Our culture was hoodwinked into thinking raising children was somehow less important than having a career. Child rearing is a full time job if performed optimally and it's importance should be recognized and championed.
What is the spouse who stays home supposed to do in ten years when the child is much more independent and at school or activities much of the day? He or she has to either start a career or go to school and then face the ageism for entry level positions. And what are two spouses supposed to do when they both deeply enjoy their work and the value it brings them as individuals? My wife was home with the child for 5 months before getting back into the workforce and she complained frequently about the loss of identity.
The real problem and solution, as other posters have mentioned, is a strong support structure from friends and family. We live in a wonderful area of Colorado, but all of our family is on the east coast or in Germany and it just isn't going to happen that we move closer. So we struggle and get by, but having a parent stay home to be daycare full time wouldn't serve either of us.
Is stimulation the most important thing in childrearing?
> What is the spouse who stays home supposed to do in ten years when the child is much more independent and at school or activities much of the day?
Volunteer? Find self-fulfillment in something other than a career?
Plus, I think you may be begging the question: while older children require less immediate attention than younger ones, they still require plenty of care. It just tends to be more planning and less direct interaction.
Plus, why do you assume only one kid? My mother spent more than a quarter-century with children at home. She certainly was never bored.
> And what are two spouses supposed to do when they both deeply enjoy their work and the value it brings them as individuals?
Maybe work from home? Ultimately, though, parents today must sacrifice for their children, just as parents have done for millennia. Kids aren't expensive status symbols: raising them well is a duty, not a lark.
Fixed that for you.
I'm not trying to make excuses for people's choices, but kids cost money and financial hardship happens. People get laid off, they make bad decisions, the economy goes boom or bust, changing the cost of living and incomes, shit happens. You also have long term security to think about, making sure you're putting money away for retirement and so on. It would be hard to raise kids on $50,000 a year, and I suspect the median income in most of the country is actually less than that.
[0]:https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_plan...
There's all sorts of caveats with this, of course, and not every family can make it happen. We definitely don't regret the choice, and I'm certain our kids are better for it.
I make it a point not to judge other parents' choices (except parents who let their kids wear camo - that's just inexcusable).
But you've touched on something that could get me talking for hours... Namely, the detrimental affects of inflation on a society and why the populace hasn't had the politicians' collective head in a noose for it.
Of course deflated real wages operate in tandem with inflation to put pressure on the family but that blame lies more with the populace. I mean why did we ever think that significantly adding to the labor pool (double income families) wasn't going to suppress real wages?
1. Free trade and aggressive foreign monetary policy. The ability to manufacture good with much cheaper labor.
2. Automation.
3. The shift in the workforce to skilled labor. This has some overlap with 2. Even if the manufacturing industry that enabled the heady economic days of the 1950s and 60s return to the US, the people who get them will need some education. This problem was laid bare after the housing crisis. The problem of the "unemployable male", a man with a high school education who was doing fairly well working low skill labor jobs in construction. When all that came crashing down, those men were left with nowhere to go. One of the ironies is that, at least where I am, we are very lacking in some jobs. Skilled labor, such as carpenters, welders and technicians of varying kinds are in demand. There's still wage deflation, but certainly there are jobs.
WRT point 1; I remember 30 years ago thinking if the U.S. consumes such a disproportionate amount of the world's resources just how it was possible to bring the rest of the world up to the U.S's standard of living. Seems like the math doesn't add up here.
Your points in item 3 are well taken. It's interesting, or maybe obvious, that the skilled labor examples you've listed can't be off shored.
Often I think inflation has caused people to subconsciously choose to buy cheap, less quality goods. For example, buying furniture at IKEA versus buying hand made from someone local craftsman. Do people really demand the cheaper (price and quality) furniture or are they forced to accept the cheaper furniture because they're real disposable income is diminished? When we're talking about furniture it's not such a big deal but what about food? Are people really demanding carb, corn syrup laden crap with maximum calorie density or are they forced to make that choice because of the lower real wages?
Finally, I'm generally for free markets and against the idea of tariffs. However, it seems to me business and labor are not playing on a level field here because business (specifically multi-nationals) are allowed to take advantage of labor arbitrage but labor is not allowed to take advantage of rent arbitrage; meaning labor just can't up and move to Thailand or where ever to take advantage of the cost of living difference.
Are you sure? I remember daycare and it was mind-numbing torture. The parents all thought it was great but I would have preferred to be anywhere else.
So I take either you or your wife is German. If your child doesn't spend enough time with the German parent, he or she will not know the German language, so please be careful with that.
Disclaimer: I don't speak the language of my father (Vietnamese), for the reason I mentioned, and as a French expat I try to make my two kids speak French when I can, but they don't have the same level as "normal" French kids, especially my older son who is 6.
Replicating socialized daycare on your own is massively inefficient (often one or two children max per caretaker) and really challenging financially. Instead of paying for child care over the course of say 10-12 years, many countries in Europe effectively spread that out over your entire working life (40 or so years) via taxation. Clearly the American way needs to get someone a Child-Care Bond or Annuity or something...
Have you ever spent all day with toddlers? It's enough to make you go mad sometimes, and it also starves you of adult interaction. Chasing little wild humans and occasionally commanding, "No! Spit that out!" isn't really interaction.
You need a support system when raising kids. Traditionally, this has been family, but people move around for work so much in the US, that many of us don't have that support system, and we outsource that to professionals - day care, nannies, co-ops. All that stuff costs money, and so, we both have to work.
If you both are so busy and "barley" (not homeless barley, but like needing dual-income) can afford living in the SF Bay Area, then why have kids?
Similarly, why live in the SF Bay Area?
When it comes to having children, at some point, you decide you're ready and find a way to make it work. We're managing, but we both have to work. We love the area, our friends are here, are careers are here, we're up in the mountains every few weeks enjoying nature, this really is a beautiful part of the country, and you pay for that. Life isn't only about minimizing costs.
Long term, we probably can't afford to stay here unless I win the startup lottery, so we have an exit plan, but for now, we're enjoying this place.
Tech experience in the Bay by no means guarantees the ability to find employment outside it.
{1}: https://www.census.gov/hhes/families/files/ASA2010_Kreider_E...
Why can't parents work (earn) and take care of their kids at the same time? Why assign a (permanent) role of stay-at-home-parent to essentially half of the adults (with children) risking unnecessarily trapping them in roles and financial state that's unfair.
Most larger dwellings are similarly set by the price that can be afforded by two full time adult workers.
This leaves no room for reduced time workers, such as two adults with jobs that allow them to work within the hours that children are typically in public daycare (warehousing in schools).
It also doesn't help anyone that the building codes are very lousy at requiring sufficient acoustic isolation. I'd sure like to not be woken up early / kept up late by the noises of those in other units.