Hacker News Reader

I believe it to actually be a result of industrialization, and I think that the old "model" could actually be more healthy for children (barring advances in society, medicine, etc).

Industrialization centralized jobs to factories, offices, etc. Previous to that, most operated their business as an attachment of their home, whether operating in trades or in aggriculture. So the children, the family, etc, were all together all of the time.

Our family actually works that way as I have a job as a remote developer and my wife is a stay at home mom. It's a great balance as I get to see my kids all day, and my wife is able to get breaks.

> It is not psychologically reasonable to expect one person to care for children all day every day [...] It is normal for children to be cared for by many adults throughout the day

I'd argue having the child away from parents so often is harmful as well. Financials aside, that middle ground somewhat exists: stay at home parents that still leverage social environments for their kids. I too don't know how we can get everyone there, but the first step should be recognizing that a non-working parent doesn't have to be an isolated parent.

I just cannot see any harmful effects of my child being at daycare every weekday from the age of around 9 months.

If anything he seems to really enjoy both going there and coming home. He has tons of friends, and the teachers are fantastic.

I guess this strongly depends on the environment though. Maybe we just found a really good one. It kind of feels the same as having the community take care of the kid.

Literature from twin studies would like to disagree with you. Most people overestimate the effect of parenting and underestimate the effect of genetics in determining child success. Genetics is more than 50% of the game.

As for the other 50%, the absence of parenting is bad for a child, since much of development is based on receiving adequate amounts of care and nutrition. However, this amount is satisfiable by engaged parents interacting with kids after work. The relationship between outcomes and sheer volume of hours of care provided by the mother is only weakly correlated after a certain threshold.

tl;dr: Daycare is fine for your kid, don't overthink it. If you're the kind of person who worries about this sort of thing, you're already ahead of the game.

This is a weird comment that, in my experience, doesn't represent the reality of today's stay-at-home parents. I'd love to see hard data on this, but let me share my anecdotes in response to the middle paragraph here. My older sister has been a stay at home mother for almost a decade, so I'll share my observations from being an uncle:

> It is normal for children to be cared for by many adults throughout the day, from birth - be they older relatives or simply members of the community.

My sister engages in a community of stay-at-home parents and homeschooling parents (there is a lot of overlap and she also homeschools) to provide her children with socialization and to also share the burden of parenting all the small ones.

By contrast, in daycare, where my sister and mother both worked professionally at different times, it is common for adults to be split between many children, usually as many as seven or eight per adult (by regulation).

> It is abnormal for one person to have to deal with all of their energy and issues.

See above

> It is normal for children to wander and play and experience a wide and varied world. It is abnormal for them to be kept in a small, unchanging indoor space.

Funny that this is an example! Many daycares are inside only or maybe have a small playground. By the time the child is 5, they're expected to sit still in actual school all day! My nephew and nieces get the pleasure of participating in something called "Forest School" where they're able to socialize with other children their age and learn about nature, shockingly, outside in nature. They're also always allowed in the backyard and have friends in their neighborhood as well. So actually from what I've seen, homeschooled kids and kids with a stay at home parent actually get _more_ outside time. It's the poor kids in day care and school that don't get to go outside.

> It is normal for new parents, especially new mothers, to be intensely supported by their community. It is abnormal for them to be left alone unsupported. It is normal for homemakers to accomplish their daily tasks communally and to be active in their communities. It is abnormal for them to endure years of social isolation, primarily spending time with their children.

Again, see above. Maybe this varies a lot by locale, but here in Texas, none of your criticisms actually apply to the community of stay at home moms and homeschoolers that I have observed in my community.

Your experience sounds lovely. I think you may have misinterpreted my frustration with the standard experience and expectation of stay at home parenting as advocating for widespread use of daycare. I do think that option is a little closer to normalcy, but I also think it is still not very close. I suppose it depends on how it is done. Your experience sounds even better to me. I do not know exactly what a healthy experience would look like in this society, but I expect there are people who have figured it out on a small scale. I am pleased to hear this appears to be the case. I wish your community every success and hope your lifestyle spreads. The commonly accepted narrative of what we as parents are supposed to be doing, at least the one presented to me, is something I find very unreasonable.

To be completely clear, I am not criticizing parents who stay at home to raise their children. I am criticizing a society which expects them to do it alone. I am not advocating daycare as a panacea. I am saying any communal support at all represents a step away from the insanity. It sounds like your local community does not have the expectation that stay at home parents should naturally be superheroes. Please take over the world. :)

Not sure why this is greyed out, but I appreciated your comment. Is Forest School a thing beyond where you live, do you know?

I believe it is and in fact I think I read an article here on HN not too long ago that talked about it. There seems to be an associated organization:

https://www.forestschoolassociation.org/what-is-forest-schoo...

How does one find these stay-at-home communities? By gods, we've tried for years.

Through church, mostly, I believe. In her case at least.

It may be a side effect of suburbanization and the mass migration to single-family homes.

While we can blame the suburbs on a lot of social problems, this is not one of them.

Families who raise their children in cities have all the same problems.

I personally think it is much easier in a city than a suburb, or at least very different.

It's definitely weird when you think about it. It seems like a relatively new model.

That said - what are you going to do about it? Our major cities and culture are not setup for addressing these issues at all. We have a hard enough time trying to pass anything through congress. Trying to get some huge child care bill through is nigh on impossible. On top of that - it will, of course, not do anything for people who live in the more expensive regions of the USA because paying for child care is expensive - sure - but the price of housing those children can be just as expensive if not more.

> What are you going to do about it?

Have lots of kids and encourage them not to move so that there is a large support structure in place foe their children and their children's children.

Unless you have riches beyond imagination - this is not feasible in a modern economy... My SO is a prime example of this. She grew up in the bay area but she herself could never afford a home here cause homes be $2m now. Her parents never bought a home - so she will never inherit a fortune either. Even if they did - she wouldn't inherit it until they were dead (and thus unable to help take care of the children). So, she's either going to be unable to afford childcare (cause parents dead) or be unable to afford the house (cause parents alive) - likely unable to afford either (cause really she ain't ever gonna make enough either way).

It's not very popular in the US but multi-generational housing has existed for thousands of years in other parts of the world and solves for this, even while renting.

I don't think it "solves for this"... Those types of units are not cheap where I am and they're rare. It's not like you spend $100-200k and suddenly you have a suitable multi-generational home. Where I am - it's going to be at least $1m-2m extra. The kids can't afford that in a mortgage - let alone cash that a remodel would require.

Sure it does. It just might not work for you. I can certainly respect that everyone's situation is different but I do think your original comment is highly Bay Area biased. There are plenty of other (better IMO) areas that are more affordable, including New York.

I'm not sure what I am going to do about it. I appreciate the encouragement to elevate my frustration into a serious problem to consider trying to solve. I doubt throwing money at it via government is the answer, though perhaps it is a piece of it. It's possible there's a way to change this via a service, but it seems like a big piece of the solution would have to be a big cultural change.