elizabeth-cooper t1_its36vh wrote
Reply to comment by sassbayc in Eric Adams Is Eroding New York’s Early Childhood Education Programs by Lilyo
Daycare doesn't cost $40k. If it does, it's because you chose to send your kid to the Harvard Pipeline Daycare Annex instead of Little Tots Love to Play Daycare Center.
virtual_adam t1_its7yqo wrote
$3k flat is the cost of mediocre daycare in Yorkville for office worker hours. For most food is extra
DryGumby t1_itshhx0 wrote
I'm curious, what happens if you opt out of the food?
Alskdj56 t1_itt0y21 wrote
They won't let you drop your kids off without a packed lunch
Sunmoonearth87 t1_ituq7u1 wrote
I used an excellent home based daycare and it didn’t cost anywhere near $30k.
virtual_adam t1_itvpwyi wrote
On the upper east side? I take my kid to Harlem 40 minutes walking 4x a day to not pay $40k. I’d love to not have to do that
Sunmoonearth87 t1_itvw1ys wrote
Nope in Brooklyn.
carpediem_lovely t1_iu3cwr9 wrote
Hey, so my best friend works at what she likes to call an “affordable” daycare and man, the stories she tells. 20 toddlers being taken care of by 2 overworked people—1 if someone calls out. My friend was trained to work with kids toddler-aged and older, but they frequently had her covering the infants with virtually no help. The kids were getting the bare minimum of care/attention because they were understaffed. Had to pay for materials with her own money for activities.
If I had kids, I’d be wary of sending them to just any daycare.
Mind, this was up in Georgia, not NY, but I doubt it’s much different.
sassbayc t1_its3n1z wrote
not even talking about cost of day care
i mean i actually believe it’s far more detrimental than anyone wants to admit for there not to be a full time parent before kindergarten caring for a child
elizabeth-cooper t1_its4qg3 wrote
There's no evidence that's it's detrimental.
nycdataviz t1_itsnyco wrote
There's actually multiple decades of evidence showing varying degrees of gaps between children who have a mother at home with them before the first 3 years, and those that don't. It's not like we haven't asked the question -- but the answer isn't one we want to hear. The cold truth of it is sitting in any number of econometrics and sociology longitudinal research studies.
Here's one article showing a clear effect, but knowing how emotionally salient this issue is you'll probably discard the robust evidence on some totally arbitrary reason you pull out of a hat.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378378207001089
The notion that a child doesn't positively benefit from being around its mother (and the inverse) in its first 3 years of life is preposterous.
elizabeth-cooper t1_itt2z4i wrote
I can't access the whole study but the abstract says one month maternity leave, not full-time staying at home for three years.
Not preposterous at all, I'm going to bed now, I'll find you a study tomorrow.
nycdataviz t1_itt3oyw wrote
You've misinterpreted that sentence and it applies exactly to what you're discussing. It's direct evidence.
It's indicating that children with mothers who have only one month of maternity leave fare worse, with the negative effect decreasing with more months of maternity leave. i.e. that motherhood contact matters, with effects up to 24 months, and the strongest effects up to 11 months.
Maternity leave duration, as a continuous variable in months, increased the risk of impaired performance on the MSD scale (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02, 1.05). Indeed, confirmation of this relationship was found when maternity leave duration was entered as a categorical variable (see Table 2) with the exception of the category for the longest duration of leave. The greatest association was found in the 1 to 11 months of maternity leave with the effect reducing as maternity leave duration increased.
elizabeth-cooper t1_ituo2ru wrote
You can only have maternity leave if you have a job in the first place and intend to return to it. Not to mention that 11 months is less than one year. It's not three years.
nycdataviz t1_itybg89 wrote
knowing how emotionally salient this issue is you'll probably discard the robust evidence on some totally arbitrary reason you pull out of a hat.
elizabeth-cooper t1_itzmmbn wrote
You said three years, you cannot prove three years. I've looked and I cannot find any good quality studies about three years. I'm perfectly willing to accept one year.
>Look at the meta-analysis itself and you’ll come away with a different impression: “The associations between achievement and behavior problems and maternal employment are predominately nonsignificant, small even when significant, both positive and negative in direction, and moderated by both family and contextual variables.” Those variables include the family’s socio-economic status, whether the mother worked part-time or full-time, and most of all, the age of a child. In fact, one of the stronger findings was the “negative effects of employment for middle-class and 2-parent families and for very early employment (child’s first year).”
https://ifstudies.org/blog/what-the-mounting-evidence-on-working-moms-really-shows
Beyond one year is irrelevant. Possibly even less than that.
