Comments
madeyoulookatmynuts t1_itrt7lf wrote
And thus once again this shows how much this cities leadership hates it’s middle class.
throwawaycivil35324 t1_itvvi2r wrote
it doesn't cost 40k for day care unless its some snobby for rich people day care.
virtual_adam t1_itvvsku wrote
$3000 doesn’t get you much below 96th st
throwawaycivil35324 t1_itvw0hw wrote
exactly outer borough day cares are 1200-1500/month.
Bigbadbuck t1_itws3vb wrote
That’s still a fuck ton
sassbayc t1_itrvpm3 wrote
you mean there are downsides to both parents working full time outside the home? shocking
Sunmoonearth87 t1_ituok9i wrote
There is nothing wrong with having two working parents. It’s the default for most families how. And when we talk about the problems of having two working parents what we are really doing is shaming working moms, let’s be honest now.
elizabeth-cooper t1_its36vh wrote
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.
k1lk1 t1_itrk1xp wrote
Read to your kids, folks
MrNoMoniker t1_itrm805 wrote
Undoing the only thing Deblasio did well, eh?
ocdscale t1_ituv3r9 wrote
Whenever anyone asks me about de Blasio I tell them that there's so very little to like except that the man did probably the best thing for the city in my life time by pushing through universal pre-K and 3-K.
KaiDaiz t1_itrmrz5 wrote
Did so well but didn't have a plan to pay for it. What could go wrong. If we blaming Adams for this, BdB deserves some of it as well.
Ice_Like_Winnipeg t1_itsva3k wrote
his "plan" was to pay for it with taxes through the DOE. it seems totally reasonable to fund things this way. Adams doesn't have a "plan" to fund the NYPD, he just didn't cut their budget.
KaiDaiz t1_itszgtt wrote
Fund through DOE? Magically increase the DOE budget by another 1B from where??? which btw is already bloated and consider absurd by most city budget standards. NYPD budget is in line portion wise to what other alpha cities spend and at least we can claim we have very low crime unlike the abysmal performance of our DOE.
KaiDaiz t1_itrlypd wrote
City has no money, a budget deficit and predecessor didn't properly plan to finance UPK program once grants runs out. Only way to solve it is to find 700M-1B+ somewhere and no one wants to hike taxes or do more budget cuts. Simple as that.
DontDrinkTooMuch t1_itrn8js wrote
Fucking ridiculous. They could introduce a vacancy tax and have revenue generated with or without empty storefronts.
KaiDaiz t1_itrnmul wrote
ya that will pass quickly. BdB would could have done it 5+ yrs ago during his term when program was conceived to fund it if he thought it was possible. Obviously that idea was not possible then and just as bleak now.
Also its LVT you should be arguing for
Lilyo OP t1_itt1fpg wrote
The richest city in history with the largest number of billionaires in the world doesnt have money for education? Like 90% of NYers favor raising taxes on the wealthy, but i guess they are all nobodies.
KaiDaiz t1_itt2z37 wrote
Go ahead find the money...if if was so easy to come up with it we wouldn't be talking about it. We simply do not have the funds and yet no one has come up with a proposal that reachable in time to fund it. No reasonable ideas achievable in given time frame. but do tell me how rich and easy to fund it. Btw, our education budget is absurd by world standards.
[deleted] t1_itrw7pt wrote
[removed]
wh7y t1_itv7qmi wrote
3K is one of the most important things we could fund in our society. In 15 years we will see the benefits and it will be non-debatable. We should be attempting to find any way to pay for this possible.
Early schooling has time and time again shown to be a key indicator in future success.
Dr_Pepper_spray t1_itwax1f wrote
I don't know if that's true. The benefits won't manifest until much later, and be one of those foundational things later citizens might take for granted and assume can be cut.
Edit: It's like ripping out parts of a perfectly functioning engine because gas is too expensive to operate it...and because you don't know how it works.
justins_dad t1_itxhf8j wrote
Yup when Adams says he’s going to reduce crime and then does this
Dr_Pepper_spray t1_itv22fo wrote
I will say this. Free 3k saves me $1,400.00 a month and frees my wife and I up to work. I DO NOT NEED a tax cut. Tax me more - I'm still coming out ahead.
dayda t1_itueib9 wrote
> instead of continued investment during this period of transition in the New York City DOE, Mayor Adams has recently walked back his commitment to universal 3K seats and is now saying he is “committed to optimizing access to care, as based on family need and preference, for ages birth to five” — and refusing to commit to expanding the program to be truly universal.
In case anyone wanted to read past 10 paragraphs of preamble that didn’t tell us much.
3K and PreK investments are a very good investment. Some of the best ROI downstream we can get. I agree this is a stupid choice for him.
Grass8989 t1_itromk9 wrote
Well, we did just blow 1 billion of nyc tax dollars on the migrant crisis.
DickCheney666 t1_itt56pd wrote
Watch out, mods might ban you for just mentioning it.
Wondering7777 t1_itx2ewv wrote
Crime is an attack on middle class, as is unaffordable housing and daycare. Why cant a politician realize those arent mutually exclusive points. Middle class citizens want low crime and affordable day care/rent options. If someone campaigned on that they would win.
HayPlaceAPlaceforHay t1_itsqfwt wrote
Is that why he wears clothes that say mayor on the back? So the kids get some reading in?
[deleted] t1_itxisgx wrote
[removed]
Aromatic-Taro3280 t1_itrn8sv wrote
jacobinmag is trash
virtual_adam t1_itrm0wi wrote
Let’s get butts in offices but also just sign your kid up for $40k/year daycare what’s your freaking problem