to that idyllic past of the village raising the children. Of course, the ideal would be for both parents to work at the same facility to provide equal access, but this involves personal choices in partner selection and goes beyond what an employer can do.

Re:it may be frustrating

[uradu]

That's quite true. I guess I was thinking mainly of the inconvenience at the time of sickness. In fact, one should encourage the kids to eat dirt and lick the floors, because it only strengthens their immune system--unless they lap up some Ebola or something :-)

Good idea

[NineNine]

I don't have kids, and I won't but I worked for SAS Corporation in Cary, NC, US a while back. They're famous for how well they treat their employees, and I think that they have daycare AND preschool right on their campus. Parents often ate lunch with their kids. Not only could parents be more productive by not having to worry about daycare (when SAS was open, so was the daycare), but employee satisfaction, thus employee retention at that company is among the highest in the industry.

Companies need day care

[Bocephus]

The fact is, I would be much more willing to work for a given company if I had a less than school-age child for whom the company would provide daycare services. I'd say that this is a benefit which would make workers much happier than free cell phones or even company cars.

If done right...

[SquadBoy]

this could be very good. You are right in that most of the techies for whom this would be a good thing have been around for awhile and that these are the people who don't need it for the money but more for the taking care of the kids so they can get their job done sort of thing. I think that setting up a onsite deal would be overkill too much money and not enough people using it. But arranging for a last minute drop off at a place that is close to work and with whom the company has a good realationship would be a good thing. This would give them a good way to take care an emergency. I'm thinking that most of the techs who need something ongoing have arragenments with which they are happy and that the company just needs to provide a net for those days when things go wrong.

Watch for hypocrisy

[Zigg]

I highly recommend that anyone who would call for IT companies (or any company, for that matter) to provide daycare while they are also calling for parental responsibility instead of government censorship think twice about what they are saying. By giving your children, which are supposed to be the most important thing in your life, to daycare, you are explicitly opting out of taking parental responsibility.

My own children will never be in "daycare". Until they start going to school, they'll either be cared for by myself or my wife, or another family member, even if it means we have to live that much more frugally. Those engineers who had to "entertain their children" instead of "concentrating on work" (doesn't that ring alarm bells in anyone else's heads?) had the right idea.

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[rotor]

Thank god there are still responsible people like you around. Personally, when my first child is born, my wife is planning on reducing her hours and switching to an evening shift so one of us can be with the children at all times. If there turns out to be any overlap, we're fortunate that a good friend of ours who lives two houses down the road runs a daycare and we can leave the children with her for a while.
Unfortunately, many people are not so lucky. I'm thinking particularly of single parents who live too far away from family to have them take care of the children while they work. This is a case where on-the-job daycare seems to be the best option. For these parents it gives them a chance to maintain some contact with their children throughout the day while still knowing that they are safe and being looked after.

-

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[wind]

I don't believe that sending your children to a good (emphasis on that) daycare facility is any more of a parental copout than sending them to school. In both cases, they end up being taken care of by relative strangers who you hope will not undo your hard work as parent (regarding things like critical thinking and behavior).

I think for only children it is actually a good thing to get them used to interacting with other children at an early age. I have a sister who is 13 years younger than me, so I basically grew up as an only child. I didn't go to daycare, but my sister did. I think she has turned out to be much more comfortable in social situations than me, and while who knows what other factors might be involved, I think being around other children from an early age probably helped.

Sending your children to daycare is not giving up responsibility for them, and I think that companies are well served to make childcare available (off-site, with a high quality daycare facility that is more than a child dumping ground) at a discount for ongoing service, or at least for those emergencies when the usual arrangements fail.

Wind

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[ebh]

By giving your children [...] to daycare, you are explicitly opting out of taking parental responsibility.

I don't want to use too much technical jargon here, but...

Bullshit.

My wife and I overlap our work schedules such that our son is in daycare 4.5 hours a day. This hardly qualifies as him being raised by someone else. He gets loads of attention every day from both of us, but while at daycare, he learns social skills he can't get at home (where there are no other children). Our daycare providers are loving parents themselves who care for their charges as if they were their own children.

There is absolutely no truth to the idea that your child will be unjustly deprived unless one or the other parent is supervising him or her at all times.

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[big_groo]

Opting out of taking parental responsibility?? Are you mad?

This is an exccellent example of providing parental responsibility! You have to actively interview the said "daycare" to see if it is right for your child. Daycare workers have degrees in Developmental Psychology, Early childhood education, etc. etc. etc. If anything, they're more qualified than YOU are to raise a kid.

You make it sound as if we're dropping our kids off at "Less's Crack House/Daycare Centre"

What exactly do you think Kindergarten is? Glorified daycare. Daycare provides a child with something you cannot. Socialization skills. You can't provide that in the home - unless you're a Mormon with an enormous family - that would explain the "parental responsibility" comment.

Some people simply can't afford to not work. We were fortunate enough to have my wife take 2 years off. What about the single mothers? Single fathers? Unless, of course, you're happy with welfare...

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[nellardo]

I highly recommend that anyone who would call for IT companies (or any company, for that matter) to provide daycare while they are also calling for parental responsibility instead of government censorship think twice about what they are saying.

Okay. I'm a parent. My daughter (4 years old) is in daycare full time. Any form of government censorship is repugnant to me.

So let's look at this again:

By giving your children, which are supposed to be the most important thing in your life, to daycare, you are explicitly opting out of taking parental responsibility.

I'm sorry - this just doesn't make sense. How have I opted out of parental responsibility by choosing how my daughter will be cared for? I have taken responsibility for deciding what kind of environment she is in. I talk with her every day about what happened at "school". Any problems she had, anything especially fun she did, anything especially significant she accomplished (like when she counted to 102). Where have I opted out of parental responsibility? Just because I am not personally around her every moment of every day? I've got news for you - that kind of hovering is smothering. You get children that can't decide anything for themselves.

Raising a child is not about producing a clone of yourself. Raising a child is about helping a human being reach his or her full potential. Exposing a child to new environments is letting the child learn. Your child will never learn to walk if you catch them before they fall.

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[salmi]

Some people simply can't afford to have kids.

Some people simply can't afford to have sex.

Maybe it sounds preachy, but if you can't
afford to have you or your spouse stay home
with the kids for the majority of their waking
hours, maybe you should just keep the old
pants on. goes especially true for "its
not my spouse"

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[deacent]

As a new parent, I have to disagree. Far be it from me to tell another parent how to raise his or her children, but I do use daycare and I feel it's the right choice for us. Here's some of the benefits that I perceive:

• Her social and emotional well-being seem to be much healthier than my own.
• We really need the break from each other. It's important that we lead our own lives. I found that while I was on maternity leave, we were developing an unhealthy dependence on each other.
• When I am home, I spend the vast majority of my free time interacting with her, but I think we're spending more quality time together now.
• Since I'm homebody and somewhat asocial, I know she's getting much richer experience out of the house.
• I've also learned quite a bit from the people running the daycare that I may have had to discover the hard way.
• I'm hoping that when my daughter is old enough to start kindergarten, she will already have at least one friend in her class.

My decision to use daycare was not an abdication of parental responsibility. It's a personal decision where in my case, the pros outweighed the cons. I view daycare as surrogate parents for your child. This means it's very important to find a place that has as little turn over as possible (daycare seems to have a high turnover rate to begin with) and to find people who will respect your wishes in caring for your child. It can be very difficult if not impossible to find such place. A corporate sponsored daycare may be convenient, but I'd only use it if I felt good about the people working there.

-Jennifer

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[EricWright]

...and some people can afford to have kids, AND want to have a professional career. Not all of us feel that it is a wife's job to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Eric

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[Sterling Anderson]

I always get a kick out pepole with your outlook.

Have you ever been to a "good" day care?

My daughter goes to day care for 2 main reasons:

First, as a family we cannot provide for her everything we want her to experience on a single income. Thus my wife and I both work.
Second, a properly run day care has professionals who are there to teach my daughter the things we cannot teach her at home. There are other children there as well. This helps her to become a social person. She learns to interact with her peers, something she cannot get at home with just her mother and I.

Take 2 children, one who stays at home with mom or dad all the time and one who interacts with their peers and you will see a major difference in how they interact. Try to imagine what you would be like if you spent 90% of your time with 1 or 2 other people who were a full generation removed from you. Now imagine those 1 or 2 people were completely responsible for the person you are to become. Kind of scary isn't it?

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[Diana, Goddess Queen]

By giving your children, which are supposed to be the most important thing in your life, to daycare, you are explicitly opting out of taking parental responsibility.

That's ridiculous. You said that you'd let them 'start going to school'? It's essentially the same idea: your child is out of your immediate control for a period of time whilest spending time with other people who will impact his/her life. While you have control (to a degree) over which school your child will attend, you have 'opted out of your parenting responsibility' for that period of time. Beyond that, its the same level of control you have over choosing a daycare facility.

If corporate daycare is offered, employees have the flexibility to stop by and visit with their children [lunch breaks, etc.], and if there is an emergency, they are easily contacted. There is also going to be a more rigorously enforced standard of care, because valuable human capital will be on the line. As a result, as I see it, they aren't opting out of their parenting responsibilty; in my opinion, it seems like they're finding the most efficient, beneficial way to manage it.

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[The Night Watchman]

I couldn't possibly agree more here... It seems as if "having children" has become a staple assumed-requirement of today's society, where people do it because it's what they're expected to do, when in reality, they have neither the resources nor the time to properly care for their children.

So many parents today have children, only to pawn them off to day care, soothing their conscience with an obligatory allocation of "quality time", until such time as their children reach school-age. From there, put the responsibility in the hands of the school teachers, who, by the way, are now under so many restrictions and regulations so that they can't so much as put a supporting hand on a kid's shoulder without being brought up in front of a committee. Then these kids grow up, and their parents wonder why the hell the kids never come home, why they hate their parents, and why they have such a hard time expressing any genuine emotion.

We're getting emotionally sterilized. Daycare is basically going through the motions of parenting, without all that excess "love, caring, support, and guidance" baggage. After all, if our basic survival needs are met, those other things are just a technicality anyway, right? So how does this connect back with IT jobs and daycare? Not directly, I suppose, my problem is more in daycare, and how so many people I know are so emotionally walled-up or bottled-up because their parents never provided them with any real emotional support, so now they don't even trust themselves, let alone anyone else.

Yes, this is a rant. I'm sorry. But this is something I feel strongly about. Daycare is not the problem, it's a symptom of the emotional detachment of our society. When I finish graduate school, settle down somewhere, assuming I get married (a shaky prospect at best), I wouldn't even consider having children unless I made DAMN sure that I could be there for them in every respect. I don't want a daycare nanny getting paid by the hour to watch my child's first steps, hear my child's first words, and do all the things I want to do with my children. A child is not a trophy to be bronzed, put up on a shelf, and left for someone else to polish now and then, a child is a lifetime investment. Maybe we should start treating them this way. If you can't invest, then don't have the kids! With six billion people in this world, I don't think we're in any danger of going extinct.

Finally, I would think that IT would be the perfect kind of job to have as a mother or father, because it allows the greatest potential for telecommuting. If I were to have children, this would be my way of making sure that I could be there for them. If that is not an acceptable possibility, then maybe having children isn't something I should be considering. Life is full of experiences, parenthood being one of them. It's not, however, the be-all and end-all of human existence. That having been said, I'll get off my soap box. Take care, and remember to tuck your kids in tonight. They like that.

/* Steve */

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[kmcardle]

By giving your children, which are supposed to be the most important thing in your life, to daycare, you are explicitly opting out of taking parental responsibility.
Either this is a great troll, or you really haven't thought things out.

My son goes to daycare. He has since the age of three. He doesn't need to be in daycare. He's in daycare for the social aspect. My wife does work, but she can take him to work with her. It's a good setup :). There's more to parenting than watching your children like a hawk. Social skills can't be taught solely by parents.

Group interation is a difficult thing to teach in a child/parent relationship. The child will always take the submissive role, and the parent the dominant role. Put a kid in a room with other children, and let them figure out the roles. If a child spends every waking moment in the submissive role, he/she will be submissive for life. Learing the dynamics of groups has to be done at an early age and with people of the same age.

I do spend time with my son on a daily basis, and we do talk about his day and my day. Most of the time he does "nothing" or "I forget", but on those days when he has something to talk about, we talk about it. He's already encountered that first bullie and stood up to him. He shows me his art, and our fridge is covered.

I would love to spend all of my time with my son, but is it what I want, or what he needs?

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[Mzilikazi]

> You make it sound as if we're dropping our kids off at
> "Less's Crack House/Daycare Centre"

That's occasionally the case here in Memphis. We've had a rash of incidents involving children dying/funds being embezzled, and my favorite case, a counterfeiting operation being run out of the back of one of the centers. And several of the offending institutions have connections to prominent citizens or politicians, so things get even more messed up...

The above statements are not meant to be indicative of all day care centers in Memphis or elsewhere, just that there have been a lot of problems here recently.

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[Pfhor]

One thing that one must be careful of is how much care we put in the hands of a "Professional."
Just because someone is a professional doesn't mean that they known what they are doing. Or aren't biased. Or prejudice. I am sure most parents are aware of this, and are basing their decisions on more than just peices of paper on a wall.

I went to a daycare (or a preschool, if you may) along with my mother having me go to friends houses, playing with older kids in the neighborhood, etc. (I was fortunate as a child, my mom worked out of the house when I was growing up, so she was there when I came home from school). A major portion of my growing up was the fact that I was a part of a community in my area (mostly through their church).

I am not a parent, nore does it look like I will be anytime soon, however, one thing I would have for my child(ren) would be a neighborhood to grow up in, with kids of all ages and parents and grandparents, who treated each others children as their own. And daycare to give them even more experiences.

On a side note (and often discussed topic with my father): If I had the money of Bill G. I wouldn't spend it on a luxorious house, large open spaces, so my child could grow up isolated from the real world. Instead, something more on the grounds of developing a neighborhood, with nifty gadgets (fiber optic cable, wireless networking, t3 or greater net access, etc.) sold at a loss. Why? Because I would rather have my child grow up in a neighborhood consisting of a community of people from varying backgrounds (and I am sure others would want something similar) instead of a house and its grounds keepers.

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[salmi]

Ahh - but you can't always get what you want.

Part of having kids is sacrificing your
wants for the good of your family.

Taking 5 years off to raise kids will _END_ a professional career?

Interesting how you try to make it sound
like the chauvinist argument here, when its
not -- no one will care for a child as well
as his/her parents, mom, dad, whatever.

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[Zigg]

How have I opted out of parental responsibility by choosing how my daughter will be cared for?

In the same way that you would opt out of parental responsibility by choosing a filtering software for your children's Web access instead of using the Internet with them, or by setting your TV to block shows that are considered evil by either industry or government instead of not allowing them TV at all unless you're with them. You're making a choice to allow someone else to set the standards for your children.

I've got news for you - that kind of hovering is smothering. You get children that can't decide anything for themselves.

Excuse me while I go off and weep for myself. I must have been smothered as a child since my grandmother and my mother cared for me. I guess I haven't been making any decisions for myself. I wonder why I got punished for doing things wrong as a child. They must have forced me to make those decisions.

Your argument is complete and utter hogwash, and it sounds like it comes right out of a daycare pamphlet. You don't get smothering from being in the care of parents or family. You get smothering from people who choose to smother. You can have a daycare worker who smothers your children just as well as a parent.

Raising a child is not about producing a clone of yourself. Raising a child is about helping a human being reach his or her full potential. Exposing a child to new environments is letting the child learn.

Heh. I doubt you could produce a clone of yourself even if you tried. Human beings are like that -- they are always coming up with new and different things. The way you present it, one could reason that with exposure to daycare, you'd be producing a clone of the daycare worker instead of the parent.

That said, I'd sure like to know where you got the idea that being in the care of a loving family member was equivalent to locking a kid up in a little cage in the basement. Kids being cared for by their family are not at a loss here.

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[Zigg]

Daycare is paying others to pretend to be your child's family.

School is paying others to be teachers to your child.

If you (and this is to everyone, not explicitly the AC) can't see the difference, perhaps you should reexamine why you'd send a kid to daycare or school in the first place. My personal theory is that you're just getting rid of the kid to make your life more convenient, and what he does there is not as consequential as what it "frees you up" to do.

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[iabervon]

Daycare may well be a very good thing for children. It allows them to be around a group of other children, which they would not be in the home. It means that there is a wider variety of adults taking care of them, which is important if their parents aren't actually masters-of-all-trades.

It's important to provide instruction and moral guidence to one's children; after all, this is most of what makes them one's own children and not just some other child. However, most of the janitorial sorts of tasks need not be done by the parents; diaper-changing technique and so forth do not significantly impact a child's character.

Much of what small children will learn is how the world works and how social interaction works. For these, the important things are toys and other children to play with. Daycare can provide these and also some adults to make sure the children get fed and cleaned.

I am somewhat concerned about the idea of IT companies providing standardized daycare; I think it would be more reasonable for them to subsidize daycare of the parents' choice. Onsite could be more convenient, but it would be a pain if the place you wanted to work had daycare you didn't like.

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[PD]

You've been listening to that bitch Dr. Laura too much.

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[EricWright]

You take 5 years off, hold no job outside of the house, and then try to get a job in your chosen field. Good luck!

I spent 5 years getting a PhD (which is quite an achievement) and had a lot of trouble getting a job, because it wasn't in the same field as my education. It's not like I wasn't doing anything (programming is problem solving, then writing the answers in code... physics is problem solving, then writing the answers in code-speak!)

Eric

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[sconeu]

Read the fscking post. The submitter specifically talked about things like "days on my co-op when my mentor and other engineers had to come up with ways to entertain their children (when they had to be out of school, snowstorm, et al.) and had to do this instead of concentrating on work"

The submitter is not talking about full-time day care in this instance.

Yes, my wife did stay home to watch the kids, but we still put them in daycare 2-3 days a week because SHE was going stir-crazy.

And no, we didn't consider it abrogating our parental responsibility. If you don't like that, you can bite my shiny metal ass.

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[dsplat]

This is an exccellent example of providing parental responsibility! You have to actively interview the said "daycare" to see if it is right for your child. Daycare workers have degrees in Developmental Psychology, Early childhood education, etc. etc. etc. If anything, they're more qualified than YOU are to raise a kid.

I wouldn't say that daycare workers are better qualified in every respect to raise my children. They lack a couple of things. One is continuity with the children they care for. My children have been my children all of their lives. I plan to attend their graduations and weddings. I want them to grow up to be good, happy people who I respect. And I plan to be around to see that.

However, you are quite right that they have skills and a perspective that I don't have. My wife and I struck a balance that we are quite happy with. Our kids have been in daycare three days a week. It has served as a supervised playgroup for them, a place to develop social skills. We have also gotten valuable feedback from their caregivers about their behavior and development. It is a rare day that I don't spend five to ten minutes talking to one of the caregivers about my son's day. I know them by name. I know many of the other children and their parents as well.

My children's daycare has been fare from an abdication of responsibility. It has been a conscious effort to provide my children with a greater range of experiences than my wife and I could provide alone.

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[grammar fascist]

Daycare workers have degrees in Developmental Psychology, Early childhood education, etc. etc. etc. If anything, they're more qualified than YOU are to raise a kid.

Who really has an interest in the development of a child more than the child's parents? That's the best qualification there is. Also, a day care professional cannot possibly give every child the attention that a parent can.

And when the child grows up, has he learned to trust his parents? Well, it wasn't his parents who read him stories or taught him how life works. It wasn't his parents who showed him love and respect, and taught him how to share. And most likely, nobody taught him that there are consequences for his actions through discipline.

Your argument is typical of someone feeling guilty for not taking responsibility. It's called rationalizing. I've heard it many, many times. Guess what? Day care is not the best place for a young child to be, and young children do not need to learn social interaction skills that early, and certainly not from other children. How can you possibly expect a child to learn how to socially interact properly when they learn it mainly from other children?

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[grammar fascist]

Looks like people are a bit afraid to answer you, with your personal experience with the subject and all. Here I go:

Her social and emotional well-being seem to be much healthier than my own.

Could be many other factors besides who raised you. Children are their own people, and some are actually (believe it or not) born with a tendency to be socially unhealthy. That's not to say that in that case it will always come to fruition, but there are definite tendencies.

I found that while I was on maternity leave, we were developing an unhealthy dependence on each other.

Where in the &ltexpletive&gt did you get the idea that a child's dependence on his mother is unhealthy? I'm sick to death of people thinking that dependence in any form is a bad thing. It is if the child becomes an adult without becoming independent, but a newborn? Come on. They're built to be dependent, and you know it.

When I am home, I spend the vast majority of my free time interacting with her, but I think we're spending more quality time together now.

Quantity and quality is the key, not one or the other. Both must exist. The quality of time my wife spends with Emma (seven months old next week) has remained about the same, but since we got her a baby carrier (to free her hands while she's holding her), Emma's been much happier. No more quality, but much more quantity. It's absolutely amazing.

Since I'm homebody and somewhat asocial, I know she's getting much richer experience out of the house.

Does your child need experiences out of the house more than he needs you? Oh, wait, I forgot. You think that's unhealthy (see above).

I've also learned quite a bit from the people running the daycare that I may have had to discover the hard way.

Well good! Though, you might have learned that from your own parents and parents-in-law, or friends that already have children.

I'm hoping that when my daughter is old enough to start kindergarten, she will already have at least one friend in her class.

That's why you acquaint yourself with other parents and their children. But back to the benefit - isn't that a large price to pay? At least one friend vs. being raised by his own mother?

My decision to use daycare was not an abdication of parental responsibility. It's a personal decision where in my case, the pros outweighed the cons.

It seems like you believe that "abdication of parental responsibility" and "personal decision" are mutually exclusive. Let me assure you that they are not - in fact, every abdication of responsibility is also a personal decision. (By the way, I hate how people nowadays are using the words "personal decision" to validate everything and expecting people to applaud them for it.)

I don't think you made up the list of pros and cons and then made the decision. Most of those "pros" for day care are either not really pros, or you could have handled in a better way - such as actually getting yourself out of the house, learning from people who are already parents (or learning it yourself - gasp!), and getting to know the neighbors.

It's nice to come up with a list of pros and cons, but not after the fact. You had the child. Stop rationalizing, and raise him yourself if you have the means.

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[UncleRoger]

What exactly do you think Kindergarten is? Glorified daycare.

Pardon me for going off-topic, but Kindergarten should *not* be "glorified daycare" -- at least not in a good school. Kids should be learning a lot of stuff which will prepare them for what they learn in first grade, which prepares them for what they learn in second grade, ..., which prepares them for life in the real world.

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[Cedric C. Girouard]

My own children will never be in "daycare". Until they start going to school, they'll either be cared for by myself or my wife, or another family member, even if it means we have to live that much more frugally.

I used to say that. I even used to believe in it for a while.
It is a full-of-good-intentions line of thinking, but in the long run, it will not benefit the kid, or the person caring for them.

When my son was born 4 years ago, I was working a job paid well above average, driving an ordinary car, and my wife was working part-time as a life guard. Life was good. Then, she decided that she'd stay home with the kid (maternal fiber or something.). That worked for 3 years. Trust me, a kid is expensive. It requires feeding, clothing (a lot) and bunch of other trinkets that end up costing a bundle.

You also do not want to raise a kid in a bad neighbourhood (read inexpensive.) We had to move in a nicer neighbourhood (read twice the price). Now, we can still afford it, but my wife was getting lonesome at home. The kid was developping great, but was missing the company of same-aged friends. She then decided to go back to school. She's now graduated, and starting on a new job. When she went back to school, we had to:
1) find a daycare that had enough room for one more kid (big problem in Quebec. Read about it.)
2) find a daycare that would not make me drive 2 hours to work and back.
3) find a daycare that had an educative program. Not just some room where you stick the kid and they drool all over each other. My kid already has basic understanding of what a computer is and does. He doesnt dig 3-4 yrs old toys. He likes lego's and screwing over my computer.

I found such a gem. My kid learns basic reading skills and maths skills. They encourage the kid to do what they like, and all the educators working there are chosen on a strict process. They pay them well enough that it's not a "burden" to educate the kids.
I have found out something in the process. My kid likes it. He likes having friends there, he enjoys the social side of it. He also developped better motor skills. He talks better, he reads a bit and knows how to count.

Now, if my company would be offering a daycare withing the facilities, even though I had to pay full price for it, I would not mind. That would be one less hour commute at night, and I'd still have supervision over my kid's doing (which I'm severely lacking now.)

To us, daycare is a blessing. We're not bad parents because of that. It gives the entire family equal opportunity to grow. The kid is happy, the wife is happy, and as a consequence, I'm happy. What could be wrong with that ?

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[Cedric C. Girouard]

Some people simply can't afford to have kids. Some people simply can't afford to have sex. Maybe it sounds preachy, but if you can't afford to have you or your spouse stay home with the kids for the majority of their waking hours, maybe you should just keep the old pants on. goes especially true for "its not my spouse"

Have to say this, but sometimes, contraception devices appeared to have been developped and produced by microsoft. They fail at the worst possible moment, and you dont find out until it's too late. Then you have two choices : Take responsability for your actions, and end up with a 'little bundle of joy', or wuss out, and end up killing who might have developped the cure for cancer 20 years from now.

(Ok. I might be stretching it a bit. There are some cases where abortion is the right thing to do, but in our case, it was not even a considered option. YMMV. This is a too-touchy subject to spend any more bits on.)

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[dublin]

And based on my experience and the experience of those I live and work around, developmental psychologists are the LAST people you ever want your child to be around.

It's amazing how people will defend pretty much any sin that allows them to pursue their own greed. Give up the extra income and one of you stay home. You'll never regret it. Trust me.

(I suggest the truly radical idea (for /.) of reading the Book of Proverbs for timeless and proven practical advice for raising children - guaranteed to kick the snot out of anything the developmental psychologists can tell you.)

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[dublin]

How have I opted out of parental responsibility by choosing how my daughter will be cared for? I have taken responsibility for deciding what kind of environment she is in. I talk with her every day about what happened at "school".

Sorry, but you *have* abdicated your parental responsibility, and your need to justify your rationale makes it even more apparent. In fact, you made a careful decision of where to warehouse her when she's inconvenient to you.

I've got news for you - that kind of hovering is smothering. You get children that can't decide anything for themselves.

The evidence is very much against you on this. Kids that stay at home with their mothers (the jury is still out on whether fathers can be as effective in this role) are not smothered, but wind up as much more inquisitive and independent thinkers. Disagreeing puts you at odds with the overwhelming evidence of the superiority of home-schooled children (look up their average results compared to products of the government daycare schools for a real eye-opener!)

In short, you've obviously convinced yourself that what you're doing is right, but I'll bet you know deep down inside you're only finding excuses to selfishly do what *you* want, at the expense of your child. Read Doug Wilson's excellent book "Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning" or Susan Schaeffer Macaulay's "For the Children's Sake" for a more complete treatment of how we should really be thinking of these things. (BTW - my own children are not home-schooled, as I feel that in some cases, private schools are a superior option.)

No career or job is worth the damage it causes your children if both parents work. One of you simply must stop. (In the spirit of this poitical season, this is one of the chief reasons that cutting taxes for *everyone* is a good thing - I know way too many couples that need the second income just to pay the taxes...)

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[cox075]

Lucky you, having "another family member" on tap for such duties. But then there are the rest of us who grew up and actually left home ...

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[vanguard]

Daycare provides a child with something you cannot. Socialization skills.

I just wanted to counter this thought because I often hear it from parents who use daycare services. In my experiances it's just untrue. One of the first things my wife did after she was well enough was to join a "Mommy and me" excersize class. This class was the foundation of a new network of friends with babies of the same age.

Most stay at home parents usually find new friends with children to match their own. They form playgroups and other groups just to make sure that it's provided. If you're luckly (like me) you'll live in a neighborhood with lots of children for you son/daughter to play with too.

Parents who stay home to dedicate their life to raising their children are usually doing better than a daycare provider, not worse. It's unfair to say that their kids will lack socialization skills.

I understand that not everybody can stay home to raise their children and still makes ends meet. However, I would hope that people are not planning to have children if they are not planning to raise them. (Heck, I hope they don't buy a dog if they aren't in a situation where they can raise them.)

Vanguard

Re:Watch for hypocrisy

[deacent]

Could be many other factors besides who raised you. Children are their own people, and some are actually (believe it or not) born with a tendency to be socially unhealthy. That's not to say that in that case it will always come to fruition, but there are definite tendencies.

Nature provides the potential, nurture brings to it to fruition. Some are born with a low potential in certain areas. I'm going to assume she is not one with a low potential for socialization or anything else for that matter. I will watch for signs for it and deal with it.

Where in the <expletive> did you get the idea that a child's dependence on his mother is unhealthy? I'm sick to death of people thinking that dependence in any form is a bad thing. It is if the child becomes an adult without becoming independent, but a newborn? Come on. They're built to be dependent, and you know it.

I didn't say the problem was just dependency. I said it was an unhealthy one. More so for me than her. I expect her to be dependent but not to the point where she can't cope without me holding her. This was not just crying, but she wouldn't sleep or eat. I was becoming withdrawn from all activities except that which concerned her because of this situation. I stopped doing important things like personal hygiene, paying bills, etc. We were both pretty miserable. It could be coincidence, but that changed the day she went to daycare.

Quantity and quality is the key, not one or the other. Both must exist. The quality of time my wife spends with Emma (seven months old next week) has remained about the same, but since we got her a baby carrier (to free her hands while she's holding her), Emma's been much happier. No more quality, but much more quantity. It's absolutely amazing.

My point is that it was mentally and physically exhausting for me to spend so much time with her. It was interfering with our relationship. I was actually starting to resent her and I'd feel terrible about that. Perhaps it is not the typical situation, but there does seem to be such a thing as spending too much time together for us. We both ultimately become miserable.

Does your child need experiences out of the house more than he needs you? Oh, wait, I forgot. You think that's unhealthy (see above).

It's not me or the world. It's both. She still spends the majority of her wakeful hours with me. I have the ability to use a larger quantity of time to engage in all of the things good parents are supposed to do (play, read, sing, talk, etc.). I'm not saying this would work for everyone else (or even anyone else) but it works for me.

Well good! Though, you might have learned that from your own parents and parents-in-law, or friends that already have children.

You presume too much. My parents are much too far away to be of help and they are of the "don't punish or you'll damage his self-esteme" crowd which I don't agree with. I have no friends with children except of course my husband. I'm pretty much on my own.

That's why you acquaint yourself with other parents and their children.

You make that sound very easy. Like many others around here, I am poorly socialized. It's a long (but familiar) story, but the basic problem is that I have a lot of trouble making friends.

But back to the benefit - isn't that a large price to pay? At least one friend vs. being raised by his own mother?

Again, it's not an all or nothing situation. I consider it giving her a sort of extended family. I am still very much the center of her universe and she is of mine. But to have nothing but each other in each other's universe was making both of us quite unhappy.

It seems like you believe that "abdication of parental responsibility" and "personal decision" are mutually exclusive. Let me assure you that they are not - in fact, every abdication of responsibility is also a personal decision. (By the way, I hate how people nowadays are using the words "personal decision" to validate everything and expecting people to applaud them for it.)

First of all, I never said that one was mutually exclusive to the other. They were two separate assertions. Sorry that it came off as being linked. My point here is that the decision is mine to make. There is no scientifically proven "right way" to raise a child, and since my husband and I are the only experts on the topic of our family, I don't think there's anyone out there qualified in judging my decisions.

I don't think you made up the list of pros and cons and then made the decision. Most of those "pros" for day care are either not really pros, or you could have handled in a better way - such as actually getting yourself out of the house, learning from people who are already parents (or learning it yourself - gasp!), and getting to know the neighbors.

It's nice to come up with a list of pros and cons, but not after the fact. You had the child. Stop rationalizing, and raise him yourself if you have the means.

Again, you presume incorrectly. I did think very long and hard about the pros and cons of going back to work or staying home. It was a decision that I did not come upon lightly. You dismiss the pros, but they are subjective and I consider them important. Btw, there's a difference between spending all of your time with your child and raising him/her. I've known people who spend all of their time near their child, but not really parenting. Some working parents that I have seen have strong relationships with their children and really show leadership. I try to make all of the time I spend with my daughter count. When she needs me, there is nothing that will get in my way to care for her. As long as she is happy and healthy, I see no reason to feel guilty about sharing some of the parental responsibility with the daycare.

-Jennifer

I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Employees using day care services can pay for it with lower salaries than single workers. Don't force me to subsidize your kids. Besides, if IT workers are so highly paid, then why isn't your spouse at home 24/7 with the kids? Can't afford that? Don't have time for that? Then why are you having kids?

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[Sterling Anderson]

First let me just say you are an idiot.

Employees using day care services can pay for it with lower salaries than single workers. Don't force me to subsidize your kids.

Companies will subsidize daycare to attract and keep employees. Just like they subsidize health care and offer investment opportunities to their employees. If you do not have children you do not participate in the daycare, just like if you already have health insurance you will not participate in the company's health insurance program.

Then why are you having kids?,

I'd like to ask your parents the same question.

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[davebob]

Maybe because your spouse wants to work... Maybe because your spouse has a job that *gasp* might be more important than your geeky little job.

I am in the minority in my office, where my child is in daycare, most other *men* with families have wives who stay home.

This is a choice that both they and I have made.

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[Tackhead]

> If you do not have children you do not participate in the daycare, just like if you already have health insurance you will not participate in the company's health insurance program.

Your analogy is flawed.

If I already have health insurance, I'm free to cancel it and take advantage of the employer-subsidized one. An investment opportunity is by definition open to all; I don't even have to cancel my existing brokerage account in order to take advantage of a 401(k).

Consequently, the benefits you mention available to all employees regardless of lifestyle choice. This does not apply to day care. Employers should not be in the business of subsidizing lifestyle choices.

Let me put it another way: Forgive me for putting words in your mouth, but I'd bet that if your employer said "we're gonna give all the childfrees, singles, and gay employees a $5000/year bonus because they don't jack up our group health premiums with pregnancy expenses and they never take [m|p]aternity leave", you'd be screaming blue murder that it was blatant discrimination based on a lifestyle choice.

And you'd be absolutely right to do so. Any company that pulled a stunt like that would be guilty of discrimination, and would deserve more than protest, it would deserve lawsuits.

So why do you consider it OK to discriminate against people who choose not to have kids?

Understand that I'm not arguing against provision of day care per se. I'm arguing against a company that provides day care to its breeding employees, but nothing to its non-breeding employees.

Got a problem with me being "childfree"? OK, what about a couple who desperately wants kids, but is infertile? Same thing applies.

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[Cujo]

I certainly wouldn't demand that anyone else to paying for our daycare as an entitlement. It's not.

However, my lady has a demanding career that's important to her. We could afford for her to stay home, but that's a monstrous waste of her talents and training to sit around waiting for the baby to wake up and be fed or changed. Without a daycare facility at her place of work, she might seek out employment elsewhere (where they either pay more or have daycare, or both), and her critical contribution to her team would then be lost to them. So, it's to the benefit of her other team members that daycare (which costs us about $600/mo) is provided. Competent professional daycare does a child no harm.

BTW, Parenting is one of the best things you'll ever do. I'd start to think about how you're going to prepare for it while still young. And if you're male, don't expect a woman to shoulder all the burden for you.

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[DukeofURL]

"Employers should not be in the business of subsidizing lifestyle choices."

If they are interested in keeping good employees from going else where for More money, less travel time to work, etc... they will..

I am in charge of a computer telephony system where I work and I am the only one hear that knows it. My company has spent about $18,000 in my training for this system. Their our other companies near us using the same system that pay more, My wife is pregnant currently. If my company doesn't offer more money, childcare or something like that I will definently leave to go get more money elsewhere.

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[prisoner]

Companies will pay for daycare to attract and retain talent. It's that simple. From the companies viewpoint, it's not different from any other benefit. It simply costs money. If it seems to be effective in retaining/attracting employees, they'll do it. If you're single and don't get a kickback as you don't use the daycare and that pisses you off, leave. The democracy ends at the office door, ladies and gents. Companies will operate in whatever (normally legal) manner that benefits the company most. If you're the odd man out, prepare to piss and moan all you want but it isn't going to achieve anything.

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[DecoDragon]

Employees using day care services can pay for it with lower salaries than single workers. Don't force me to subsidize your kids. Besides, if IT workers are so highly paid, then why isn't your spouse at home 24/7 with the kids? Can't afford that? Don't have time for that? Then why are you having kids?

I'll probably regret it, but I'll bite.

The prevailing assumptions here are that "techies" are male without children, or married males with children. Maybe that's the majority, but it's certainly not the rule. Not all parents are married, and it is ignorant to assume they are. Why, they could even be male and single and raising kids. Shocking, I know.

Corporations provide benefits to attract or keep workers. Supposedly, there is a shortage of technical workers. Having a benefit like childcare could attract an undertapped resource female workers, or attract single parents. It could even attract married mothers who might want to work part-time. If you don't want to pay for this benefit - and what, are they going to decrease your salary the day they start this program? - you could vote with your feet and get a job somewhere else.

There are obviously problems now in how we as society has adjusted to dual income families, to women balancing jobs and careers, raising families, and accepting the choices others have made. The problems manifest in the increased problems we see from children (though a lot of these so called problems are media hype) I think it will be a while until we figure out how to deal with these issues as a society. An important element is that these are societal issues. As members of society, it is ridiculous for those of us without children to think that we are absolved from working out these issues on the basis of our childlessness.

Personally, I think the cafeteria benefit plans, where you can pick and choose or trade benefits you like less, for benefits you like more; so that the package can be customized to the individual, are more of the way to go. Maybe it'd be worth it to a parent to forego a gym benefit in favor of applying that money to child care.

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[BilldaCat]

Apparently your company hires people with poor grammar, perhaps instead of more money, you could ask for a textbook or two?

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[Sterling Anderson]

If I already have health insurance, I'm free to cancel it and take advantage of the employer-subsidized one. An investment opportunity is by definition open to all; I don't even have to cancel my existing brokerage account in order to take advantage of a 401(k).

I agree with your point about the investment opportunity, touche (or whatever). But with health insurance (as with a child care option) you would have a choice. If you do not want health care ou do not take it. You are still in essence helping to subsidize it for other employees. The same thing applies for child care. Your employer makes the decision to subsidize it so every employee pitches in so to speak. Those who wish to take advantage of it do. If you do not ave children you do not take advantage of it, just like if you do not want health insurance you do not take advantage of that.

Consequently, the benefits you mention available to all employees regardless of lifestyle choice. This does not apply to day care. Employers should not be in the business of subsidizing lifestyle choices.

So what you are saing is my employer should not provide a gym or subsidize a gym membership. I may have made a lifestyle choice to work out every day but why should that fat guy down the hall have to subsidize my membership? Employers are in the business of subsidizing lifestyle choices because that is what attracts employees. We could go so far as to say that even health maintenance is a lifestyle choice. So employers should stop offering health insurance?

Let me put it another way: Forgive me for putting words in your mouth, but I'd bet that if your employer said "we're gonna give all the childfrees, singles, and gay employees a $5000/year bonus because they don't jack up our group health premiums with pregnancy expenses and they never take [m|p]aternity leave", you'd be screaming blue murder that it was blatant discrimination based on a lifestyle choice.

First, I don't know where you live but child care is a hell of alot more than $5,000/yr. :-). I think your argument here is flawed. I pay more for my health insurance because I have family coverage. More than twice as much as a single employee. Also, I do not get paid paternity leave if I choose to take it. I must use vacation, then it becomes unpaid. I understand your point, but I pay more because I get more, so there is no point to give others a kickback. Unless we paid the same amount.

So why do you consider it OK to discriminate against people who choose not to have kids? Understand that I'm not arguing against provision of day care per se. I'm arguing against a company that provides day care to its breeding employees, but nothing to its non-breeding employees.

I understand what you are saying but it seems to me you are assuming day care would be a completely free perk to employees with children. I doubt many companies do that. I do not want to assume too much from your words but in most situations day care is like health care. It is subsidized by the company to help defer the costs to employees who wish to use it. If you choose not to use it then you do not pay for. However, since the company subsidizes things like day care and health care, all employees are, in a sense, paying for it.
Why is it OK with you if you help subsidize your co workers' health care but not OK to help subsidize child care? Simple, you do not use the child care. I wonder if you would feel the same way about health care or subsidized gym memberships if you did not use them?

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[Monte]

We could afford for her to stay home, but that's a monstrous waste of her talents and training to sit around waiting for the baby to wake up and be fed or changed.

Just curious, how would you feel if your parents told you that your upbringing was largely a waste of their talent and training?

I really hope your kid never reads Slashdot.

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[Phronesis]

One thing that comes in is that well-raised children provide benefits to all of society, not just to themselves and their parents. When they grow up, as workers they will produce more wealth than they earn. If they are responsible citizens, they will contribute to their entire communities through good citizenship, volunteering, etc.

A case in point is the difficulty Social Security is facing because the baby boomers irresponsibly did not produce enough children to keep the system solvent during their retirement. Today's child will be the one working and paying twenty to forty years from now for your and my Social Security benefits. If there are not children to buy the stock you and I sell from our private retirement investments, the price will crash as everyone sells with no buyers.

Many employers recognize that they have some responsibility to society as well as to their bottom line and support employees who want to contribute to society. Sometimes they hold blood drives on site, sometimes they support people who want to do volunteer work, sometimes they match charitable donations by their employees, and sometimes they subsidize employees with children. It's all part of being a good citizen.

I don't see people complaining that if they don't give to charity, they should be able to pocket the money the employer would have given in matching their donation. I don't see people saying that if the employer give employees time off to donate blood or volunteer in the community, that less civic-minded employees should get the same time off to take long lunches or go to movies in the middle of the day.

The analogy is not exact because there is no denying that raising a child gives a parent more pleasure and satisfaction than most kinds of volunteer work, so it's less purely altruistic, but the fact remains that a well-raised child really is an asset to all of us, not only to the parents.

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[Charles Dodgeson]

I think you've made the point here:

One thing that comes in is that well-raised children provide benefits to all of society, not just to themselves and their parents.

The reason for supporting day care is similar to paying taxes for schools even if you are childless. Rasing and providing for children is not soley the responsibility of those who chose to have them. It is one of the things that societies (and not just collections of individuals) are for.

According to some principles, the person who started this thread is correct. Daycare support does discriminate against the childless by providing a benefit that will almost entirely go to others. And it would be wrong to deny that.

Sometimes it can go too far. (I, a parent of a two year old, would support an extra fee for those taking small children or babies on airplanes to componsate other passengers for the extra discomfort caused.) In general these are the types of decisions and balances that need to be worked out in a democracy.

As you say, raising children has its own rewards. Believe me I know. But I think that it is probably a mistake to present that choice - even with your qualification and acknowledgement - as a public good. I would like to think that you are right, but I fear that you are wrong. Instead we should think about the support of children in general as a public good.

All the payments and benefits almost never come out even in the end. Some people end up contributing more, and others end up benefiting more, and some of the benefits go to future generations. That is part of communal living.

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[SpacePunk]

Ah, another grammar Nazi strikes. ---

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[_Lint_]

But with health insurance (as with a child care option) you would have a choice. If you do not want health care ou do not take it. You are still in essence helping to subsidize it for other employees.

how so? If you opt out of health insurance, not only do you not pay the premium, but your employer also adds back what they would have subsidized to your paycheck.

For example (and I am pulling numbers out of the air here, I forget what they actually are):
If I normally pay $25 a month for health care, and my employer would normally pay $175 a month, but I opt out, not only would I receive the $25 I don't have to pay, but I would have an additional $125 a month.

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[DecoDragon]

What is this "balancing" you speak of? From the posts I've read here, the priority is career first, then kids.

Heh. Fortunately, I don't take my world view from slashdot posts. You see a lot of people saying career first, then kids. I see a lot of people saying you're a bad parent if you don't stay home (and honestly a lot of people getting defensive about it).

We talk about career and kids like they're cut and dry choices. But they're not, never have been, never will be. It's just easier to act like they are. Should employers offer day care? Certainly not as some legislated sort of thing. Is it some afront against childless people or stay at home parents - it shouldn't be. Some people choose to work, some people have to work. If employers can attract and retain employees through a benefit program (why not combine daycare with some flex-time/part-time arrangements so people can do 'balancing' in a true sense)then why not

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[kilroy2000]

You shouldn't. And neither should I subsidize you through marriage penalty in the tax code.

And while we're making everything fair, lets eliminate progressive taxation. Everyone should have the same percentage of their salary taken in taxes. One tax bracket for everyone regardless of income. Even if you only earn a single dollar, you still get taxed the same percentage as someone earning $100K. That's fair, isn't it? It ensures that every worker has a stake in the cost of providing government benefits. No more freeloaders!!!

Actually, I'd settle for on-site day care that I would pay for just for the convenience. Or better yet, a reduction in the tax burden so that a single decent salary can afford a comfortable living for a family of four.

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[Sterling Anderson]

For example (and I am pulling numbers out of the air here, I forget what they actually are): If I normally pay $25 a month for health care, and my employer would normally pay $175 a month, but I opt out, not only would I receive the $25 I don't have to pay, but I would have an additional $125 a month.

Thats great that your employer does that. Unfortunately, not all employers do. Even the ones that do, like yours, do not reimburse you the full amount they would pay. So you are still subsidizing other employees' health care. Unless you are really bad at math that is...

Re:I'm single. Why should I pay for your day care?

[Cujo]

Just curious, how would you feel if your parents told you that your upbringing was largely a waste of their talent and training?

I'd agree with them. It's just reality: babies mostly sleep, cry, sleep, poop, sleep, eat and drool. They need a lot of love and care, but not a lot of intellectual focus.

My mother was a very bright lady who was largely a stay-at-home mom. These days, she'd probably have a career and be a breadwinner on par with her husband. I would have spent more time in daycare. Would it have done me much (additional)damage? I doubt it.

I really hope your kid never reads Slashdot.

If she does, I'll love her anyway.

DayCare requires Loyalty

[grovertime]

As a young father and a tech professional, daycare on the job is important to me, but rarely even an option. My feeling is that the lack of daycare is directly due to the lack of corporate loyalty among the tech industry. Most of us are essentially hired guns; freelancers who are loyal to our community and our focus, but rarely to our company. Thus, due to high turnover and an unreasonable focus on providing $200 gadgets to people earning six figure salaries (as a means of luring them), there is little focus on the elemental pillars of life (ie. techie's with family responsibilities, personal necessities, physical abnormalities, etc.). The real question is this.....while we bicker about whether there is such a thing as a virtual community, can anyone even explain to me whether there is a REAL, non-abstracted techie community?

1. 
   O P E N___S O U R C E___H U M O R
   

Re:DayCare requires Loyalty

[BluedemonX]

Yeah, but keep in mind this: the $200 gadget is a one-time, $200 per employee perq.

With child care, you need licensing, insurance, and you're paying tens of dollars per hour per child care worker, plus opening yourself up to MILLIONS in liability if something happens to little kimmie, plus "eating up" valuable office space. In certain markets (Seattle, Boston) where space is absolutely at a premium, it's like, "why not just hand out Palm Pilots instead?"

Re:DayCare requires Loyalty

[goliard]

The real question is this.....while we bicker about whether there is such a thing as a virtual community, can anyone even explain to me whether there is a REAL, non-abstracted techie community?

I am at firest inclinded say "it depends on your definition of 'community'", but really, the answer is "no" for all conceivable definitions.

Community is a localized phenomenon (this does not rule out virtual community, if you consider cyberspace a locality, as most geeks do). A bunch of people with something in common is merely a demographic, or a subculture at most. A community is a bunch of people which, at the very, absolute least interact (regularly, frequently, importantly). So for a non-virtual geek community to happen, you need (for starters) a physical population density of geeks which is quite high. That limits your choices to a very few places in the US (dunno about outside the US). I live in one of those places (Cambridge, MA).

But even if you have that population density, community is a way of interacting which most geeks are neither into nor very good at. For instance, geeks are much better at being loyal to a cause than to a group of people. For instance, geeks prefer not to have to initiate socializing. For instance, geeks don't like to have to deal with the piddling details of people's lives. For instance, geeks don't respect ritual or other social technologies. (All for most geeks; there are of course exceptions.)

But if you meant merely a self-aware subculture of techies, self-declaring as such and looking out for one another, well, geeks are really terrible about looking out for anyone (including themselves, but especially others).

So, well, no.

A good idea

[EfromVT]

I think that helping with daycare is a great idea but most employers don't offer it because of the cost. It costs a lot of money to find a place, buy equipment (toys, stuff for food, tables...) and hire competent staff.

You are more likely to find this situation if you work for a large company whose main focus is not just IT. The greater the number of people in the company the more of a mix of situations, sexes and ages of workers so there will probably be more demand for daycare.

My wife and I had this discussion recently because we are finishing an adoption of two children under two. Fortunately for us my wife will be able to quit her job and stay home with them which is probably best for all kids but just not practical for many people today.

Need to keep your kids busy?

[wunderhorn1]

One word: Lego.
-the wunderhorn

-the wunderhorn
#define OH_YES_INDEED 1

Speak For Yourself, Young Man

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been a techie for over two decades. I have children and get to deal with caring for them somehow. I do use my high-speed home Internet for telecommuting when I can, but usually the client environment does not allow that. Child care is an issue. (And I post anonymously just because this part of my personal life doesn't need to be connected to my public techie persona.)

Re:Speak For Yourself, Young Man

[Doctor Memory]

I noticed that! "The majority of "techies" are still young, male and single" -- what, "techies" didn't exist before /.? I spent my first thirty-hour hacking session in front of a TRS-80 Model I, and there are a bunch of people out there coding who started before I did.

Interesting....

[Sheeple Police]

but isn't it a cheaper alternative to buy a few old 486's and let the engineers kids play with them?

The way I figure, the kids already have a disposition to electronics due to their environment, so give them a few flashing lights, a sharp object or two in the form of a screw driver, and you're set.

Oh, and don't say I'm being sexist. We all know the girls would get a kick out of playing with toner ribbons, or play "House" with Suzy Semiconducter and Phil Pentium (Ok, now you can say I'm being sexist).


hehehe..

Day Care

[IanCarlson]

At my current place of employment, I could probably enroll myself in day care.

It sounds to me like day care is just one more perk that your employer would like to throw at you to keep you from leaving when something better comes down the road. In all honesty, I don't know why child care wasn't offered sooner. Hell, there are companies in Silicon Valley that'll walk your dog for you, then bring him back to your cube.

Why shouldn't they take my kid outside to crap in a bush, too?

An emphatic YES!

[empesey]

I would love for someone to feed me cookies and juice while I'm working. I wouldn't turn down an attractive female singing songs to me while I'm debugging some heinous code either. I'd get a box full of toys (which I would gladly share with the other programmers). Currently my job doesn't allow me to take naps, but with daycare it's part of the package.

Sign me up.

Re:An emphatic YES!

[big_groo]

You forgot Play-Doh. Mmmmm....play doh...sOOO salty...

Dog Daycare

[inetd]

I am a tech guy working in new york, and the hours can be pretty ridiculous, 7am - 11pm+ has happened a number of days in a row. Aside from the financial benefit from working this much, and living in new york. I would like a enhanced concierge service provided by the company. To do things like walk my dog, bring it to the park, pick up laundry, grocery shopping etc. It may seem like i am asking for hotel like services, but aside from going out and finding these individual services, i would like someone to coordinate. That would make my life worlds easier.

Re:Dog Daycare

[topher71]

If you want that, get out of New York. Most companies in The Valley provide concierge services now.

Of course, they require your life in return. Those 7am to 11pm days will turn into years...

Re:Some techies shouldn't be allowed to procreate.

[JurriAlt137n]

I have to assume from both your post and your sig that you think that the entire tech-world consists of coders... Are you a coder yourself and just unable to imagine anyone in a different line of business posting to Slashdot? Or was this an attempt at a joke?

Good idea.

[mach-5]

Actually, I think its a great idea to a least have the option for low cost or free day care. Some smaller companies probably can't afford (or there isn't enough interest) to have their own day care, so it would make more sense to contract it out. However, not having it at all, leaves out those who could really, really use it.

Ideally, when if I ever have a family, I would like to stay home with my children and see them through their childhood. That will only happen if my wife can make enough money to support the family.

Daycare != irresponsible

[Ratteau]

Daycare is a very responsible thing to do for your children. This is certainly not opting out of anything -- its not as if you would have been there with them at that time anyway, you would have been at work. Remember, the person you are going to be is pretty much defined by the age of 6 (I cannot give a specific footnote here, sorry), and this interaction is very important.

Responsible parents check out multiple daycare centers in their community, get references, etc. It is the start of education, and where most kids begin to develop their social skills, i.e. how to deal with other children, share, etc.

And daycare is not just for preschoolers -- many offer programs for younger elementary school children after school and before their parent(s) get home.

You have some good points about living more frugally, but some people just cannot do that, and I think your opening statment is a bit extreme

Re:Daycare != irresponsible

[roman_mir]

>Remember, the person you are going to be is pretty much defined by the age of 6 (I cannot give a specific footnote here, sorry)

The sex of the person is defined by the age of 6 - Sigmund Freud (and this has nothing to do with your biological sex)

Re:Daycare != irresponsible

[gavinhall]

Posted by Kewlhandtek:

I'm sick of all this, "I'm sending them to daycare for socialization" crap. Oh yeah its good for them to socialize with kids whose parent[s] dont give a rip about them too. They'd have something in common. Also this crap about sending them there for learning,.........shit you can`t teach a 3-5year old how to fingerpaint/color, read and write? I know of one 4 yearold that is quite proficent on a computer. He'll kick your ass in quake 3 also :) He never went to daycare!

Of course we do!

[pvera]

Day care is pretty damn expensive around here. Many women stay at home because if they go to work then most of their salary will go to day care. That's the case with my wife right now, if we could afford day care then she could go to work and I could telecommute without worrying that I'll be distracted and my little boy will decide to climb on the fridge or something and then do a free fall jump.

Pedro

Great Idea

[big_groo]

I have a child. Day care in my area ranges from 250 - 600 bucks a month. Let's say you have to be at work at 8:00. Get up at 6:00, get yourself, the kid etc. packed, leave for work at 7:00 to get the kid to day care - rush to work. At the end of the day - rush to day care (you have to pick up your kid by 5:30 - 6, or they sell 'em) pick up the kid, get the wife, go home. *whew*.

I would *LOVE* to have day care where I work. EVERY employee would take advantage of it. Hell, with the amount of money that I'd save each month, I could pay for my own cell phone, internet access, and gym membership. This is something that would free up time from my already busy day, and reduce stress.

You'd be a fool to turn this benefit down if it was ever offered. Don't have kids yet? When you do you'll wish you had day care on the job. You'll see...

Re:Great Idea

[hurst]

OK, you can have your daycare... but being your childless co-worker, I better get $250-$600 worth of benefits relevant to my lifestyle choices.

Re:Great Idea

[DukeofURL]

Geez... your the little abortion that got away...

Re:Great Idea

[Zigg]

I want that money too, since I won't be letting daycare workers pretend they're family and raise my children.

Techies And Daycare

[AntiTuX]

I like the fact that some companies offer daycare on-premise. Unfortunately, Netscape isn't one of them. My wife and I don't have any children yet, but when we do, I would like to get them involved in a Daycare, so that we (my wife and I), can both continue to work.
It's a very good thing for children to interact with other children also. It builds character and relationships. It teaches kids to interact with each other, and also build friendships. I like daycares, and would like to have one down here when i plan to breed :)

Freelance, you'll have no regrets

[Anne Marie]

The only effective way of guaranteeing childcare for the time being is to freelance. Companies will wise up as the current techie population ages and consolidates, but you're insane if you try to bank on it at the moment.

But almost more important than merely having childcare is selecting the correct childcare. Do you want to put your kids in a corporate kennel where their talents as geeklings are squandered or redirected into boorish pursuits consistent with the popular culture that most geeks reject? Is your daycare going to provide a rigorous regime of lego mindstorms that each little geek needs to grow up into a thinking free self? Free software == good but free minds == eh?

No, thanks. Freelancing frees you up to make these individual choices for your individual children (and we're all individuals deep down inside, right?). Flexible work hours, typically higher pay, fewer social cancellations... like I said, you're insane if you're still on salary. The market's tight now, so now's the time to secure a better financial situation. There'll be plenty of time in the recessions ahead to sit back and resign oneself to a salaried position. And by then, hopefully your kids will be grown up and supporting themselves.

Your life is passing before your very eyes. Soon you'll be old and your children will resent all the time you spent slaving at the corporate machine instead of teaching them to be machine builders of their own. Do you want to wake up and find yourself old, hirsute, hoary, and feeling sorry for yourself? Take control now. You're good enough and smart enough. The rest will follow.

Re:Freelance, you'll have no regrets

[DeICQLady]

I would have to disagree... would history show us that companiies don't "wise up" unless a "bloody" revolution (figuratively) takes place? Flitting the word daycare about is by no means to point to what we have no... hell no. I mean why is it we have not pushed them to sweat and slave over the idea and offer us quality. (Quality being partly defined by the fact that you will have numerous choices about the matter.

I am sick and tired of seeing that no one has yet said, listen, your not just coming to work for us, your joining our family, and we'll take care of you. Yes... it sounds very naive... but I want it. Wouldn't you?

Re:Freelance, you'll have no regrets

[platos_beard]

There'll be plenty of time in the recessions ahead to sit back and resign oneself to a salaried position.

Oh yeah. Recession. That's exactly the time I'm going to be hiring salaried geeks instead of freelancers. You betcha'.

Re:Freelance, you'll have no regrets

[eon(36.0)]

To the world at large, tech careers are being sold as the ultimate in freedom and flexibility--carry your laptop to a coffee shop! Work with your kid on your lap! Has this dream been truly realized yet? What does it take besides a home T1 line? (future potential parent wanting to know...) / Kathryn Aegis

Companies should provide childcare

[cheekymonkey_68]

I don't think its high on companies priorities for retaining staff, but if they want to retain the older experienced coders it should be.

I'm just finishing the 4th year of a Software Engineering Honours degree and became a dad last year.

When I go back into the big wide world again, working conditions and childcare will take precedance over salary.

I'd love to work at a company that provides a decent creche, but I'd be more impressed if my kid left the creche and actually learnt something creative.

Hi-Tech companies should be trying to inspire the coders of tomorrow. I'd love to see a creche where they make the kids learn creatively using graphics packages like the GIMP to draw their first pictures, or programming robots using lego mindstorms.

What I Think

[grammar fascist]

What do you all think?

I think people should stop being selfish and hateful, and learn how to love each other again. Then, we wouldn't have so many divorces (and yes, you divorcees, it's partially your fault). As well as that, every set of parents should do absolutely everything in their power to leave one parent at home.

Me? I sleep better knowing that my children are being raised by my wife, whom I trust completely. (As an aside - if you think about it, you'll realize that kids in day care are raised by other kids more than the day care workers. That's frightening.)

That's the best solution. Anything else is a cheap imitation.

Re:What I Think

[Fizgig]

Would you stay home, though? If your wife was able to earn an equal amount as you are earning now (note I did not say more than you), would you happily stay home with the kids? You might, but I think most people who say things like you're saying now wouldn't be so willing. Maybe you've already stayed at home with the kids for an extended period of time; I don't think most husbands do.

The concept of the stay-at-home-mom taking care of 1-3 kids is a relatively new phenomenon. Before, you had families of 8+ and the mother actually did revenue-generating work in the household. Only this century has there been a move towards a stay-at-home mom who spends all her time with a few children (BTW, I grew up in such a situation; I loved it). Everyone makes it sound like the mom staying at home paying lots of attention to kids is how it's always been done and always should be done, and that's just not true. It may be nice, but it's certainly not the default.

Daycare, no, $, yes!

[digThisXL]

For those of us with a spouse/partner:

Rather than give us the perqs of daycare, why not pay us the additional dollars so we can afford to have our spouse/partner can stay home and raise the kids?

I have noticed a lot of young couples are going back to this "old-fashioned" way of family life.

-JoeF

Re:Daycare, no, $, yes!

[hurst]

Am I understanding this correctly? Or am I being a crumudgeon here?
"For those of us with a spouse/partner: "
Are you saying that people who have a partner should be paid more just because they're partner-ed?
They actually did this in the '50s. Married men were paid more than single men who did the same work. This rationale was also used to keep (single, of course) women's wages down too. Does anyone here think this is right?

Re:Daycare, no, $, yes!

[Oscar26]

No, that isn't right. It's never been easier to live at home with one salary, and you shouldn't be punished because your single (even though I'm married) YET people claim that you can't. Real wages are up (adjusted for inflation) and have never been higher on average. The problem is today people want 2 cars, big TV's, surround sound, 3 computers in there house, etc. In other words, people aren't fiscally responsible with the money that they have made. Cnn.com had a story about a couple making $40,000 a year with 2 kids. After you take out day care, taxes, extra car you only have about $100 a week extra of disposable income. So the second person works for $5000 a year. When you factor all that into the equation, is it worth it to make the $100? Maybe it is maybe it isn't, that's not the issue. I'm just sick of people complaining that you can't live off one salary. This is off topic. I had to vent.

Re:Daycare, no, $, yes!

[digThisXL]

Assuming all things are equal, yes, only those who have a partner/spouse would benefit from replacing daycare with dollars. However, by offering daycare to *all* employees, you are effectively giving something to only those who have children! So a better statement -- if you are going to offer daycare, offer the option of dollars as an alternative. JoeF

Daycare would come soon..its not of priority now.

[cOdEgUru]

I believe soon Daycare would be in everyones mind. But not right now. Look at the hitech industry. I would say that the majority of the engg department consists of Non US citizens, who have a spouse who takes care of the kids at home. Daycare is not much of an issue there.

Another fact is that, the tech industry were booming so rapidly, that people screwed up their priorities. Money and StockOptions came first, comfort and kids came last. This would soon change as the industry stabilizes and these issues would come to the forefront soon. If you look at recent polls conducted, that idiotic foosball game rated last among the perks people wanted.

Simple Solution: Stop Breeding!

[atrowe]

I'm sick of people whining about the high cost of daycare and having to wake up at 5 am to take their kids to the babysitter, etc.. The simple solution here is: If you don't want the responsibilities that come with having children, KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS! It can't get much easier than that. If you want kids, that's great, but don't whine about all the inconveniences that come with that. The fact is having kids is a HUGE responsibility. Fortunately, it's also totally optional.

Is this an issue?

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Are there any techies out there with enough social skills to actually find a mate and manage to procreate? Why get married and have kids when you could be spending your evenings in the basement writing code?

Disclaimer: this message is posted in jest (Score: 5, Funny). I happen to be a husband and father (and techie) myself, so I know that this is a serious issue.
--

Quit your job.

[Byteme]

Then become a teacher... that way you will have the same days off.

Or better, don't spawn.

Seriously, children should be the first priority. If you cannot take a day off to provide for your child, you are irresponsible. If your company provides this service, then great... I would opt to stay home than have some stranger care for my child on a snow-day or whatever.

Phones vs Daycare vs Other

[MattW]

I'd guess that employer-sponsored daycare, even if the costs were passed on dollar for dollar to employees, would be very welcome if they made room for it onsite. Even if most techies remained male, they still may well want daycare down the road, because they may have wives who work in other industries that aren't so obliged to provide good benefits to attract employees.

That said, let me add that in many tech jobs, a cell phone isn't a 'perk' anyhow. It's just another way for your employer to harass you after-hours, and keep you working 24x7.

From an economic standpoint, daycare makes sense if you can make considerably more than your daycare costs. I haven't had a chance to face this particular dilemna yet, but imagine this scenario:

Husband: $110k/yr as an engineer manager
Wife: $65k/yr as, say, a sysadmin, or QA tester

Let's say, for the sake of argument, this is California. With the marriage penalty in place on their income, all her income (if you consider her working vs not working) is taxed at 31, then 36% for a small portion, federal. 9.3% CA tax. So, her $65k, just assuming a 41.3% effective tax rate (which is low, factoring in Social Security and other payroll-based taxes), has dropped to 38k. Now she has to pay for daycare. She's working full time, so that's 200 days per year. Let's say that 1/4 of those are during summer. That's 150 days of childcare for 3 hours, say, and 50 days of childcare for 10 hours. Assuming $7/hr for daycare, she's now paying $6650/yr per child. On 2 children, that means $13300, a cost of working, lowering her net income to $24500. Again, these numbers are generous. Daycare could easily cost more (especially in the valley), taxes take a larger bite. And then the parents have to ask: is it worth not having one full-time parent for the income? In the silicon valley, they may be so tight there's no choice, because of soaring housing costs. Of course, this analysis changes a lot for single parents who must have daycare, and either way, I think many large employers can become more attractive to 'established' workers, because you have to be fairly sizable to do daycare in house. But I live 10 minutes from Dell HQ, and their campus is colossal. Several of my neighbors work there. Having daycare (which they probably do) would undoubtedly go over very well, and help them to compete for workers against fresh startups with enticing options and chances for advancement.

So, in the end, the question I have to ask is: will daycare attract workers only? Or will it actually create them? (by drawing stay-at-home parents into the workforce they left behind because the childcare is a reasonable option)

A Young And Scattered Workforce

[Prof_Dagoski]

I always get a sense that the high tech force is a young one that may not even have kids to put in daycare--or ones that are old enough. So, any demand for daycare as high tech perk may only just be starting. The other thing is that day care is a fairly rare benefit. A lot of government and university positions may have it, but I've seldom seen it offered as a benefit in any corporate position I've bid on. And, when I have its almost always available only at the company HQ. The other reason why we may not see this at high tech firms is because the need is being filled to some extent elsewhere. First off, how many us actually work at a high tech firm as opposed to the info tech department in a place that does someting else as its main business? Secondly, I often see sort of parental split among couples. The guy takes the job at the wizzo high paying tech haus, while the gal takes the government/university job with the lower pay and top notch benefits. So, I don't know if techies are actually asking for daycare as benefit or option.

Re:A Young And Scattered Workforce

[caite]

Wait! #1 Men can stay home with their kids.
#2 Not everybody wants kids (think _first_! It will screw up your whole life!)

Daycare won't solve the underlying problem, that people with children should (and often do) put them first but their job performance suffers. I -like- working with young and childless people because they don't leave early, they don't make a gazillion calls for PTA & doctors & play dates. I don't think that companies that rely on technical ability and concentration should hire people who are busy thinking about their kids not about code.

So providing daycare, lactation programs, etc. all it does is get you a whole host of lazy, useless people who won't be dedicated to doing their best work. And in practice it does discourage the average hormone-ridden female from taking a technical position, but we all know that hiring a sucky coder is much worse than having no one at all. Maybe we shouldn't hire people who want those kinds of "perks".

Attention Joe Coder, Report to DayCare IMMEDIATELY

[DRO0]

Of course having an onsite daycare can have its drawbacks. Like announcements over the P.A. that your kid has pooped all over himself and you must take care of the situation immediately. As if I needed to add more potential embarrassment and stress in my life!

Defining who a child is

[Cardinal]

Remember, the person you are going to be is pretty much defined by the age of 6 (I cannot give a specific footnote here, sorry), and this interaction is very important.

...And as such, I don't want who my children become to be influenced by a day care employee more than myself or my wife. No thanks.

Day care? Go back a step.

[Anal Surprise]

I'm as interested in the "technie" (bleh) points of view on breeding. Bad thing? Good thing? Good for me and bad for everyone else? (yuck, I hate this proto-eugenic and occasionally quasi-racist point of view)

I personally consider myself to be childfree, so this just gets lumped into the big list of benefits I can't use.

Why companies would be hesitant

[DRO0]

Seriously though, I have two kids and while I could see the benefits of onsite daycare, I could see why companies would be hesitant to provide it. 1. Building space is not cheap (SF Bay Area); 2. If kid gets sick then employee must take off (usually the case anyways, but almost 100% certain with onsite daycare); 3. More friction between employees with kids and those without (which is already a big problem in some places);

Deja-vu

[isorox]

After browsing this, my memory of numerous comments on this exact subject, on this exact page, not too long ago.

NEXT!

Re:Some techies shouldn't be allowed to procreate.

[Starbreeze]

That is *such* an insane generalization. Catering to the majority and ignoring the minority? There are plenty of women in the technology field. If there is a need in a company for daycare, it should be offered. As a female geek, I plan on having children with my future-husband. I would be much more inclined to work for a company who offered day-care. Having your children nearby in company daycare is very convenient, especially if there is any sort of problem like a child falling ill. And no worrying about driving to another day-care to pick up your kids after work etc. I can completely understand the employees wanting emplyer-provided internet access and discounted home PC's, but family is definitely more important than geeks toys and internet access.

Damn straight.

[Cardinal]

My childhood before age 4 or 5 (When school started) was dominated by vast tupperware tubs of legos, at home with my sister and my mother.

Sadly, I think kids today are, instead, innundated with poor cartoon programming and cheesy action figure toys. Nothing that fires the imagination and inspires creativity more than a big pile of building blocks. How can you become an engineer if you don't build a bridge from the couch to the coffee table at age 3?!

Re:Damn straight.

[ellem]

Hell, my son is 2 and he just built a NASCAR out of Legos... And not some cheesy kit either, he just handed me a car and said, "Car vrum."

It didn't have wheels but it was clearly a car and it was clearly Mark Martin's.

Company daycare

[Masem]

I don't understand why more IT departments have daycare -- think of how much MORE code you could produce in a day if you put the tykes to work (and the working are paying the company to keep them there!). And since they are 'temporary' , you don't need to worry about stock options!

Couldn't hurt

[macgeek]

The company I work at is fairly young, and about 1/4 of us have kids of varying ages. I've never heard it mentioned that we could/would offer one, but I know for a fact that just about every parent in the office would gladly bring their kids to work if there was a daycare on the premises. Just being able to go have lunch with them, or drop by for a visit when I'm sick of looking at code and need a break would probably do wonders for my productivity.

Many parents are concerned about the quality of daycares in general. I myself don't like the thought of dropping my kids off at one of those giant, corporately run free-range kid farms (aka "daycare center"), so when we found a home day-care, it was a blessing. If my company offered daycare, they'd have to make sure all the parents are pleased with their choice of people to work/run there, especially since all the parents would have very ready access to the facilities. If they do this, everyone would end up happy, so what's wrong with that?

you are fooling yourself

[twitter]

Responsible parents raise their children. Daycare falls short in many ways, and the poster was not extreem.

As rhesus monkey experiments show, infants need the security and comfort of a mother, not the "social interaction" of a daycare baby factory. Haven't you seen the films of monkeys raised on wire cages with a bottle as a mom? They grew up sociopaths because the world had never provided them warmth or security. What makes you think some overworked daycare "proffesional" is going to be able to provide any more love? Putting you child into one of these places where they are abandoned in a crib surrounded by the cries of all thier peers is just cruel.

What do you get in return for this abandonment, more money? Huh! If your wife makes less than $25,000 you are loosing money on that second car, day care, and her wardrobe, so quit slaving her.

Very few women I know really like the "liberation" and "empowerment" of work. What double think.

Re:you are fooling yourself

[EricWright]

twitter babbled:
Very few women I know really like the "liberation" and "empowerment" of work. What double think.

Wow. I didn't know there were many Amish reading Slashdot. All of the childless women I know prefer working to sitting around at all day. Those women I know who do have kids have career aspirations, too. Staying at home for 5 years will kill any chance they have at a long, successful career in a field of their choosing.

When you have a child who ISN'T a rhesus monkey, then you can spout off about your experiences. In my experience, my son prefers being able to socialize with other children his age on (mostly) his own terms. He also is growing up without experiencing the stereotype that mothers should stay home popping out babies every year.

Eric

Re:you are fooling yourself

[deacent]

As rhesus monkey experiments show, infants need the security and comfort of a mother, not the "social interaction" of a daycare baby factory. Haven't you seen the films of monkeys raised on wire cages with a bottle as a mom? They grew up sociopaths because the world had never provided them warmth or security. What makes you think some overworked daycare "proffesional" is going to be able to provide any more love? Putting you child into one of these places where they are abandoned in a crib surrounded by the cries of all thier peers is just cruel.

I agree that is a cruel scenario but it is not the reality of the daycare that I use. The person that looks after my baby has only two others in her charge and regularly gives my daughter plenty of one-on-one interaction. I wouldn't leave her there if it were any other way. I have done surprise inspections, btw, so I know she really is getting this attention. Of course, there is also a lot of group play. Unfortunately, out of all of the daycare centers that I interviewed, this was the only one that offered this kind of attention.

Very few women I know really like the "liberation" and "empowerment" of work. What double think.

I won't pretend to know what most women like, but I personally feel the need to work. I'm just not the full-time mommy type. It's wrong to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do with regard to their children or their career. I love coding and I work in a great environment with fair compensation. My decision to go back work was a personal one, not based money as much as quality of life for my daughter as well as myself.

-Jennifer

Re:you are fooling yourself

[Attila]

One thing that came out of the '60s is this conviction that you have the right to everything. We are living in a society of adults who think like children, where their "wants" are all that matter. What ever happened to responsibility?

You want children? And you want a career? Take your pick! How dare anyone treat human beings as options, like a car or a big screen TV. Children are people, and especially in the formative years they need to be raised by someone who loves them.

My wife and I decided early on that one of us would always be home with the kids. For the most part it's been her, but for one year it was me, and as a result, I can't understand why anyone would have children just to farm them out to someone else to raise.

When I was a kid, my favorite retort was, "I didn't ask to be born." Well, I was right. Your children didn't ask to be born. Are you going to give something up for them, or just add them to your resume as one of your accomplishments?

Re:you are fooling yourself

[deacent]

I feel that I do take responsiblity with my child. I do it with great deliberation and I'm willing to do whatever it takes to give her the best benefit. I also think that families vary quite a lot and the individuals in those families vary even more. In some cases, a full-time mommy or daddy is not the best scenario, but in others, it is absolutely necessary. The average situation is something in between. This is why it is a bad idea to say that daycare is always bad or it's always a great idea. It depends on the situation and the people in it. In my case, daycare has helped. Even if I were to stay home, it would be necessary. I become depressed and dependent when I stay at home for prolonged periods of time with my daughter. I can't take care of her if I don't take care of myself. This is not an issue of self-indulgence. It's an issue of survival.

-Jennifer

Re:you are fooling yourself

[lgraba]

"Putting you child into one of these places where they are abandoned in a crib surrounded by the cries of all thier peers is just cruel."

While the type of daycare you describe certainly exists, it is far from the norm. Usually the state government has rules for the teacher to child ratio, dependant on age, as well as the state of the facility. Also, it is not hard to pick out these types of facilities when you visit them. If you encounter one like this, don't send your kids there.

The child care centers that we have used for our children are VERY good. The teachers are dedicated and well trained, the children have safe places to play (i.e. be a kid), but they also learn a lot. These facilities are a far cry from the ones you describe. Either all or most facilities in your area are as you describe (don't you have state regulations governing this?), or you are using scare tactics to reinforce your own decisions on how to raise your children.

"Very few women I know really like the 'liberation' and 'empowerment' of work."

Then the women that you know are much different than the ones I know. This is a matter of the individual. Some women do well at being a stay-at-home mom; there are also good stay-at-home dads. However, not everyone is suited for this, and many do find fulfillment in work outside the home. Don't try to make all women and families fit into one mold.

Re:you are fooling yourself

[jburroug]

Staying at home for 5 years will kill any chance they have at a long, successful career in a field of their choosing.

Bullshit! My mother put her career on hold to be a stay at home mom until I was eight (and my little sister was four) for those eight years she was mostly at home, during lean years she would work part time at night, after my dad was home. I nearly always had a parent around when I was a wee tyke, and it wasn't until my little sis was in school that mom started working on her career again, HR managment. She is doing quite well despite her eight year handicap, and more importantly she managed to raise two healthy, happy, (mostly) well adjusted childern.
When I eventually start a family one of us will take time off from our precious career for a few years to do something truly important.

Re:you are fooling yourself

[twitter]

Your son's manners will be as bad or worse than your own. It's hard to decide if nature or nurture is to blame.

Re:you are fooling yourself

[Attila]

Depression is normal. It can be dealt with.

Dependency raises red flags as '90s psychobabble.

Have you considered that you might be avoiding the difficulty (and it certainly is difficult) of raising a child full-time, rather than dealing with your problems?

Re:you are fooling yourself

[ralphclark]

In my case, daycare has helped. Even if I were to stay home, it would be necessary. I become depressed and dependent when I stay at home for prolonged periods of time with my daughter. I can't take care of her if I don't take care of myself. This is not an issue of self-indulgence. It's an issue of survival.

<p>If that is so, then like so many of the "me" generation, you are an utter failure as a parent.

Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction

Re:you are fooling yourself

[BluedemonX]

Actually, decent human contact is required; whether or not that's from a mother or a decent day care worker is immaterial. Nobody is suggesting that children be bundled into wire cages and shoved into a corner while mom works 9 hour days; they're suggesting a kind of environment where the kids are looked after in a nurturing environment and where the parent or parents can drop in and see the child during the day. Dr. Laura might have a problem with this, but the wrinkled old divorced pr0n queen adulteress might be persuaded to shut her ignorant mouth once in a while. Like now.

You seem to have this phallocentric view that women are the lesser earners and were dictated by God to be the child rearers. You are, quite frankly, wrong. Some women don't do the daycare thing for a better wardrobe - they perhaps had a decent career before the baby and would like to have both. Many companies would like to retain workers, too: that female you think is taking a male's job might just happen to be one of the best damn coders around and might be BADLY needed. So we can deal with the whole career/family thing by either requiring women to live in the 1950s or look ahead to 2050. Which would you prefer?

Re:you are fooling yourself

[DecoDragon]

Very few women I know really like the "liberation" and "empowerment" of work.

Few women may like to have to go to work, I imagine few men do either. But the liberation and empowerment of work aren't as false as you make them out to be. Going to work is having money, and while money isn't the end all and be all of life, it does give you options. Being able to go to work means a woman is not dependent on a man for her options - before children, while raising children, or after children.

Do I think marriage is something casual to be discarded at the first signs of trouble? No. But every situation is different and some are bad. I am a woman, and I do like the liberation and empowerment of being able to work if I choose or need to do so.

Re:you are fooling yourself

[dublin]

The fundamental question is this: Are those career aspirations more important than the welfare of your own children?

This is not a hard or trick question. There is one right answer, and it's not the selfish one.

Re:you are fooling yourself

[Schmolle]

infants need the security and comfort of a mother

Could that possibly be a father as well? Or could that even be any other person that is caring, loving and all those good things? I haven't reviewed the report from the study (I doubt if you have, but that is besides the point) but I very much doubt that the conclusion was "has to be a mother; all else turns monkey into psycho".

the "social interaction" of a daycare baby factory

1. Children have more social interaction in daycare centers than they do at home, because the average home will have less children of a similar age. I won't spend time on explaining that statistic.
2. I wouldn't put my kid in a baby factory. If you do, you haven't quite grasped the concept.

What makes you think some overworked daycare "professional" is going to be able to provide any more love?

What makes you think that you (or the other parent, for that matter) can provide educational, caring, loving, nursing one-on-one attention as good as a trained professional can do that? OK, you can, off course. Can you do that 24/7? Can you still do that when your baby has been crying for three days straight for no apparent reason? If you can, I salute you, but you are not part of the majority of real parents.

In addition to that last point: people being able to reproduce does not automatically qualify them as good parents.

Consider your first kid (whether you have it or not): do you know how to do all the things that come with caring for him/her? RTFM is not really an option. Does not come with a man page. In fact is very likely not to conform to any spec you can think of.

My girlfriend runs a day care center and I have taken up the challenge to work there for a day in a work experience type of role. One of the things I found is that the kids are cared for. It scared me shitless to be allowed to handle (supervised by licensed staff--hold the flames) other people's most precious treasure. After that day though (and the odd one since) I have taken to really enjoying the work. (my day time job is with computers) If the kids responses are anything to go by: you can not convince me of the idea that those smiling faces (upon recognition of mine) and reaching arms are those of sociopaths in training.

I don't have kids yet, but obviously my partner and I have some well rounded views on child care. Personally, if I consider the challenge of providing high quality care for my own child, I am big enough to admit that if I had to do that 24/7, I would go bananas within weeks. That doesn't mean I will be a bad father. Not at all. But I think that by putting my children in day care for 2-3 days per week (MAX!) I give myself and my partner the break we need to be very good parents the rest of the time. I would do that regardless of whether we both work or what kind of work we do. Please note that most parents use grandparents or other family for the same purpose. No disrespect to my mother, but a specialised, purpose built and decorated (with triple certified furniture, etc) environment with qualified staff that had better impress me (or my partner, which is much more difficult) is just as good, if not better for the development of a child.

The responsibility of a parent (IMHO) is to raise children with the best care possible. If (hypothetical) parents say that there can be no better care than 100% of the child's own parents should think very hard about who is fooling who.

One last comment on the actual topic: child care is expensive. Good child care is very expensive. Employers subsidising that cost are providing something of great value to their employees and of even greater value to the children. I applaud this happening much more than companies just throwing money at people; to me it shows the company actually cares about what matters to people.

I *WANT* This

[sconeu]

To hell with my moderator points...

I want this. My kids often have "pupil-free" days at school. Even with advance warning, we can't get daycare, because their sitters *are* in school, and their grandparents work. Of course, daycare would hve to be available on an "as needed" basis, not as a pre-signup thing.

The only problem is that a lot of the missed days come from dealing with sick kids, and no daycare in their right mind should accept sick kids (can you say "liability"? I knew you could...).

But it would definitely be a step in the right direction. I've interviewed in a few places, and probably not gotten an offer because I've told them flat out that I "have a life". It's about time the industry got a little bit "family friendly".

Alarming, Quite Alarming

[DeICQLady]

Maybe I should become a philosopher and define another term? That may clarify some of the things I had in mind.

Hmm . . .So what am I talking about? I by no means would suggest that it is created so that parents to sheirk responsibility for caring for their children (they have enough years towards publice school for that). What I had in mind was: Is my baby gonna come home excited because they learned something new? For example... the real reason for the sky being blue? (as opposed to "where does Barney live?"). And yes, daycare no is worse than hell on a warm day... but maybe if there are enough people thinkin about it and pushing for companied to provide it, then it would force govermment supported "daycare" to its knees to reform.

I also asked this question because isn't it curious how we the people that sacrifice a great deal of our lives for the sevice idistry are not demanding better security from the companies that demand out souls? Don't we deserve more for them even expecting that?

Daycare is just a small part of the big picture... Can you see it?

Just offer something similar to your childfrees

[Tackhead]

As for me, I couldn't care less for day care - no kids, ain't gonna have 'em - so I have no use for it.

That said, I've got nothing against companies that provide it, so long as they provide something of similar value to those of us who won't be taking care of it. Give benefits to your breeders, but don't overlook your nonbreeders.

Thankfully, I work for a perceptive and conscientious employer, whose HR department goes to extraordinary lengths to keep things fair.

For instance, many breeders (quite justifiably) need "a day off every now and then to take Sprogulina to the doctor/dentist". The medical professions don't work to your company's schedule, after all.

But rather than say "If you have kids, you get one day off every month to take care of them", our HR department said "all employees get a day off every month for whatever they want". Let's see here:

• If you're a breeder, you can take Sprogulina to the doc, or take a day off to take care of her when she's running a fever of 103.
• If you have no kids, but your parents are running a fever of 103, you've got a day for elder care.
• If you've got pets, you can take Fluffy to the vet. Ask any pet owner - Fluffy's worth a day off too.
• Breeder or not, pets or not, if you don't need the day for anything, you can go rock-climbing, have a long weekend, stand in line at the DMV to get your license renewed, or whatever the hell you want.

The secret to successfully apportioning a limited benefits-budget among your staff is never to pit one class of employees against another.

My HR department understands this, and I'm thankful for their efforts every day I come to work. Even our recreational events typically have a good balance between "activities for the kiddies and their parents" versus "a space for the adults to be away with the kids". (And before you think a childfree person is running HR, think again - our HR manager has two young'uns herself.)

I have no doubt that if my employer offers daycare - a perk to breeders worth $300-500 per month - it would also offer a perk of similar value (or a cash bonus for non-participants in the daycare program) to the rest of its staff.

But if my employer were to offer its breeding employees $5000/year in after-tax benefits (about $8000/year pre-tax), and non-breeders didn't get a similar shake, I'd resign in protest. Nor will I work for a company that doesn't offer its childfrees the same deal it offers its breeders.

Retention is a two-edged sword, and fairness in benefits isn't just right from an ethical perspective, it makes good business sense too.

Theme of the day

[wemmick]

Two articles on slashdot about quality of life issues for programmers. First slashdot-izens cry foul on Philip Greenspun's view that techies should work 70+ hours, now we beg for on-site daycare.

What does this all mean?

Are slashdot-izens growing up?

Is slashdot reaching out for a new audience?

Are slashdot readers just feeling burnt out?

Is it just a Monday thing?

Or... is it all just a sign that today is the day to tell my office that my wife is pregnant?

Some Slashdotters seem like cavemen.

[MsGeek]

This whole topic has become a very good example of what is wrong with Slashdot. I am amazed but not surprised at the 1950s-throwback nature of the vast majority of posters here. "Have wifey stay at home" seems to be the solution everyone is proposing. Yeah, right. Even on coders' salaries that is usually impossible. Get your fsckn heads out of TV Land and get real.

Meanwhile, if you want a SERIOUS discussion of this issue, visit us at http://msgeek.org/ . All the content, half the grits, and none of that annoying testosterone aftertaste.

---- Hey Grrl Geeks! Your very own geek news site has arrived!

Re:Some Slashdotters seem like cavemen.

[james_shoemaker]

This whole topic has become a very good example of what is wrong with Slashdot. I am amazed but not surprised at the 1950s-throwback nature of the vast majority of posters here. "Have wifey stay at home" seems to be the solution everyone is proposing. Yeah, right. Even on coders' salaries that is usually impossible. Get your fsckn heads out of TV Land and get real.

That choice (stay at home) is the one my wife decided on before ever consulting me, and I agree completely. If you can't make it on one tech salary then either reduce expenses or move to somewhere where the living is cheaper. Not that we have children yet, but when it happens she already planned on staying home to take care of them. If she was the breadwinner I would gladly stay home to care for them, but I make dramatically more than her earning potential.

Re:Some Slashdotters seem like cavemen.

[wendyk]

I am amazed but not surprised at the 1950s-throwback nature of the vast majority of posters here. "Have wifey stay at home" seems to be the solution everyone is proposing.

i think i'd have to agree with this. c'mon- i know that women programmers are few & far between (i've rarely ever worked in groups that have more than 2 of us) but we are around. i love my job, and i'm not about to give it up to stay home with children. at the same time, if i wanted children, i don't see how i could possibly make it work- i stay late every evening, when we're launching something i'm there every weekend. i think that issues like this are at least partially responsible for the small number of women in technical jobs. having onsite daycare isn't going to change that radically, but it would help.

Re:Some Slashdotters seem like cavemen.

[erinlee]

I especially love the ones that stake out the moral high ground as responsible parents because their wives (not them, but their wives) have cut back their hours or stayed home to raise the kids.

Re:Some Slashdotters seem like cavemen.

[james_shoemaker]

I especially love the ones that stake out the moral high ground as responsible parents because their wives (not them, but their wives) have cut back their hours or stayed home to raise the kids.


I would love to be able to stay home and raise the kids, but because of my higher earning potenital it has fallen to me to be the breadwinner. If you choose to have children I believe that there should be a parent (whatever one is up to you) that stays home to raise them.
My parents made a similar choice, mom did not work until the last kid was in HS, then she went back to work (mostly because she got bored without 5 kids to handle).

Re:Some Slashdotters seem like cavemen.

[Attila]

This whole topic is a very good example of what is wrong with society. I am amazed but not surprised at the 1960s "I have the right to do anything I want, don't oppress me with responsibilities" nature of the vast majority of North Americans in general.

My wifey stays at home, but for a year we changed roles because she needed to go back to work and we had previously decided to raise our kids ourselves.

As a computer technician, I don't make squat compared to a coder, so don't tell me it's impossible to do this. We're doing it. It's about priorities. It's about taking responsibility for your children.

Yeah, it's not for everyone. But if you (and your spouse) can't handle it, then don't have kids. They're not pets. They're not possessions. They're people.

If you think your right to have kids is more important than your responsibility to raise them, then grow up, whiner.

Re:Some Slashdotters seem like cavemen.

[erinlee]

Hey, I didn't mean that as a shot against you! If that's the decision the two of you made and it works for both of you, that's sweet. I'm more concerned about guys like twitter and such, who seem to think that moms should never work, period, and that it's solely the wife's duty to rearrange her career around her kids.

Daycare in the tech industry

[tryst1970]

I've been working in the tech industry for 10 years now and not one employer has ever offered onsite daycare. The best of the employers offered a benefit called a flexible spending account. They remove the amount of money that you spend on daycare pre-tax, you have to tell them how much you want removed, then you save your receipts and request the money back from your flexible account. You can do this with medical expenses as well. Be careful though because you do not get this money back if you do not have the receipts for it. The company gets it if you don't spend it.
For the small companies that I work for I doubt that internal daycare is cost-effective but they could offer other benefits that would be helpful to the employee such as flexible spending accounts, daycare reimbursements, and telecommuting. Currently, it's up to each techie out there to bargain for their own benefits. There are no real incentives for the company to offer you these benefits other than what we all know...a happy employee works harder! If I don't have to worry about picking up my son from daycare on time because my daycare is right in the building where I work then my company is going to get more work out of me.
I think it's unrealistic to expect small companies to support any of their employees by having onsite daycare but we in the industry can certainly encourage them to offer realistic benefits that help maintain the family unit. I'm not really interested in staying home with my kids all the time. I love them but honestly believe that they need to have influence from other adults that I trust to love and care for them. Whether this is dad, grandma, teachers or daycare workers. It takes a whole community to raise healthy children. Good companies will recognize this and help to support it.

-------
"I don't care what is written about me so long as it isn't true."

Re:Daycare in the tech industry

[kpeerless]

It really irritates me to think that I will have to pay more for my software or isp or a service because you have run out of ideas for perks. Why should I pay someone to look after your kids? I have four at home that I and my wife look after without your help.

Re:Daycare in the tech industry

[mftuchman]

It really irritates me that I have to pay more for my products and services because the people who make them insist on living on more than bread and water.

I live my life perfectly as a robot, and If I don't need useful human services, well then, neither should you.

---

Hell yes!

[Evernight]

I don't have kids, but if we had daycare here I'd bring them in off the streets! Hallelujah brothers!

The other day some kid asked me for a quarter at Chik-Fil-A. I was feeling generous, I gave them a buck.

Philantropy baby!

Yes--Employee Benefits DO Matter

[John Murdoch]

Hi!

Any tech employer with a brain knows the numbers: unemployment (overall) is at an all-time low; tech unemployment is simply nonexistant (if you can spell "VB" in New York City you can get a job); and the situation isn't changing any time soon. When Burger King is advertising $7 an hour, plus health insurance and (I'm not making this up) a 401k plan you know the job market is tight. How do you find employees?

An interesting fact to remember is that employment statistics aren't what you think they are. The "unemployed" that count in the stats are people who have been employed that are now receiving unemployment benefits. If you've never had a full-time job, if you never filed for unemployment, or if your unemployment benefits have expired, you don't count in the stats. The people who count these things at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics calculate the employment rate based on people presently working or collecting benefits.

There are tech workers out there...
There are tech workers to be found--and IMHO the largest cohort are skilled, experienced tech workers who'd love to pick up a job. They're moms who want to stay at home with their children, but still make the bucks you can make in the IT world. Those workers are generally much more sensitive to employee benefits than they are to salary--they're far more interested in working hours (and the limits to working hours) than they are in what they'll make per hour. If you create a workplace where telecommuting and bring-the-kids-on-a-snow-day are acceptable, employers can find a lot of talent.

That said, I'm not sure that SlashDot is the place to ask whether techs care about employee benefits. The SlashDot crowd has a heavy representation of young kids, in or just out of college, that is heavily male. IOW, very few Slashdotters are wondering about Mommy-track decisions, so your answers may not be that helpful. If you're contemplating a Mommy-track kind of career choice, yes--there are employers who are sensitive to your concerns. And trust me--as the economic expansion continues, there will be more of them.

'Slashdot assumption alert'

[moderate_this]

Why do you assume that *most* techies are single young males ? I would agree that *is* this typical viewpoint of most of the general public, but I have found that this is certainly not true in the average shop, with the possible exception of the .com startups (coder slave workforce :) Working with 'things technological' is not a new profession invented for the under 30's. That statement reminds me of that commercial for e-trade with the gen-x dude.

Controlled experimentation...

[rotor]

Haven't you seen the films of monkeys raised on wire cages with a bottle as a mom?

Now, was it the bottle as a mom, or was it the wire cages which caused them to be sociopaths? To have a truly effective experiment on this, you'd have to eliminate the wire cage and put them in their natural environment without a mom.

However, interaction with other childern is VERY important to a child's development. I'm planning on play dates for mine rather than daycare, but for some people daycare is the only choice they have.

(OT)
Also, $25,000 a year should be able to more than cover a car (you don't have to buy new), wardrobe (if you have to have a new outfit for every day, get over yourself - my wardrobe costs me under $200 a year, and my wife's is probably about $500) and daycare. After taxes and things like gas to get back and forth and stuff, you should still have about $10,000 from that job. Not a whole lot, but you're definately not losing money. I just figured out that I'd have $8,000 from a $25,000 a year job if I had my more expensive car ($20,000), my wife's wardrobe (granted, this isn't stuff I'd wear =), and one child in daycare. You could go a LOT cheaper on that car, and a bit cheaper on the wardrobe too.

-

Re:Controlled experimentation...

[john@iastate.edu]

No, $25K is about the break even point.

First, consider that about $10K is gone to taxes. Plus you'll probably lose more of your income to taxes too by being in a higher bracket, say $2K. Then, a car is going to cost you at least $3K/yr even if it is a junker. I also think you are underestimating the cost of a women's clothing for any professional job, I'd put it at least at $1K/yr, more likely $2K. Then you're probably going to pay about $5k/yr for childcare. Then throw in all the incidentals like going out to eat more because nobody wants to fix dinner or clean the house or what not, and you're pretty much down to zero-dollars net.

And I speak from experience, my wife was making about $25K before she left work, and we live at least as well now, probably better.

Re:Controlled experimentation...

[jidar]

$10k to taxes on $25k a year? You pulled that out of your ass.

At 25k a year and with kids you actually get back more taxes than you pay in (earned income credit).

Re:So childless aren't discrimated against, eh?

[moderate_this]

good point, so will you be helping out the cause and signing off ?

Re:In other words..

[Sterling Anderson]

I find it funny that most people who make statements like that assume their spouse will be the one staying home with the kids.

It also seems most people who make these statements like to post anonymously; afraid your future spouse might be reading here as well?

It would be nice....

[gatkinso]

...to hear a bunch of children playing down the hall in a company sponsored daycare center, rather than the sounds of the air hockey and ping pong table that my company got to keep the programmers happy.

No, I don't have kids, and no I am not married.

It would be so cool to be able to visit your kids during lunch. To eat with them and take them outside - come on that is the bomb!

It might inspire the more geeky programmers to comb their hair and find that special someone - and that would make them happier than a 1000 foozball tables ever could.

What the HECK is wrong with you people!?!

[Papa Legba]

I know this sounds like flame bait but hear me out. Several people have talked about how their companies are providing dog walking services for them while they sit inside and code......UM check your head people.
1. Why have a pet if you cannot take care of it?
2. Why is having someone else take care of the pet you do not have time for a GOOD thing?

A lot of people are saying "Ya I can work more now". You need to wake up, if you company is putting this kind of workload on you, then your are a sucker. Pay you a salary for 40 hours and make you work 80, you do realize that means per hour you make less than a Mc donalds worker right?

I think companies should provide day care for employees. Day care is a fact of life for most be it financial or that they see the benefits of sending kids to a SAFE and RELIABLE day care.The simple reason companies should provide day care is that several studies have shown that parents work better and faster if they are secure in knowing their kids are safe. If they can walk down the hall and check on them then they know this at all times. It's not just tech companies offerring this perk , and BTW for companies to do this in other countries IS COMMON!

So yes to day care, as long as your company is not using it as leverage tool to steal more of your life use it as a way to remove and excuse for leaving. "I have to go pick my kid up from daycare." Boss: "Why she is in the building...". Remember, after your 8 hours in a work day are up you do not have to make excsuses to leave, you leave because your workday is done and that is enough excuse. Do not make yourself a slave. Never bow to the power that boss that says "but why do you need to leave?" The answer should alwasy be "Cause I can" do not justify why you get to leave at the end of the day. It belittles you and makes you less human.

Remember the most powerfull word you posses is 'NO' use it and use it often. Tell them that bad planning on their part does not constitue an emergency on your part.

Re:What the HECK is wrong with you people!?!

[Papa Legba]

Thank you , exactly my point. DOn't have them if you cannot take care of them , and you cannot take care of them if you let your company work you 12 hours a day. Your not a parent then, you are like those people who donate to UNICEF to keepa child a live. A distant unreal sugar daddy.

Day Care is a bad idea for corporations

[AppyPappy]

We studied this at Sara Lee and it was nixed immediately by upper management. Here's the problem: If there is a problem (molestation, death), the day care immediately becomes "The SARA LEE Daycare", no matter the actual name. This is even true if we were to use an existing day care. Not only would the press hurt the company and generally piss off the stockholders, it would make Sara Lee liable. We couldn't even recommend day cares. We did use an agency that recommended child care options.

This is called the "Exxon" factor after the Exxon Valdese incident.

Re:Day Care is a bad idea for corporations

[Bob McCown]

Young Johnny running down the hall with a full diaper, catching it on the corner of a desk, and creating a toxic spill in one of the highest traffic halls in the company. The Sara Lee Disaster...

Re:Day Care is a bad idea for corporations

[AppyPappy]

Cop-outs are an integral part of corporate culture. They are willing to sacrifice productivity and employee relations to save some wear and tear on the derriere.

On the surface, corporate day care sounds good. But some pretty hair is going to ask "Why do we need to do this when day cares are everywhere?". The corner office doesn't concern themselves with clerks being out with a sick kid. It only matters when their secretary is out with a sick kid.

We had a lactation room when the one of the corners was pregnant. It was opened with great fanfare about the importance of the nuturing role of the company but it went away when she weaned her kid.

Re:Day Care is a bad idea for corporations

[OpenGL]

Sara Lee is in the business of making sure their cheese cakes do not have E.coli in them. They know how to handle that sort of thing. Sara Lee is not in the day care business. Since Sara Lee has no expierence in running day care, it should be outsourced at some level. The problem is if anything goes wrong will is still be the "Sara Lee" day care? Even if it isn't referred to as the "Sara Lee" day care, there could still be problems for Sara Lee if something goes wrong. After all, Sara Lee shouldn't have outsourced day care to a place where something goes wrong.

The answer of course is to use pre-tax credits for day care. That way the legal issues are moot, and the single workers can select other credits for their lifestyle.

if people were asking,..

[ebbv]

for daycare so they could go fuck hookers and smoke crack i would say you are right.

but they want the daycare so they can both go earn money to support those children and pay for their college.

that's great you are happy with your child going to community college, driving a neon and eating ramen pride, but not everyone is so lay off.

now asking for government-sponsored daycare, that would be another thing,.. this is just asking for more compensation from (rich and greedy) companies.
...dave

Darn, you meant this as a joke?

[_N0EL]

Thought I had found a kindred soul. I love coding in the warm glow of my monitor and don't want anything messing with that.

Not all techies are young and single

[herwin]

There are a good many people in the IT industry who are responsible for children, either because they are single parents or they take that responsibility within the family. My experience is that this can be a significant hassle, both for the parent and the coworkers. Despite high-level company support for such programs as take-your-child-to-work, managers have to cope with the disruption. So, yes, child-care and other signs of a pro-family attitude are definite considerations in the choice of employer when you're older, more experienced and more mature.

Have strangers raise your kids???

[dazedNconfuzed]

Is work so important that you'd rather have strangers raise your children? People who you don't know, who will likely teach unacceptable values (whatever your value system is), who get paid some relatively low amount, who could have personalities anywhere between Mother Theresa and Jeffery Dahlmer (and you won't know), and who are likely doing the work only because they need the money (like you)?

Far better is to provide full-blown telecommutting, letting one or both parents work from home, give the kids attention as needed, and teach a work ethic by example.

Re:Have strangers raise your kids???

[dazedNconfuzed]

I don't think that there is a problem with using daycare and it doesn't mean that others will raise your kids.

For ~8 hours a day, someone you don't really know is teaching, instilling values, and acts as substitute parent when the kid wants mommy or daddy - all during the most formative years of the kid's life. That stranger may not be raising your kid 100%, but s/he is doing so up to 50% of the child's waking hours, and that half strongly influences the other half.

My wife and I need to both work

If the government wasn't confiscating half your income, that wouldn't be necessary.

daycare (ranging from $150-$300

Weekly, I assume. That would nicely pay for some serious telecommuting tools and services.

They love the kids and with all the background checks they use to hire day care providers, it is safe and healthy on the stress levels.

While most day care is nice & safe, a lot of parents have found out the hard way that degree of safety isn't as high as it should be. You really accept that risk with your own kids?

A parent must still take their part in the off time to help their kids learn and flourish so that everyone will be alright.

You've abdicated half that responsibility already. Great way to start a kid's life.

Daycare is not an alternative to parenting!

Apparently it is for you, as you've given up half of the parenting job to strangers.

Re:Have strangers raise your kids???

[Cedric C. Girouard]

daycare (ranging from $150-$300 Weekly, I assume. That would nicely pay for some serious telecommuting tools and services.

In Quebec, government subsidize daycare, and you pay 5$ / day per kid.

While most day care is nice & safe, a lot of parents have found out the hard way that degree of safety isn't as high as it should be. You really accept that risk with your own kids?

I have a kid, and him hurting himself is not something I look forward. But in that regard, I think of it as "learning", because if a kid never falls down, he'll never learn balance. Kid's will be kid's. They'll eventually get bruises, bleedy noses, scrapes and other trauma. It's normal. Now if someone was to voluntarily hurt my kid, that would be a different story, but fact is :Even at home under a parents constant supervision, a kid will hurt himself. That's a law of nature.

My wife and I need to both work If the government wasn't confiscating half your income, that wouldn't be necessary.

Life's a bitch. I dont live in Monaco or Switzerland, and income taxes are a part of my life. I dont like it, I would like it to change, I do my part to get them to be lower. What else can I do ?

Beware of companies bearing gifts

[dodecahedron]

I knew a manager of a large and successful high-tech company. He told me that his company had a conscious strategy of bringing in pizzas late in the day so that their workers would stay around and put in more hours. They had a number of other perks like this, designed to keep their employees chained to the oars. They also had a policy of giving one-time bonuses and using them to guilt-trip employees who wanted actual pay raises. All-in-all, I'd rather have the money and provide my own benefits (although it certainly makes it attractive that some benefits like day-care aren't taxable). Ever since talking to him, I've been been inclined to look corporate gift-horses in the mouth.

I can buy daycare

[peccary]

I don't care about cell phones, computers, or even relo.
I can buy those if I want them, and I get to choose the color. If my employer buys me a pager, it won't be the cool beepwear wristwatch. If my employer buys me a cell phone, it'll be the cheapest model available, and I'll wind up replacing it out of my own pocket anyway, and then waste the company-provided phone.

I don't want any benefits I can just as easily go out and buy. Give me the cash, so I can choose for myself.

The kind of benefits I want are the things I can't buy for myself. For example, no matter how much I make, I can't just decide to buy a quiet office with a door and a window that opens, full-spectrum lighting, and a recliner for the afternoon nap.

Young?

[SuperHueMan]

I think the concept that 'techies' are young is a huge misnomer within our culture. I'd love to be offered daycare! Our industry is rapidly becoming just like all others in terms of age and experience.

Re:Simple Solution: Stop Breeding!

[atrowe]

Sorry, I forgot that *all* viewpoints that dissent from your narrowminded outlook on the world are modded down. If you disagree, or can provide any insight into angles that I have not considered, perhaps you should consider replying to my post as opposed to cowardly modding it down.

Thanks.

Day Care for Techies

[ellem]

I have been putzing with computers since the early 90s (mostly WIN and AS400) and now I have a 2 year old son who is the most important thing in the world to me. I think having him here would be distracting. My wife insists that I am a baby-hog and that if she didn't take him from me I would have him wife me 24-7. I am not (it would seem) your avg slashdotter. (Hell, I still don't *really* know what slash dot refers to.)

I simply found a job that lets me go home at a decent hour and rarely makes me work weekends. It is still hard though.

I want to work crazy hours sometimes, I want to have a hobby again, I want to see Dan every minute possible, Oh and my wife too. Maybe this industry ISN'T right for people who have (gotten) a life. Maybe the scary visages we see in the Media portraying *us* is what techies should be.

Simple solution...

[Swift Kick]

Well, it seems there are a few people that don't care about daycare because they don't have kids. There's also some that believe that people should consider staying home and raising their children as opposed to dropping them off at the daycare center and have someone else look after them. Of course, others argue about this too.

Here's my solution:
Have daycare be optional. Only have ppl pay for it if they want to use it. As an example, I use the Transitcheck program here in NY/NJ. You can take up to $65/month from your paycheck (before taxes) and get vouchers that you can use to pay for public transportation. This is a optional benefit, which means you don't have to enroll.

So, there you go. Daycare is important to some, not so important to others, and totally useless for a whole lot of ppl. Make everyone happy by simply following the Transitcheck example.

Now, for the lady that is peddling the msgeek.org site, will you please stop? It's kinda annoying to see almost as much ./-bashing as news. Your effort is laudable and you have a pretty neat idea, but having the pottle call the kettle black doesn't make you look very good...

Rhesus monkeys don't have mortgages

[erinlee]

If your wife makes less than $25,000 you are loosing money on that second car, day care, and her wardrobe, so quit slaving her.

Very few women I know really like the "liberation" and "empowerment" of work. What double think.

Yikes - Are you serious? How many women do you know? I don't know *any* women like that.

It strikes me that the solution to the problem might be for the woman to find a job where she gets paid more than a pittance, and find a daycare where they don't just pen kids and let 'em suffer, rather than giving up completely on having her own career. You're writing as if the wife's working was the husband's decision, and she can't possibly be the family breadwinner.

Besides, I bet you don't always feel "liberated" and "empowered" by work either. But it sure would beat being isolated at home all day with the kids, and completely dependent on one person you only see early in the morning and late at night, don'cha think?

Evidence is here

[_N0EL]

Look at the replies to this post and just watch the discrimination again the childless in action. I get sick of people telling me that having kids "will make a man" of me. The fact that I have remained childless is my choice made on firm grounds. BTW, I found that hanging up the telephone on relatives the second they bring this crap up is very effective; don't threaten to hang up, or say "I'm going now" or anything like that, just quietly disconnect. My mother not only stopped bothering me about the kid thing at family gatherings, she even intervenes and quiets relatives down if they say something.

Re:Evidence is here

[Tackhead]

> The fact that I have remained childless is my choice made on firm grounds

BTW, you may wish to consider the word "childfree" instead of "childless".

I'm not one for mamby-pamby PC-speak, but this one actually has merit, in that it actually describes something useful.

"Childless" connotes loss - as though children were something without one's life is somehow empty. For many people (e.g. the infertile, gays who wish to adopt), that's accurate - a child is something they need in their lives, and it's something they lack.

"Childfree" has no such negative connotation - one is free of the burden of having the thing, and one has made this choice freely.

Making the distinction may not prevent breeders from asking "so when are you gonna have kids", but it shuts down the even-more-patronizing "Oh, why can't you have kids?" real fast :-)

More importantly, it means that you can meaningfully tell your HR department that no, offering benefits for the childless (but not childfree), such as fertility treatments covered under a medical plan) is not an adequate substitute.

The childfree.net web site is a decent intro to the concept (though it takes itself a little too seriously at times). Suffice it to say you're not alone.

If you're in the mood for a rant, The Misanthropic Bitch has some damn fine ones: Her take on The Weaker Sex is the best rant on "Family-Friendly" offices I've ever read, and is IMHO a must-read for people on either side of this issue.

"If working mothers continue to garner more support and even more rights in the workplace, women who are serious about a career are going to get fucked over. "

This is not a black and white issue

[Starbreeze]

And what about single parents? I'd be forcing my kids to make a sacrifice if I couldn't provide for them at all. Enrolling one's children in day-care is not irresponsible or neglectful. This is not a black and white issue and yet, so many people are trying to make it that. It seems these days a middle-classed women being able to stay home with her school-aged children is a luxury. You don't think a woman wishes she could spend more time with her children? Not all of are rich. Hell, my mother had to go back to work when i was in about 5th grade to help support us. And both my parents had bachelors degrees. Contrary to popular belief, not all teachers make that much. Anywayz, back on topic... Some people need to realize that this world is diverse and you cannot make this so black and white.

Legal ramifications probably impact the decision

[Samrobb]

I suspect that most companies don't even consider offering child care (of any sort) because of potential legal problems. Quite aside from having to arrange for liability insurance and the like, in most states, you need to be licensed in order to operate a daycare facility. I suspect that the end result of offering daycare would be much like running two companies, one of which is essentially not-for-profit... and what kind of small (or even mid-sized company) wants that kind of responsibility, or can justify it to investors?

Overall, if you're trying to convince your company to offer daycare, I think you'd probably be better of making a case for the company to offer childcare assistance, rather than childcare services.

Re:In other words..

[DukeofURL]

Maybe he decided that being able to send his children to college would be a good thing. If you have a money tree, can you mail me some seeds, because you sound like you have one.

Re:Simple Solution: Stop Breeding!

[atrowe]

It's not even about the points now. I'm just pissed that because some moderator disagrees with my opinion, they choose to mod my post down like the spineless coward he or she is rather than post a rebuttal. This site *used* to promote intelligent discussion, but I guess it would be too much effort to type out a couple of sentences explaining why he/she disagrees.

Maybe someone's just bitter about this!

OT - Adoption benefits?

[Samrobb]

Speaking of child-realted benefits - how prevalent are adoption benefits in technology companies? My wife managed to convince her company to offer an adoption benefit to help employees defray the cost of the adoption; my company seems receptive to the general idea as well (and will probably institute it once I get off my butt and put the proposal together :-)

So - is this an unusal benefit for a company to offer, or is it something that others have encountered (or taken advantage of) elsewhere? In particular, what size company (under 50, 51-200, 201-500, etc.) is more likely to offer these types of benefits?

Re:So is the IRS penalizing signle people?

[prisoner]

ever heard of the marriage tax?

Reality check

[yankeehack]

I'm one of those people who are staying home with my toddler during the day and do the kiddie hand off at 5pm to my spouse. I enjoy parenting, and I *know* it has benefited my toddler, but its clear that my professional life has suffered...

For instance, there's currently only so many jobs I could do on a part time night/weekend basis since I'm a tech rather than a programmer. I teach now, and make good money doing it, but if I was working full time, I should be a network/sys admin at least...

The other issue is a lack of professional interaction and support. The Internet aside, there aren't many others I can talk shop with, and I accomplish my personal continuing education on my own (and that's expensive coming out of your own pocket!)

Re:You are irresponsible.

[killfixx]

"Fine. Whoever makes less money can quit and raise the kid. " Scmuck...Who says that one parent will be able to afford supporting 3 people as compared to one. Second. Who says that there are 2 parents involved in the rearing of the child. The world is not perfect. Companies that understand this make provisions for those employees that live in that world. That's why there is medical, dental, life, etc... If you don't want bennies become a contractor and pray to god you never get some girl preganat by accident and heaven forbid you ever want a real opportunity at a career and a home life because companies treat IT staff like shit and expect more out of them because the managers, et al have developed a stereotypical IT worker as single, male geek, i.e. no potential for some other form of life affirming relationship other than his work one. They treat their most necessary workers like shit until they crack and then just shuffle a couple more in to fill the hole. IT professionals are becoming expendable. We need to stand up for ourselves more and re-affirm that we do have lives outside of the company. Sales & Marketing droids make more money and have better benefits than the rest of the workforce combined. Yet w/out the IT force they would have nothing to push. IT professionals are necessary but not respected. Take back the respect! Grrr... (or it may just be me)

Day care? By the time you've got kids...

[isaac]

...you're an expensive liability to your company.

At least that's how it looks to me in the bizzare, "Logan's Run" world of IT, where the only people over 30 have titles that start with "C".

Only half-joking,

-Isaac

Watch out for children learning!

[1337-p0z3r]

By giving your children, which are supposed to be the most important thing in your life, to daycare, you are explicitly opting out of taking parental responsibility.

Sorry, I don't buy this one little bit. If you opt to put your children in daycare, evening care, and keep them with a nanny/babysitter all the time, yes, you as a parent are opting out of raising your child. But this is hardly what is being suggested.

What is being suggested is that children be put into daycare during the work day. This allows both parents to work (having one stay home is not always an option, nor is having family take care of the child) without having to worry about their child. Meanwhile, the child not only is exposed to a new environment, but is exposed to new concepts, socialization, structured learning, and opportunities that they might not otherwise get in their own house (especially socialization with other adults and children their own age). This is important at a young age!

Ideally, a parent would care for a child. But today's work world is hardly perfect, and I see daycare as an excellent solution for parents who both have to work. It should never become a replacement for parenting, but it certainly does have its place.

"There's a party," she said,
"We'll sing and we'll dance,
It's come as you are."

Re:Controlled experimentation... (OT)

[rotor]

First, consider that about $10K is gone to taxes. Plus you'll probably lose more of your income to taxes too by being in a higher bracket, say $2K

What? You don't lose 40% of your salary in taxes at $25,000/year. You need to be in a much higher bracket to lose that much. I'd say it'd be more about $5,000 to $7,000. And $3,000 a year for an older car is a lot... Until just recently I was driving a 1993 Escort that I bought used. My payments were $1,200 per year, and maintenance (oil, tires, repairs, whatever) NEVER topped $600/year. Add in insurance and you get to $2400/year for a car that will still be running 5 years from now if there are no accidents. The guy that bought it from me pays even less per year because he paid cash for it. All he has is gas, insurance, and repairs for a great car. Notice that in my previous post I had gas separate.
Your wardrobe estimate would be for a whole new wardrobe every year. That's just wasteful. Sure, get a few new dresses every year, and a few pairs of shoes, but do you need a whole new wardrobe? My wife certainly doesn't.
I'll agree on the cost of daycare... That's about what I figured.
You can't count going out to eat more because that's really an unrelated choice. If you're going to net zero, eat in. Dinner isn't that hard to prepare. It typically takes me or my wife about 30 minutes, and we can do other things while we're at it. You know what? It tastes better and is healthier than restaraunt food too.

-

Breeders?

[Samrobb]

As an adoptive father... keep in mind that not all parents are, as you put it, "breeders&quot. There are adoptive parents, foster parents, legal guardianships... any number of ways in which a child (of any age) might come into a family.

Having experienced it, I can comment that adoption is often a much more severe financial burden on a single parent or couple than is having a child (which is generally covered as part of an employee's health benefits). In addition, while many companies offer paid maternity leave, in many instances, this is covered (financially) as if it were a partial disability... again, leaving adoptive parents out in the cold.

As you pointed out, a good company should understand that it's employees make different lifestyle choices, and that they shouldn't favor parents over non-parents or vice-versa. Likewise, they should realize that there are many types of parents out there, and that there's many more ways to create a family than bearing a child... and that offering benefits to childbearing and childless couples may leave families like mine wondering who decided we weren't siginificant enough to bother with.

Even better if it's onsite

[Zulfiya]

I'm a bit amazed at the negativity being aimed at the daycare concept.

I'd most appreciate corporate sponsored daycare if they sponsored it onsite. You might manage to spend more time with your child - the commute to and from, and breaks. (Consider the number of hours a day smokers spend outside on smoke breaks - surely a parent could justify that much time on "child breaks".) Plus you'd be better able to keep an eye on quality.

Social Interaction

[lw54]

Children need the everyday social interaction that daycare provides. They need to learn to have to deal with problems and daycare is a great way to allow that.

Killer Nanny

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of which, anyone seen this movie?

the experiment was controlled

[twitter]

Security is more important for infants. They had more than one group, of course, with coresponding levels of damage. The control group was rased alone with their mothers. The worst group had just a wire cage with a plastic face and a bottle for a mommy. The next group up got some carpet around the cage. There may have been other groups, but memory fails me. All of the groups were later put into normal social situations. The worst group could never accept the company of other monkeys. They were terrified all the time, and cowered in a corner. The other groups had levels of difficulty. Draw your own conclusions about the applicability to people.

A stay at home mom can provide both comfort and peer interaction for infants if the mom has other stay at home friends.

The cheaper the car, the higher the upkeep and the lower the safety. It may cost you more than you like.

Depends what kind of kid you want to raise

[billcopc]

Basically if you want a delinquent depressive kid with phenomenal concentration and intelligence but pathetic social skills (read: geek goth), skip daycare and let the kid mind for himself in the corner of your office while you hammer down on your keyboard.

Or there's recipe B to make a happy yet stupid kid who will spread gossip and sleep with everything in sight when that age comes around. Do this by putting the kid in the best daycare center you can find and drop him off to granny when you're stuck doing overtime.

And finally there's pseudo-recipe C that involves a reasonable mix of both. Daycare will teach him/her about social interaction and respect, but balance it out with a bit of "boring stuff" to help the child develop hobbies and personal traits to build upon. Let's face it, those daycare professionals are nutcases! They're not there to entertain the child and keep him/her out of trouble, they're just there to clean up the mess and call 911 when that other little fsck decides to shove a pencil in your kid's back and laughs at the bloody fountain. Daycare isn't what it should be but it's a necessary evil, we learn from errors and pain.

Strangers raising your kids!

[dazedNconfuzed]

How have I opted out of parental responsibility by choosing how my daughter will be cared for?

How? By letting a stranger teach and instill values for half the child's waking hours!

Just because I am not personally around her every moment of every day? I've got news for you - that kind of hovering is smothering. You get children that can't decide anything for themselves.

They can't decide anything if you haven't taught them the decision making process! Remember - kids don't start out knowing how to decide. How about you teaching them what you've learned in ~30 years, rather than letting them figure things out with ~30 _months_ of experience?

Exposing a child to new environments is letting the child learn.

They need a stable base to begin from BEFORE moving on to "new environments". Children naturally CRAVE stability, as everything is new and they need a solid place to start before exploring - and you wish to deny them even the comfort of mommy & daddy for half of each day!

Re:Strangers raising your kids!

[nellardo]

You know, I told myself "Self, don't answer - they're just flamebait." But I can't resist.... Be warned....

How? By letting a stranger teach and instill values for half the child's waking hours!

As a divorced dad, well, my daughter's mother seems like something of a stranger these days. Should I take my daughter away from her mother? How about her mother's boyfriend? Or my girlfriend (supposing for a moment that I had one :-( )

I'm sure you think mom doesn't constitute a stranger, but frankly, she's not the same person I married - for one thing, she's making a big deal about being Catholic, something she never did before. I don't especially want my daughter raised Catholic. What do you suggest I do?

As for day care staff, others on this thread have pointed out that, in fact, day care staff may be more qualified to raise the kid that the parent. Blood relationship does not confer knowledge of what a child needs. When we brought her home from the hospital when she was born, both I and my then-wife had the same reaction - "I can't believe they let us keep her. What do we do now?" - and we'd read everything we could get our hands on and been to no less than three series of classes.

They can't decide anything if you haven't taught them the decision making process! Remember - kids don't start out knowing how to decide.

Mmmm. Sounds like you don't have a young child - a two-year-old most definitely knows how to make decisions. You have heard of the "terrible twos"? The "fearsome fours" might even be worse - the kid (at least, my kid) can argue with you with some fair amount of linguistic skill. She can explain cause and effect, previous history on related situations, emotions, all going to explaining how she reached a particular decision - where to go for brunch, what game to play, why she does or doesn't like a particular video, person, toy, place, you name it.

Young babies routinely perform "experiments" to figure out how the world works. They'll do something, watch the results, then do it again to see if the same thing happens. I know some scientists that could learn something about decision-making from babies.

How about you teaching them what you've learned in ~30 years, rather than letting them figure things out with ~30 _months_ of experience?

Duh, you're right, I never teach my daughter anything. Putting aside what I see as a veiled insult, how about letting the daycare professional, with ~30 years of experience with kids do some of that teaching? Teaching is a skill, and I know just enough about it (having written a textbook, fer hemos's sake) to know that it is hard and I do not have any special gift for it.

They need a stable base to begin from BEFORE moving on to "new environments".

Frankly, bullshit. Children are complete learning sponges. You can throw them in a completely new environment and they'll start to learn. My ex wife is not technically a native speaker of English - she's Korean, born in Seoul, came to the US at age 2. You'd never know it now to talk to her. In fact, she can't speak Korean anymore (though she could when she came to the US). When my mother speaks French to her grand-daughter, my daughter soaks it up and starts talking back in French.

This is not limited to language - my daughter does the same kind of thing whatever is thrown at her (except maybe vegetables :-) Give her a new toy, a new book, new art supplies, a new mode of transportation (she hasn't been on a Concorde (yet) but has dealt with car, bicycle, boat, airplane, train, subway, bus, shoulders, stroller, and probably some I've forgotten), a new animal, a new city, anything.

Children naturally CRAVE stability, as everything is new and they need a solid place to start before exploring - and you wish to deny them even the comfort of mommy & daddy for half of each day!

If a child "craves" stability, it is because that child has only ever had "stability." Mommy and Daddy may be more familiar, but beyond that, there's no "magic sense" there that Mommy and Daddy are somehow different. Yes, kids look up to their parents - their parents are a major part of their life. Providing them with safe places to get some of that security makes them less dependent, more able to be their own person, more capable of coping with both joy and tragedy (spirits forfend Mommy or Daddy get hit by a car).

In today's world, I'd rather have my daughter exposed to as many different experiences as possible.

"Specialization is in-breeding. It's slow death."
-- Major Kusanagi

Re:Strangers raising your kids!

[dublin]

You're treating your kid as if she was a computer or other machine, and foolishly believing that some sort of educational mumbo-jumbo is what children really need. Kids aren't "coin-operated" - you can't provide a "scientifically optimal" set of inputs to that amazing neural net and expect the child to be properly trained.

The one thing your child needs most is the one thing she will *never* get in any daycare environment: lots of individual personal attention and LOVE. If that's missing in the early years, there's no amount of psychobabble that can make up for it later. There are many, many studies that bear this out. This factor is statistically much more influential than race, economic background or any other. Gee, imagine that, children DO respond to love - who'd have thunk it?

macro economics, choice and reality.

[twitter]

It strikes me that the solution to the problem might be for the woman to find a job where she gets paid more than a pittance, and find a daycare where they don't just pen kids and let 'em suffer, rather than giving up completely on having her own career. You're writing as if the wife's working was the husband's decision, and she can't possibly be the family breadwinner.

Besides, I bet you don't always feel "liberated" and "empowered" by work either. But it sure would beat being isolated at home all day with the kids, and completely dependent on one person you only see early in the morning and late at night, don'cha think?

No, I don't feel liberated persuing someone else's bottom line all day. Though I have friends, I feel isolated enough in my cubicle, don't you? My first rewared is that my wife will not have to work. This is something we talked about BEFORE we got married. My second reward is the good feeling I get helping to put 1 gigawatt onto the grid. Life could be worse for me.

Life is worse for those who think they don't have that option. Supply and demand dictate that the women who ignore their children to toil beside me reduce my potential earnings. At some point this is, like you said, starts to feel less like a choice but economic neccesity. I worked hard and got lucky, but my wife and I agree that we would rather be poor than have her chase her career at our children's expense. We were going to have to move to some place with decent public education if things did not go so well for me.

My sister has a different problem. Her career has taken off out of all proportion to her husband's. This is in part because she worked hareder, but also due to the smaller pool of women applicants she had to compete with. There is no way her husband can ever catch up, and he's going to end up Mr. Mom. It's a little irksome to my sister's employers and her. She's got a responsible position that she just can't leave for a month or so, but she will. She is also going to miss out on a lot of things that my wife could not. Mr. Mom is not to broken up about things.

Re:macro economics, choice and reality.

[ph0rk]

>>My first rewared is that my wife will not have to work. This is something we talked about BEFORE we got married.

BAH!

you agreed to that before marriage? boy did you get the short end of the stick...

*awaits the crushing doom of bad karma*

Re:macro economics, choice and reality.

[erinlee]

Supply and demand dictate that the women who ignore their children to toil beside me reduce my potential earnings.

Same logic applies to the men who so the same, doesn't it?

If you decided on this before you got married, fine, that's a decision that you made together and you're living your lives the way you want. That's great. But it's not the one and only proper way to raise a kid.

The university studies on child care that I recall hearing of clearly concluded that daycare was not a bad influence on children. Go figure: I'm sure small children have been minded in groups since the dawn of man.

You seem to think that childcare is an essentially and necessarily feminine pursuit, and career is an essentially masculine one (the emasculating "Mr. Mom", considering having your wife not work as your "reward", sounds like a lot of your pride is wrapped up in your career and breadwinner duties). And you're heaping all the child-care responsibility and guilt on women: you seem to think that if they have kids, they should become stay-at-home moms (or else turn their children into sociopaths?). And that outdated rhetoric is what annoys me. Why is it any less irresponsible for a man to not devote all his daily life to child care, than it is for a woman to do the same?

Not everyone's case is the same

[Phronesis]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I must disagree. For my daughter's first six months my wife and I worked out a flexible arrangement with our employer where each of us took her to work with us for half the day---I had mornings, my wife had evenings. It was acknowledged all around that we would be less productive during this time than if we did not do this, but we were certainly more productive and maintained more continuity on projects that we were managing than would have been possible if either of us had taken FMLA leave for half a year. At six months, when she learned to crawl, it was no longer safe or fair to her to keep her at work, so my wife and I put her in a daycare program.

My daughter is in day care for about 7 hours a day five days a week and I would assert that for her, it is better than being at home with a full-time parent. My wife and I have learned a lot about being good parents from my daughter's teachers, my daughter has the opportunity to play with many other children throughout the day and has learned to get along with other children, to show them love and respect, and to settle conflicts without fighting in ways that I do not think she would have done staying at home. I don't think any child is hurt by staying at home---there are tradeoffs either way---but to my mind, my daughter is better off in day care.

Most importantly for me, my daughter is healthy, happy, and is growing into a wonderful girl. I would take her out of day care in a minute and stay home to raise her if I felt that day care was hurting her. My decision may not be the right one for everyone and not everyone's employer offers the kind of excellent daycare that mine does, but I would argue vehemently about someone else trying to stuff me into a procrustean box and second guess my qualities as a parent.

Daycare == orphanage

[Monte]

Daycare is a very responsible thing to do for your children.

Then by extension, an orphanage would be even better. I mean, if you want disinterested third parties to raise your kids for a buck, an orphanage is definitely the way to go.

I mean, the kid's not going to notice any difference, right? Real parent, proxy parent, whatever, as long as Jr. gets his milk & cookies on time.

Re:Waaaaa! I want kids but somebody else raise the

[mweier]

I'm sure that all people in poverty are having more kids strictly to make things worse for themselves and everyone else.

An overwhelming abundance of people with over 10 kids live on farms or in developing nations where the survival of the family is almost directly related to how many family members can work to support this family. If you've got a struggling farm with no money to pay hired hands, what better way to get more hands?

The unfortunate side effect of this is that more hands = more mouths to feed, etc. Vicious cycle & without access to develop a marketable talent with which to sell themselves to some rich employer, how does one escape?

-matt

Nobody does a better job than you

[figa]

I'm working at home part time as a consultant, and my wife is staying home as well. It's ideal, but we're making some sacrifices to offer almost all of our time to our kid. I just had lunch with my family and played chess with my daughter (she's almost 3) afterward. We don't have a car, we've cut back on how much we eat out, and I'm using Celeron 500s, but it's worth it.

We just recently looked at what has to be one of the best daycare centers in America, the feeder preschool to St. Anne's prep in Brooklyn. The kids were learning about Monet and had iMacs to play with. But, they all looked tired, dazed, and generally bored. Though the place was well staffed, there's still only so many hugs to go around, and there was only one male instructor. The instructors there were highly qualified, but in general, how much return do you really expect to get for $7/hour?

Some kids like the interaction, and by three or so many are ready for it. The four-year-olds were doing much better. Nonetheless, nobody can provide more love, attention, and affection for your child than you can. I particularly liked that post that said the first six years are the most important, so choose your daycare wisely. The first three are critical, and you have to be there most of the time. A few hours a day of daycare may be necessary to save your sanity, but your kid will suffer it you let someone else raise them.

If an employer provides daycare, it would be a step in the right direction, especially for older kids that need attention after school. But, that sort of deal really needs to be coupled with full employer respect for our outside lives. This benefits both the childfree and parents. We need to return to the 40-hour work week. Greenspun should go back to the decompression chamber for a little longer. One of the best ways to spend more time with your young child is to go back to school for a cushy degree. I'm planning to get my MBA when I have my next kid.

Re:Nobody does a better job than you

[jon_adair]

I was practically forced into the freelance work-from-home world (joining my work-at-home wife). Now I spend about 1/3 of my 9-5 workday with my wife or daughter and still get more done than I ever did in the office. Plus I rack up the rest of 50-60 hours a week after hours and on the weekends when I'm not on the phone every 15 minutes. I actually get to spend time with my daughter. I'm not pissed off and anti-social at the end of the day.

Get out of the office! Get off of salary!

There's a big big difference

[catseye_95051]

Between raising your child and lugging your child around with you or staying home with it. They are, in fact, orthogonal.

I was watched by a nanny during the day when iw as a baby. Frankly, i don't remember her. My mom would coeme home every evening and spend QUALITY time with me. This was made easier by teh afct that she didn't have to spend 24 horus a day with me.

As soon as I was old enough I wne to an academic pre-school during the day and, along with lessons at home, I eventually entered school at an advantage that lasted all the way up to and through college. (The stronegst part being, because I was always a bit ahead, I enjoyed school.)

In our genreation I have seen plenty of "stay at home parents" ho sit around watchign the TV aterh then their child. Worse, they plant the CHILD in frotn of the TV so that they wount bother them.

These people may stay at home, but in my bookj they aren't parents at all.

Now to go back on topic...

[catseye_95051]

Start-ups and small companeis don't have the resource for daycare (though I have seen incubators that had facillities on site.)

Larger companies both have the resources and tend to employ more people with families. Yes, I think daycare (particualrly on-site) would be a GREAT benefit for those companies to offer-- and I may never have kids (medical issues.)

Corporate day care is not very practical

[BalloonMan]

When I was at Lotus, in Cambridge, MA, they had an on-site day-care center. It was small and well run, and the waiting list was longer than your average childhood. I was lucky enough to find another high-quality day-care center close by, and I was only at Lotus for 6 months, so I was glad I wasn't tied down to my company's daycare when I left.

I think the biggest issue with corporate sponsored day-care is the difficulty of insuring a reliable stream of customers. You can't just whip up a few more good daycare professionals when the demand spikes, so the only possible solution I've seen caters to a small, but loyal, customer base. Obviously, this can never totally satisfy the demand for day-care at a company, and it is simply out of reach for smaller companies.

RE:Do Techies Care For Daycare?

[rathious]

Hell Yes, Think about it fellow Techies/Nerds. We do have children just because we find it more important to sit in front of a computer than go out and watch grown men kick each others beat on each other. I know that if I could keep my children not only in the same building as I work and also send them off to school from that location. Hence have my children go to the school closest to my work it would be most advantageous. It would mean I could set up web cams to watch them and still be able to visit them in between meetings. With something like this I would be able to actually work late and not have to worry if my wife would be able to pick them up due to her own work schedule. Because as we all know a woman who marries a techie is most likley a techie to.

Still need that car

[exodus2]

Ok, my wife does not work, but we still need two cars, how else is she going to go to PTA, Soccer etc, You are making an assumption that a person who stays at home with a child literally stays at home. They still have things to do, shopping, taking children to school, bringing me lunch :), and running other erinds. So we need the car. My wife still wears clothes, same type of stuff I wear, jeans and shirts. No savings there. Ok, so there is the savings on day care, but what about the fact of wear and tear on my house, having two people there all day will certainly, wear out my floors faster, faucets, etc. I am waiting for her to finsh school and start working so I can be the one who stays at home with my daughter.

Re: still need that car

[twitter]

You are making an assumption that a person who stays at home with a child literally stays at home.

Nope. You might have to drive to work. Your wife might drive you to work. You might live someplace nice, where your wife can get things on foot and would enjoy spending time outside regardless. If you are really lucky, you live someplace where neither of you has to use a car but you will own one for the occasional convenience.

A housewife tax

[hawk]

It's more than just personal responsibility. It's an (indirect) tax on the housewifes.

Before you fly off the handle, think about it. Everyone receives a lower wage to account for the extra costs involved. The benefits, however, accrue to the dual income and single parent family. Then net result is a transfer from the housewife family to the other families.

Realize that your benefits are not without cost. Paychecks are smaller by exactly the cost of providing them (and the same applies to the so-caled "employer" section of your social security taxe: your wages are roughly 7.6% lower to accomodate this). The same "housewife tax" problem applies to tax deductions for daycare that do not also accrue to housewifes.

This is not to say that it is less efficient for employer's to provide daycare--it may well be less expensive to have the daycare there on the premises--but that this isn't the freebie it sounds like, and there's a definite subsidy from the lower income family (1 paycheck) to the higher income family (2 paychecks).

hawk, speaking as an economics professor

hmm, this could make a good test question :)

[now we see how many of my students read slashdot . . . :) ]

Re:A housewife tax

[dsplat]

Realize that your benefits are not without cost. Paychecks are smaller by exactly the cost of providing them (and the same applies to the so-caled "employer" section of your social security taxe: your wages are roughly 7.6% lower to accomodate this). The same "housewife tax" problem applies to tax deductions for daycare that do not also accrue to housewifes.

hawk, it's good to see someone else around here who not only understands economics, but uses it. This strikes me as an ideal situation for one of three solutions:

1. Companies filling different niches. Different companies can attract employees with different needs based on the benefits provided.
2. A large company can make on-site daycare available without subsidizing it. Offer it at cost. This guarantees that it is available to the parents who want it, without costing the single or childless folks.
3. Many companies can either locate where there is daycare available, or facilitate getting daycare nearby by making providers aware of the demand and perhaps putting the parents and daycare providers in touch with each other.

Of the three, I like the third solution the best. It is not free, but it shouldn't have to cost much. It avoids most of the costs of subsidizing. It avoids the conflicts of interest that might arise when a parent has a problem with on site daycare. In fact, the company can help the parents by negotiating hours that fit their work schedules, etc. And finally, it helps fill the need.

dsplat, speaking as an individual voice in the chorus of the free market.

Re:I don't think that would do what you want.

[Pfhor]

Which is why it would be sold at a loss.
In otherwords, it will have a bunch of cool technology and things, just not the expense of them (remember, this is the money on the scale of Bill Gates we are talking about here).

Are you INSANE?

[Mechanist]

A case in point is the difficulty Social Security is facing because the baby boomers irresponsibly did not produce enough children to keep the system solvent during their retirement.

Look, if you like kids, fine. But nobody, and I mean nobody has a responsibility to have children. Deciding to not have children is every person's right. It's not irresponsible, no matter how much you want to believe it. I really hope you're trolling because it would be seriously depressing to thing that there are people who believe that it's "irresponsible" to choose not to have kids.

The fact that the US government has instituted a Ponzi scheme masquerading as a retirement program does not change this fact. If the system can only work if everyone has kids, then the system is fundamentally broken.

Daycare?

[tru junglist]

What children? Everybody knows us techies don't get any... ;)

Re:So is the IRS penalizing signle people?

[CACondor]

ever heard of the marriage tax?

Yes.

It is when a married person pays the same percentage as a single person.

Re:you are fooling yourself (OT)

[twitter]

60 minutes did an economics analysis only. They did not speculate on the bad mental health implications of the comunal baby factory. Nor did they mention some of the other social implications of too many women working. These are:

Day care health problems. A friend of mine put her child in day care. She has hepititis. Her baby was imunized so that she could not contract this through the breast milk she leaves with the day care. How many of the other children were imunized, and how do we know that their keepers can keep the bottles straight? It's a fact that children in daycare suffer more illnesses than those who stay at home. This may be due to greater exposure as well as greater stress.

A society that has lost some of it's coherence. Working women do not have the time to befriend their neighbors, and whole neighborhoods stand empty to be robbed durring daylight hours. Who's that next door? Who knows!? Sure, we can all get along with our work chums, but a traditional support for women has fallen away.

A more frantic, less enjoyable life. What's the point of all this extra work? Well, it has helped us job hop, and we have had some more vacations, cars and other crap. It would have been nicer to earn a decent living in the first place. Time lost persuing other people's profits can not be taken back. My wife and I spend our week nights tired from work and our weekends doing chores that did not get done all week, and we don't have kids yet! When the children come, her work won't make any sense at all. Sorry, Hillary, if GDP and tax income go down, we want our lives to be more enjoyable than this.

Poor assumption

[Mechanist]

BTW, Parenting is one of the best things you'll ever do. I'd start to think about how you're going to prepare for it while still young.

What is the basis for assuming that people who do not have children should "prepare for it" at any age? You have made a particular lifestyle choice by having children, but others may make different choices.

Re:Poor assumption

[Cujo]

Obviously, the assumption is implict that the reader is a potential parent. If not, feel free to ignore, as usual. And more people are likely to be parents someday than think so when they're young.

Childcare reimbursement accounts

[dsplat]

Rather than worrying about providing or even subsidizing daycare, one thing that employers can provide is a childcare reimbursement account. For those of you outside the US or without children who've never heard of these, I'll explain. An amount of money you specify (up to a maximum) is withheld pre-tax from each paycheck. That money is returned to you for any qualified childcare. It is a way of paying for your childcare with absolutely no taxes on it, rather than deducting it on your income tax forms after you've paid Social Security, etc.

Re:Some techies shouldn't be allowed to procreate.

[SpacePunk]

"but family is definitely more important than geeks toys and internet access." HERETIC!

nanny

[twitter]

I agree that is a cruel scenario but it is not the reality of the daycare that I use. The person that looks after my baby has only two others in her charge and regularly gives my daughter plenty of one-on-one interaction

That's not daycare, that's a nanny. You are rich enough to do as you chose, and I'm happy for you. Don't confuse that with the what the rest of us are looking at.

I love coding and I work in a great environment with fair compensation. My decision to go back work was a personal one, not based money as much as quality of life for my daughter as well as myself.

You are lucky, but when are you going to start interacting with your children? When will that interaction outweigh the satisfaction you get from coding, and how will you know? It's wrong to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do with regard to their children or their career.

What's wrong with expressing an opinion?

Don't confuse my advococy of motherhood for force. Force is generally comming from the other direction. As things are, it is going to be difficult for my wife NOT to work. We have to make hard choices between the quality of our children's education (private vrs public) and the amount of involvement we will have with them. All of these supposedly liberated women have helped keep wages down for most of us, as demand always meets supply. In general, society is forcing it's lower class women into "service economy". Worse than that is the prospect of government sponsored day care that would force us to subsidise a life style that we do not aprove of. Every little load is helping to push us out of the middle class and into the lower. My wife is the best nanny I can think of, and the only one that we can afford. This will only last as long as we think we can afford a decent education for our children, then we will be forced to move or use day care.

Re:nanny

[deacent]

You are lucky, but when are you going to start interacting with your children? When will that interaction outweigh the satisfaction you get from coding, and how will you know?

I never said that I didn't interact act with my child. She is a great joy to me. She spends about 9 nine hours a day, five days at daycare. I spend the bulk of the remaining time with her. Not just near her, but playing, talking, reading, singing, etc. much of the time (talking is pretty one-directional at six months but I like to think she gets something from it). My work is the one piece of my world that isn't utterly consumed by her and I consider it my only sanctuary. I do not feel this makes me a bad parent, just human.

Don't confuse my advococy of motherhood for force. Force is generally comming from the other direction. As things are, it is going to be difficult for my wife NOT to work. We have to make hard choices between the quality of our children's education (private vrs public) and the amount of involvement we will have with them. All of these supposedly liberated women have helped keep wages down for most of us, as demand always meets supply. In general, society is forcing it's lower class women into "service economy". Worse than that is the prospect of government sponsored day care that would force us to subsidise a life style that we do not aprove of. Every little load is helping to push us out of the middle class and into the lower. My wife is the best nanny I can think of, and the only one that we can afford. This will only last as long as we think we can afford a decent education for our children, then we will be forced to move or use day care.

I'm sorry if I'm a little defensive about this. It seems like parents (mothers especially) are in this situation where you're judged as a bad parent if you go back to work or an unmotivated or unskilled worker if you choose to stay home with your kids. Both are almost always false. I'm just tired of people trying to tell me that I'm doing harm to my daughter by working when it's none of their business and they're compleyely unqualified to tell me about my life.

-Jennifer

Or "Why should I support pub.schools w/ prop.txs?"

[loose_change]

Amen to Phronesis.

I hear the same argument about property taxes -- "Why should I support public schools?" I don't have children, but I thank the school system every time I get correct change back from some pimply faced kid. And I support after-school programs so teenagers have less chance to get bored. Bored teenagers are the only critters more destructive than a Labrador Retriever puppy.

yeah, right (OT)

[twitter]

Men will match women in childrearing when they can give birth and breast feed.

Women will match men in the workforce when they develop uperbody strength equal to men, and do not have to take anytime in childbirth. The first will keep them from being useful manual laborers, the second will keep them from compeeting for positions of real responsibility.

In short, the sexes will be equivalent and interchangable when pigs fly. Stranger thing have happened, but I would not forsee this by 2050.

This opinion has little to do with the detriments of day care, my penis, or "the wrinkled old divorced pr0n queen adulteress".

People are indeed suggesting that daycare is some kind of universal entitlement, and that people who do not aprove of such things pay for it. You can make those cages (cribs) out of wire, tube, wood, or sheet metal, they will not take the place of a mother's arms.

Re:yeah, right (OT)

[BluedemonX]

RE: Men will match women in childrearing when they can give birth and breast feed.

You'll note I said CHILD REARING, not giving birth. Just giving birth to someone doesn't make you their mother any more than being the successful male in the breeding cycle makes you a father. That's an insult to many men I know who do a damn fine job raising kids esp. if the mother has died.

RE: Women will match men in the workforce when they develop uperbody strength equal to men

Which as we ALL know is absolutely essential to write code.

RE: The first will keep them from being useful manual laborers, the second will keep them from compeeting for positions of real responsibility.

I think it's more YOUR ATTITUDE that affects the second more than anything else.

RE: In short, the sexes will be equivalent and interchangable when pigs fly.

So what? We're talking about child rearing. You seem to think it's "woman's work". Apart from the necessity of a woman giving birth and the necessity of a man somewhere along the line, the ROLES are interchangeable.

RE: Stranger thing have happened, but I would not forsee this by 2050.

What, like you growing up and becoming part of the 21st century?

RE: People are indeed suggesting that daycare is some kind of universal entitlement,

No, but child rearing affects everyone eventually. And people want and deserve options.

RE: they will not take the place of a mother's arms.

As a future father, let me go on record to say that I hope mine will. Because I intend to raise my children WITH my wife, not tell her it's HER job.

Childcare as a Choice

[Bernal KC]

The best approach to benefits that I have seen up close is the benefits menu approach that includes child care or child care subsidies. The company figures out how much of your compensation is allocated to benefits overall. They offer a menu of choices, each one with an assigned cost, and you get to pick and choose what benefits you want. Many companies do this for a choice of health care options: HMO, PPO, etc. But it is pretty easy to generalize for all benefits. If you're young and you want to maximize take home pay, you can. If you have kids and health care and child care rule, you have choices. Everyone wins on their own terms.

Autodesk, where I used to work, has done this very well. You could choose from a long list of benefits -- from pet insurance, legal insurance, FSAs for health care costs, dependent care,... The choices were presented via an intranet application each year during health care open enrollment periods. It really was a nice program.

No, Autodesk does not offer child care on site. I believe they studied it and concluded it would cost too much, and there was not guarantee that employees would choose it. Only large companies with large campuses can really offer this by themselves. Autodesk relied on community child care providers -- and I think that may be the more realistic solution for most employees and employers. But I did get a lot of my kids' daycare subisdised by an Autdesk sponsored FSA. The other benefit they offered was flex time and some PTO for school and daycare volunteers.

Re:Some techies shouldn't be allowed to procreate.

[Attila]

Family is important? Really? So you plan on having children with your future husband, then farming them out to someone else to raise? Or are you really saying the wants of the two adults in your future family are important, whether those wants are a new car, a big screen TV, a poodle, or a cute little baby?

You want kids but don't want to give up your career? Then I hope your future husband isn't as selfish as you and stays home with your kids.

Hey, been there, done that, so don't tell me I'm not realistic.

Makes perfect sense

[kaoshin]

Yes, we know you'd really like to be released from your cube prison to have a telecommuting job, but how about we just give you free daycare in addition to paying for your electrical usage here, use of facilities, paying the dude to clean up the cigarette butts you throw on the ground in the smoke area, use of internet, your hardware, the chair you sit on, the desk you sleep on, etc.

SHUT UP YOU SEXIST OINK

[BluedemonX]

RE: Women will match men in the workforce when they develop uperbody strength equal to men, and do not have to take anytime in childbirth. The first will keep them from being useful manual laborers, the second will keep them from compeeting for positions of real responsibility.

I hope to GOD you aren't in any position of authority and/or responsiblity to hire people, because if you carry that attitude to work with you eventually someone's going to come along and sue your ass to hell and back. And I for one will be applauding whoever it is that takes your outdated, phallocentric misogynistic self to court.

Hmmm

[schmough]

I'm a mother and I am also a sysadmin. My child has to go to daycare. This is not a choice. I am single and we live on the other side of the country as any of my relatives. It would be nice if there were daycares at the workplace, but we manage. The real downside is when I have to stay home due to a snow day or other minor holidays (this Friday is Veteren's Day), so I end up using all of my vacation and sick time during the year. This means we can't take more than one vacation a year -- and then it is only for a couple days. It would be nice if there was a drop in daycare. The posters who say that putting children in daycare is not taking responsibility simply do not take into account life circumstances. We all do our best.

TECHIES NEED DAYCARE

[peter303]

A lot of us aren't mature enough to go out in the world alone!

Re:Controlled experimentation... (OT)

[Cedric C. Girouard]

You can't count going out to eat more because that's really an unrelated choice. If you're going to net zero, eat in. Dinner isn't that hard to prepare. It typically takes me or my wife about 30 minutes, and we can do other things while we're at it. You know what? It tastes better and is healthier than restaraunt food too.

Right on. I've been living on hotel/restaurant food for the last week or so, and trust me. There's nothing like a good pasta platter at home. Plus the fixing up time can be used to discuss the passed day and other trivial business. I totally recommend against discussing budget during food fixup time, because usually a whole lot of sharp equipment is at the disposal of both individuals.

30 minutes for fix up might be overkill tho. Oliveiri came out with a 5 minutes pasta extravaganza kit. Costs about 6$ (canadian) for Pesto sauce and linguini's. That makes up for a quick supper.

half right

[twitter]

Reproduction is a right, and it is just as stupid to try to stop it as it is cruel to let children starve. Advocating chastity is good but saying that "some people can't afford to have children" is sick and wrong. What are you going to do about it? Institutionalize all illegitimate children? Good luck. By the same token anyone in this country can afford a stay at home wife and children. The extra food, shelter and clothing is not too expensive. What costs too much is all the crap that no one really needs anyway.

Poverty is the curse of those who don't plan their lives well. Single moms suffer for their stupidity, but their children are inocent. Not having the extras that most people desire, drives single mothers to get married and curse those who recomended promiscuity. They learn their lesson, and don't really need to be preached too.

Re:half right

[sql*kitten]

"some people can't afford to have children" is sick and wrong

No it isn't. What sort of an irresponsible parent would be willing to have children that they couldn't provide for? Morally, that's equivalent to sending your children out naked into the cold and hoping that a passerby will offer them their coat.

Thought Police!

[twitter]

You forgot to check the post anonymously button, stupid.

There you go resorting to insults and force to get what you want. Lawsuits! What a pox. It's a shame that such threats can be found here. How funny it is that people like you, who think they advocate freedom, would jump up and down on free speech like this. "My truth shall set you free, now shut up or loose all reputability, career and livelyhood!" Do you see the hypocracy here? Do and say what you want, but keep the treats to yourself.

My opinions are my own and have nothing to do with the policy of my employers that I will cary out. My wife and I agreed about our roles BEFORE we were married. We are planning our lives accordingly. The views expressed here have nothing to do with my penis, and are far less misogynist than those who advocate day care.

Day care is an evil institution useful only in enslaving women. My wife has far less interest in her work than she does in our house, health and the future of our children. The only winners of mass female employment are coperations who end up paying less for labor, and the federal government which realizes a temporary boost in GNP. The rest of us loose. Mass employement of women is something that should only be resorted to in war. You are blind to the truth, which is that women should have the choice to work if they please and employers should have the choice to hire them when they please. The present, where 2/3 of women work, is greedy and foolish. It is awful that people sit around an dinegrate mother hood as , "sitting around at home", "issolated " and unambitious.

Re:Thought Police!

[BluedemonX]

RE: You forgot to check the post anonymously button, stupid.

Actually, I stand behind what I say. No reason WHATSOEVER to post back anonymously.

RE: There you go resorting to insults and force to get what you want.

I didn't threaten you - I said when you bring that attitude to work with you, I hope you get your ass sued off for sexual discrimination.

RE: How funny it is that people like you, who think they advocate freedom,

Let me get this straight. You, who believes women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, are deriding ME for supposedly being against freedom? Or do you believe freedom belongs only to men?

RE: would jump up and down on free speech like this.

You have the right to your opinion, so do I. We also have the right to voice them, and I'm exercising mine.

RE: "My truth shall set you free, now shut up or loose all reputability, career and livelyhood!" Do you see the hypocracy here? Do and say what you want, but keep the treats to yourself.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA right. Listen carefully, it's more like "it's against the law to discriminate against women in the workplace". PING! Welcome to the 21st century!!!

RE: My opinions are my own and have nothing to do with the policy of my employers that I will cary out.

Oh, I'm sure you'll hire the odd token secretary. But if in your heart of hearts you think of women as breeding stock and indentured labor on the home front, I doubt you can be impartial.

RE: The views expressed here have nothing to do with my penis, and are far less misogynist than those who advocate day care.

Describing women as unfit for any responsible role and useless for any kind of manual labor IS misogynist. Horribly misogynist. Replace "woman" with "black" and read your sentence back and see how fast you'd be out of a job if your employer was anything other than the Aryan Nations. Keep fighting women of the world, you've still got a long way to go.

RE: Day care is an evil institution useful only in enslaving women. My wife has far less interest in her work than she does in our house, health and the future of our children.

Well, some women have interest in their careers. But that isn't the point. The point is that you don't even consider women appropriate for ANY responsible position, pregnant and with child or not. You're on RECORD as saying so.

RE: The only winners of mass female employment are coperations who end up paying less for labor,

Not for long. Pay equity is next on the list.

RE: and the federal government which realizes a temporary boost in GNP. The rest of us loose.

So women lose by having fulfilling careers? Explain that one.

RE: You are blind to the truth, which is that women should have the choice to work if they please and employers should have the choice to hire them when they please.

You're advocating discrimination. IN BLACK AND WHITE.(Or whatever color your monitor is set to)

RE: The present, where 2/3 of women work, is greedy and foolish. It is awful that people sit around an dinegrate mother hood as , "sitting around at home", "issolated " and unambitious.

Some people think of it as such, some think of it as a career into itself. So what. My beef with you is not what you and your wife have chosen to do - it's been your constant barrage of "women are unfit to work" "it's greedy if your woman works" etc. I somehow thought educated and professional people would be higher up the evolutionary chain, but given your level of literacy, never mind your 18th century attitudes and blatant bigotry, I guess my theory is shot...

Might increase women in field.

[resilient]

The majority of "techies" are still young, male and single so daycare really isn't a factor for them until they are well into their careers. However, this majority is quickly dwindling and it may due to think about other 'perks' that the workplace can offer other than free cell phones and Internet access. What do you all think?

I think the best reason for having daycare.. is to increase the interest of women in the field. Women do not want to have to choose between a career and their family. Having daycare might encourage more women to enter the field.. if they know that they have options when they have a family.

But What About the ChilllllllllllDREN ?!?!?!?!?!

[gelfling]

Said in a properly operatic tone. And here I thought all we needed was more Bibles, Bullets, Beans and Bandages. Computers are the tool of Satan after all.

I only take one week of vacation a year...

[hey!]

so if you worked in the same company as me and took two weeks, would they be discriminating against me because they could pay me more if they only gave you the amount of vacation I want to take.

Of course, I might find myself working alone if they decided to cut everyone's vacation.

Your answer show naivite over how companies decide to spend their money. If they don't provide day care to some other employee, they aren't going to give you a big fat raise -- they pay you as little as they can and keep you working there. They're going to cut the stockholders a larger dividiend if they can, or spend it on something which will allow them to create the biggest dividend possible.

The fact that companies are providing day care is that it optimizes their profitability. They don't think they can put together an adequate work force out of wet-behind-the-airs early twentysomething male geeks. They have to attract fertile females and males married to them.

DayCare?

[MrHyd3]

Well, having 3 kids of my own and being 27 in the IT profession, I would say it's important. Luckily for me, I have both sets of parent that live rather close as well as great-grandparents. I cannot trust strangers watching my kids. Lord knows what video show or obscene things can happen. Daycare needs to be there for people not as lucky as I.

Even emergency backup daycare is a huge perk

[dannyp]

It might be helpful to draw a distinction between companies providing regular daycare and companies providing emergency backup daycare.

Here on Wall St. (yes, home of much of the world's software creation), the latest perk is emeregency backup child care. Limited to 10-15 uses per year, it lets employees come to work when the babysitter is sick (not when the kid is).

This has been an amazingly popular service throughout the industry (and throughout many others). The care is top-notch (far better than your average day care center), and the expense to the company is mitigated by the limits on use. But it still spares the company from missed deadlines when a key developer would otherwise miss work unexpectedly.

On the non-tech side of the company, it doesn't take too many salvaged deals that would have been lost due to unexpected employee absences to make the service pay for itself.

Great!

[NuclearArchaeologist]

Consider the number of hours a day smokers spend outside on smoke breaks - surely a parent could justify that much time on "child breaks".) Plus you'd be better able to keep an eye on quality.

Now that's responsible parenting. Your child is just as important as smokes, cool. Just think of the continuity this would provide for your child. Though their primary care giver might change out as frequently as other blue colar workers, you will always be there three or four times a day. In the morning, at coffee breaks, at lunch, and in the evening, your 15 minute stop by will provide your child with all the warmth an infant needs from a mother.

Quality control is another good point. You could make sure your baby only drinks your milk, not the wrong bottle filled by someone else. Other details can be monitored as well, like temperature, diaper changes, and the rest. You might even cutomize your baby's crib with pictures and playthings like any other cubicle at your work place. We all know how important such personal touches are.

back to the stone age

[twitter]

The Amish model is 21st century next to the stone-age life style that day care represents. Why should we pretend that our labor is so unproductive that we need to send our women off to collect berries, act as sales reps, suckretary and all those demeaning things that the majority of women forced to enter the workplace have to put up with?

Bah! What you advocate is something that will lead to a force not a choice. Think about trying to get by without your wife's slary for a while. Some of us don't think being corporate slaves is all that good an idea.

My kids will grow up knowing that I have respect for them and my wife. I value them more than the little extras I could buy if I stuck them in Barney's detention center and put my wife to the plow. They will also not suffer the early developmental depravation your poor kids will.

By this, my wife and I will judge our success as human beings: That our children grow up as loved and well cared for as we were.