>The research team measured the cognitive ability of a large sample of preschool children and found a lower performance for 3-year-olds whose mothers were employed full time before their child was nine months of age.
>The study also found that there were other important contributions to the cognitive development of the child, such as the quality of child care, the home environment and the compassion and sensitivity of the mother and caregiver.
>The research team found that achievement level differences could be reduced for children with working mothers that were sensitive to their children's needs and for those that had better child care.
>The study also established that the negative impact of mothers working before the child is nine months old was greater for boys compared to their female counter parts.
>Mothers should cautiously interpret the study's findings before making a decision to work or not to work. There appears to be a measurable negative correlation between cognitive growth and development and full time working mothers, but there doesn't appear to be a major "cause and effect" relationship, according to the researchers.
>Furthermore, the research team failed to consider the income and education level of the children's parents. The omission of this important information could have skewed the research findings to some extent, but not significantly altered the findings of the study.
[deleted] t1_iu1z80f wrote
[deleted]
nycdataviz t1_iu1zdyl wrote
knowing how emotionally salient this issue is you'll probably discard the robust evidence on some totally arbitrary reason you pull out of a hat.
Sunmoonearth87 t1_itup5x1 wrote
Wow pointing to one study really seals the deal huh? Here’s a bunch of other research.
https://journalistsresource.org/economics/working-mother-employment-research/
nycdataviz t1_itwxpae wrote
“Children of mothers who increased their employment status during children’s preschool years had over 2.6 times the odds of being overweight/obese at 7 to 11 years of age compared with children of nonworking mothers,”
From your own link. That’s an absolutely massive effect.
Sunmoonearth87 t1_itx0gwu wrote
Lol. That is all you took out of all the links I provided? You are both sad and ridiculous. Let me go quit my job now because of the irreparable damage I might be doing to my kid, he may end up OVERWEIGHT.
Some of my absolute least favorite people are those who shame working mothers. I’m noping right the f$ck out of this here shitshow.
Sunmoonearth87 t1_itupu4m wrote
It’s amazing how broadly and incorrectly you overstate any evidence that having a working mother hurts kids.
sassbayc t1_its596r wrote
LOL it’s common sense
elizabeth-cooper t1_itsc91l wrote
No, it's not. In my experience, good parents are good parents and it makes no difference whatsoever whether they're working or staying home, while bad parents are even worse when they stay home.
sassbayc t1_itscxjr wrote
lol keep believing that a full time caretaker is not important in the earliest years of a child’s life 🤣
and absolutely no one is saying being a full time parent means you will be a good parent. it’s that being a part time parent in the earliest years of a child life is irrepairably damaging.
elizabeth-cooper t1_itsd42b wrote
Right back at you. Not to mention that women who stay home are more likely to end up in poverty in their old age as well as more likely to stay with an abusive partner. Keep believing that women are better off dependent on men!
Sunmoonearth87 t1_ituqv9q wrote
It’s common sense that having a stay at home mother rather than a mother who has a career and can support herself and her family is better? Because I’m a working mother who brings home the bacon and my mom was a divorced former stay at home mother in middle age who could barely support herself let alone her kids so I’m just wondering how that’s common sense.
sassbayc t1_itv6hcr wrote
yeah i hope you’re smart enough to figure out that making money and healthy childhood development are two completely different things lol
biology doesn’t care about money
Sunmoonearth87 t1_itvacp2 wrote
Right and I am smart enough to look at actual research and not just parrot right wing talking points shaming working mothers, unlike yourself. Fyi I work because I have to, like most other working mothers, and sorry to tell you but my kid is thriving and will be better off than I was with a non college educated stay at home mom who couldn’t support herself post divorce. Would love to ask if you understand how poverty and parental socioeconomic status (which is tied to jobs and education level) affects childhood outcomes but somehow I doubt you do.
Sunmoonearth87 t1_itvc2xv wrote
[deleted] t1_itvj1yj wrote
[removed]
Sunmoonearth87 t1_itup0rb wrote
Where are the studies showing it’s detrimental? I’ll wait. You know what’s detrimental? A kid growing up in poverty. That’s way worse than having two working parents.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments