~46~ Lame Duck Unfit Uncle Joe Biden ~46~

[youthathletics]

But since you asked.....
Yup.....stay at home with your damned child(ren) until you no longer need to do so....that was easy. Sell the damned tahoe, stop buying the new iphone every year, eating out for lunch and dinner all the damned time, getting your hair and nails done every 8 weeks, and raise your own damned child. You can always go back to work....you only get one shot at your child.

That's a great solution for my coastal liberal elite friends, who have done precisely that. You're right. They're all set. Oh, and they have their kids in their 40's, when money is stashed away. So if there's an emergency, they're not F'ed.

Now...what about the bottom 50% earners in the US? What do they do?

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right. And those remaining in tough spots, that really and truly need support....there are already plenty of county, city, state and federal benefits for those that qualify.

We certainly are not going to solve world hunger here....but I believe this majorly stems from the pressure, and arguably the societal stigma of a stay at home mother. The "oh, you just stay at home" or "why don't you work...you deserve it" or "keeping up with the jones'", rather than the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God. Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason.

Any way....I can get long winded at times and probably dug myself a hole, go easy on me.

[Farfromgeneva]

But since you asked.....
Yup.....stay at home with your damned child(ren) until you no longer need to do so....that was easy. Sell the damned tahoe, stop buying the new iphone every year, eating out for lunch and dinner all the damned time, getting your hair and nails done every 8 weeks, and raise your own damned child. You can always go back to work....you only get one shot at your child.

That's a great solution for my coastal liberal elite friends, who have done precisely that. You're right. They're all set. Oh, and they have their kids in their 40's, when money is stashed away. So if there's an emergency, they're not F'ed.

Now...what about the bottom 50% earners in the US? What do they do?

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right. And those remaining in tough spots, that really and truly need support....there are already plenty of county, city, state and federal benefits for those that qualify.

We certainly are not going to solve world hunger here....but I believe this majorly stems from the pressure, and arguably the societal stigma of a stay at home mother. The "oh, you just stay at home" or "why don't you work...you deserve it" or "keeping up with the jones'", rather than the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God. Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason.

Any way....I can get long winded at times and probably dug myself a hole, go easy on me.

There’s more to it than “be better people” though don’t you think? Some room for a safety net in your view I have to believe.

[MDlaxfan76]

But since you asked.....
Yup.....stay at home with your damned child(ren) until you no longer need to do so....that was easy. Sell the damned tahoe, stop buying the new iphone every year, eating out for lunch and dinner all the damned time, getting your hair and nails done every 8 weeks, and raise your own damned child. You can always go back to work....you only get one shot at your child.

That's a great solution for my coastal liberal elite friends, who have done precisely that. You're right. They're all set. Oh, and they have their kids in their 40's, when money is stashed away. So if there's an emergency, they're not F'ed.

Now...what about the bottom 50% earners in the US? What do they do?

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right. And those remaining in tough spots, that really and truly need support....there are already plenty of county, city, state and federal benefits for those that qualify.

We certainly are not going to solve world hunger here....but I believe this majorly stems from the pressure, and arguably the societal stigma of a stay at home mother. The "oh, you just stay at home" or "why don't you work...you deserve it" or "keeping up with the jones'", rather than the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God. Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason.

Any way....I can get long winded at times and probably dug myself a hole, go easy on me.

Actually only a slight exaggeration for the socioeconomic bracket about which he is speaking, "coastal liberal elites"...

But your data is averaging all moms, only a small portion of which are "coastal liberal elites"; sure, your diatribe about stigmas about stay at home moms who should enjoy "the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God" might fit for them.

He then asks about the "bottom 50% earners in the US". These indeed have children the earliest, the most likely to be out of wedlock or broken family, abusive parent, substance abuse, dad in jail, single mom or abused mom for all kinds of reasons largely outside of her direct control (for God's sake don't let her get an abortion) etc, but also simply a whole lot of working poor, struggling to keep their turd together.

And for them, the option to stay at home so that they can properly nurture their little one, ? A fantasy. But what are their options? Child care costs a bloody fortune and that's assuming you can even get a slot. sure, there are some gov't programs, but it's a nightmare of paperwork (watch "Maid" on Netflix for a good dramatization of this reality).

Not a problem we can just say, ahh well, straighten up and fly right and all will be hunky sorry...especially for those kids.

[youthathletics]

But since you asked.....
Yup.....stay at home with your damned child(ren) until you no longer need to do so....that was easy. Sell the damned tahoe, stop buying the new iphone every year, eating out for lunch and dinner all the damned time, getting your hair and nails done every 8 weeks, and raise your own damned child. You can always go back to work....you only get one shot at your child.

That's a great solution for my coastal liberal elite friends, who have done precisely that. You're right. They're all set. Oh, and they have their kids in their 40's, when money is stashed away. So if there's an emergency, they're not F'ed.

Now...what about the bottom 50% earners in the US? What do they do?

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right. And those remaining in tough spots, that really and truly need support....there are already plenty of county, city, state and federal benefits for those that qualify.

We certainly are not going to solve world hunger here....but I believe this majorly stems from the pressure, and arguably the societal stigma of a stay at home mother. The "oh, you just stay at home" or "why don't you work...you deserve it" or "keeping up with the jones'", rather than the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God. Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason.

Any way....I can get long winded at times and probably dug myself a hole, go easy on me.

Actually only a slight exaggeration for the socioeconomic bracket about which he is speaking, "coastal liberal elites"...

But your data is averaging all moms, only a small portion of which are "coastal liberal elites"; sure, your diatribe about stigmas about stay at home moms who should enjoy "the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God" might fit for them.

He then asks about the "bottom 50% earners in the US". These indeed have children the earliest, the most likely to be out of wedlock or broken family, abusive parent, substance abuse, dad in jail, single mom or abused mom for all kinds of reasons largely outside of her direct control (for God's sake don't let her get an abortion) etc, but also simply a whole lot of working poor, struggling to keep their turd together.

And for them, the option to stay at home so that they can properly nurture their little one, ? A fantasy. But what are their options? Child care costs a bloody fortune and that's assuming you can even get a slot. sure, there are some gov't programs, but it's a nightmare of paperwork (watch "Maid" on Netflix for a good dramatization of this reality).

Not a problem we can just say, ahh well, straighten up and fly right and all will be hunky sorry...especially for those kids.

Could you please pass the Grey Poupon, whilst in the backseat.

[Farfromgeneva]

Mustard is gross son.

[a fan]

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right.

Ah, but if this is REALLY your belief? That parents should pay for their own choices? Why do we have .gov K-12 funded by taxpayers? Why do we have .gov Universities funded by taxpayers? Why do we have .gov backed loans for college?

Why aren't we forcing these parents to pay for their choices? Private Schools, across the board....why are they coming to me to pay them for their choice to have kids?

Your team starts calling for that? Ok, you'll get more of my votes out of sheer respect for putting your money where you mouth is. Until then? Taking my money so you can subsidize your choices to the 1 yard line and then saying "no thanks" to help with childcare after I paid for the other 99 yards is a bit much for me to take.

Education is by far the biggest consumer of taxes on the State and local level. If you want to hold Americans responsible for having kids: stop taking everyone's taxes to educate these kids. It would make your protestations about childcare subsidies make a heckuva lot more sense.

We certainly are not going to solve world hunger here....but I believe this majorly stems from the pressure, and arguably the societal stigma of a stay at home mother. The "oh, you just stay at home" or "why don't you work...you deserve it" or "keeping up with the jones'", rather than the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God. Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason.

I have no idea how life is where you are, but from where I come from...and in my circles? When I hear "stay at home parent", I think A. the other parent has a helluva good job and B. good for them. i don't see the stigma.

Two houses over from mine? One parent is a nurse, the other a firefighter. Between them? They're one full time stay at home parent with no help. Lovely people....the hours are tough, though.

It's possible---but only if you're in the top 15-20% of earners.

Any way....I can get long winded at times and probably dug myself a hole, go easy on me.

Who do you think you're talking to here? How many times have I gotten long winded? Or dug a hole for myself? You're good, my man.

It's your opinion here, and I respect your opinion. I wouldn't ASK if I didn't want your opinion. All I ask in return is that you take easy on me when I get long winded....'cause you know it's coming!

[MDlaxfan76]

But since you asked.....
Yup.....stay at home with your damned child(ren) until you no longer need to do so....that was easy. Sell the damned tahoe, stop buying the new iphone every year, eating out for lunch and dinner all the damned time, getting your hair and nails done every 8 weeks, and raise your own damned child. You can always go back to work....you only get one shot at your child.

That's a great solution for my coastal liberal elite friends, who have done precisely that. You're right. They're all set. Oh, and they have their kids in their 40's, when money is stashed away. So if there's an emergency, they're not F'ed.

Now...what about the bottom 50% earners in the US? What do they do?

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right. And those remaining in tough spots, that really and truly need support....there are already plenty of county, city, state and federal benefits for those that qualify.

We certainly are not going to solve world hunger here....but I believe this majorly stems from the pressure, and arguably the societal stigma of a stay at home mother. The "oh, you just stay at home" or "why don't you work...you deserve it" or "keeping up with the jones'", rather than the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God. Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason.

Any way....I can get long winded at times and probably dug myself a hole, go easy on me.

Actually only a slight exaggeration for the socioeconomic bracket about which he is speaking, "coastal liberal elites"...

But your data is averaging all moms, only a small portion of which are "coastal liberal elites"; sure, your diatribe about stigmas about stay at home moms who should enjoy "the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God" might fit for them.

He then asks about the "bottom 50% earners in the US". These indeed have children the earliest, the most likely to be out of wedlock or broken family, abusive parent, substance abuse, dad in jail, single mom or abused mom for all kinds of reasons largely outside of her direct control (for God's sake don't let her get an abortion) etc, but also simply a whole lot of working poor, struggling to keep their sh-t together.

And for them, the option to stay at home so that they can properly nurture their little one, ? A fantasy. But what are their options? Child care costs a bloody fortune and that's assuming you can even get a slot. sure, there are some gov't programs, but it's a nightmare of paperwork (watch "Maid" on Netflix for a good dramatization of this reality).

Not a problem we can just say, ahh well, straighten up and fly right and all will be hunky sorry...especially for those kids.

Could you please pass the Grey Poupon, whilst in the backseat.

Sounds like a question you would indeed ask.

Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding you on this, but it seems like your ire displays a complete lack of empathy for the circumstances of folks with less than, say, your family. Do correct me on this and why if I'm misunderstanding.

BTW, what do you mean by: "Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason." ?

[youthathletics]

But since you asked.....
Yup.....stay at home with your damned child(ren) until you no longer need to do so....that was easy. Sell the damned tahoe, stop buying the new iphone every year, eating out for lunch and dinner all the damned time, getting your hair and nails done every 8 weeks, and raise your own damned child. You can always go back to work....you only get one shot at your child.

That's a great solution for my coastal liberal elite friends, who have done precisely that. You're right. They're all set. Oh, and they have their kids in their 40's, when money is stashed away. So if there's an emergency, they're not F'ed.

Now...what about the bottom 50% earners in the US? What do they do?

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right. And those remaining in tough spots, that really and truly need support....there are already plenty of county, city, state and federal benefits for those that qualify.

We certainly are not going to solve world hunger here....but I believe this majorly stems from the pressure, and arguably the societal stigma of a stay at home mother. The "oh, you just stay at home" or "why don't you work...you deserve it" or "keeping up with the jones'", rather than the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God. Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason.

Any way....I can get long winded at times and probably dug myself a hole, go easy on me.

Actually only a slight exaggeration for the socioeconomic bracket about which he is speaking, "coastal liberal elites"...

But your data is averaging all moms, only a small portion of which are "coastal liberal elites"; sure, your diatribe about stigmas about stay at home moms who should enjoy "the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God" might fit for them.

He then asks about the "bottom 50% earners in the US". These indeed have children the earliest, the most likely to be out of wedlock or broken family, abusive parent, substance abuse, dad in jail, single mom or abused mom for all kinds of reasons largely outside of her direct control (for God's sake don't let her get an abortion) etc, but also simply a whole lot of working poor, struggling to keep their sh-t together.

And for them, the option to stay at home so that they can properly nurture their little one, ? A fantasy. But what are their options? Child care costs a bloody fortune and that's assuming you can even get a slot. sure, there are some gov't programs, but it's a nightmare of paperwork (watch "Maid" on Netflix for a good dramatization of this reality).

Not a problem we can just say, ahh well, straighten up and fly right and all will be hunky sorry...especially for those kids.

Could you please pass the Grey Poupon, whilst in the backseat.

Sounds like a question you would indeed ask.

Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding you on this, but it seems like your ire displays a complete lack of empathy for the circumstances of folks with less than, say, your family.

BTW, what do you mean by: "Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason." ?

Anger (ire)... not me MD. Not sure where that take came from by you....chalk it up to talking past each other.

Empathy, is something I certainly do not lack. My problem, is I speak a bit too frankly, which can come off harsh. I often have to say "cover your belly button" because here it comes.

As in, wives certainly would raise our children far better than we men would.

[Farfromgeneva]

I wanted my wife to work because she had no friends and adopted my life over time and it was expensive to have the kids in childcare. She was doing AR/AP making maybe $35k (now closer to $60 as a cost manager but that’s ten years in) and her take home was underwater between $1-$2k/mo I had to carry for five years based in her take home (we chose to have our son do a second Pre K year because kids were turning 5 before he turned 4 based on the school calendar down here explaining the 5th year). That’s call it on average, $18k/yr after tax or $27k Pre tax earnings (Pre trump tax cut for most or all of it). Basically another entry level job. Childcare isn’t expensive in the sense that these terrific people taking care of my and other kids were making maybe $30k a year to spend 7-10hrs a day with them but it is costly for working families (childcare professionals ex the director for a portion of the time whom I eventually ran out and then she got fired from her next gig within 18mos validating my concerns about her and that didn’t include finding out she was racist from many of the “teachers” which they kept their mouths shut during my battle with her for engaging in other bad practices but unloaded to me after she was gonzo)

Other point of the story is stay at home mothering comes with a ton of costs to the mother/wife and isn’t exactly always (often?) best for the kids.

[Farfromgeneva]

But since you asked.....
Yup.....stay at home with your damned child(ren) until you no longer need to do so....that was easy. Sell the damned tahoe, stop buying the new iphone every year, eating out for lunch and dinner all the damned time, getting your hair and nails done every 8 weeks, and raise your own damned child. You can always go back to work....you only get one shot at your child.

That's a great solution for my coastal liberal elite friends, who have done precisely that. You're right. They're all set. Oh, and they have their kids in their 40's, when money is stashed away. So if there's an emergency, they're not F'ed.

Now...what about the bottom 50% earners in the US? What do they do?

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right. And those remaining in tough spots, that really and truly need support....there are already plenty of county, city, state and federal benefits for those that qualify.

We certainly are not going to solve world hunger here....but I believe this majorly stems from the pressure, and arguably the societal stigma of a stay at home mother. The "oh, you just stay at home" or "why don't you work...you deserve it" or "keeping up with the jones'", rather than the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God. Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason.

Any way....I can get long winded at times and probably dug myself a hole, go easy on me.

Actually only a slight exaggeration for the socioeconomic bracket about which he is speaking, "coastal liberal elites"...

But your data is averaging all moms, only a small portion of which are "coastal liberal elites"; sure, your diatribe about stigmas about stay at home moms who should enjoy "the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God" might fit for them.

He then asks about the "bottom 50% earners in the US". These indeed have children the earliest, the most likely to be out of wedlock or broken family, abusive parent, substance abuse, dad in jail, single mom or abused mom for all kinds of reasons largely outside of her direct control (for God's sake don't let her get an abortion) etc, but also simply a whole lot of working poor, struggling to keep their sh-t together.

And for them, the option to stay at home so that they can properly nurture their little one, ? A fantasy. But what are their options? Child care costs a bloody fortune and that's assuming you can even get a slot. sure, there are some gov't programs, but it's a nightmare of paperwork (watch "Maid" on Netflix for a good dramatization of this reality).

Not a problem we can just say, ahh well, straighten up and fly right and all will be hunky sorry...especially for those kids.

Could you please pass the Grey Poupon, whilst in the backseat.

Sounds like a question you would indeed ask.

Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding you on this, but it seems like your ire displays a complete lack of empathy for the circumstances of folks with less than, say, your family.

BTW, what do you mean by: "Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason." ?

Anger (ire)... not me MD. Not sure where that take came from by you....chalk it up to talking past each other.

Empathy, is something I certainly do not lack. My problem, is I speak a bit too frankly, which can come off harsh. I often have to say "cover your belly button" because here it comes.

As in, wives certainly would raise our children far better than we men would.

Come on! Men make great parents!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=va6nRaZ9eRg

[MDlaxfan76]

But since you asked.....
Yup.....stay at home with your damned child(ren) until you no longer need to do so....that was easy. Sell the damned tahoe, stop buying the new iphone every year, eating out for lunch and dinner all the damned time, getting your hair and nails done every 8 weeks, and raise your own damned child. You can always go back to work....you only get one shot at your child.

That's a great solution for my coastal liberal elite friends, who have done precisely that. You're right. They're all set. Oh, and they have their kids in their 40's, when money is stashed away. So if there's an emergency, they're not F'ed.

Now...what about the bottom 50% earners in the US? What do they do?

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right. And those remaining in tough spots, that really and truly need support....there are already plenty of county, city, state and federal benefits for those that qualify.

We certainly are not going to solve world hunger here....but I believe this majorly stems from the pressure, and arguably the societal stigma of a stay at home mother. The "oh, you just stay at home" or "why don't you work...you deserve it" or "keeping up with the jones'", rather than the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God. Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason.

Any way....I can get long winded at times and probably dug myself a hole, go easy on me.

Actually only a slight exaggeration for the socioeconomic bracket about which he is speaking, "coastal liberal elites"...

But your data is averaging all moms, only a small portion of which are "coastal liberal elites"; sure, your diatribe about stigmas about stay at home moms who should enjoy "the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God" might fit for them.

He then asks about the "bottom 50% earners in the US". These indeed have children the earliest, the most likely to be out of wedlock or broken family, abusive parent, substance abuse, dad in jail, single mom or abused mom for all kinds of reasons largely outside of her direct control (for God's sake don't let her get an abortion) etc, but also simply a whole lot of working poor, struggling to keep their sh-t together.

And for them, the option to stay at home so that they can properly nurture their little one, ? A fantasy. But what are their options? Child care costs a bloody fortune and that's assuming you can even get a slot. sure, there are some gov't programs, but it's a nightmare of paperwork (watch "Maid" on Netflix for a good dramatization of this reality).

Not a problem we can just say, ahh well, straighten up and fly right and all will be hunky sorry...especially for those kids.

Could you please pass the Grey Poupon, whilst in the backseat.

Sounds like a question you would indeed ask.

Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding you on this, but it seems like your ire displays a complete lack of empathy for the circumstances of folks with less than, say, your family.

BTW, what do you mean by: "Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason." ?

Anger (ire)... not me MD. Not sure where that take came from by you....chalk it up to talking past each other.

Empathy, is something I certainly do not lack. My problem, is I speak a bit too frankly, which can come off harsh. I often have to say "cover your belly button" because here it comes.

As in, wives certainly would raise our children far better than we men would.

ahhh, I indeed missed that meaning. Coming from my generation's typical perspective and norms, I'd agree as to at least the 'maternal instinct' aspect, though I'd like to think my role as a parent was pretty darn important too. I changed fewer diapers though...

What does seem apparent to me is that it's a heck of a lot harder to do the entire parental 'job' alone; all the more so if coming from a lesser socioeconomic situation to begin with, much less getting paid less for same work...

It's also extremely difficult to make it at the lower level without two incomes. Not to mention the problem with power dynamics in a potentially abusive relationship. Most such folks really don't have the happy choice of simply staying home to care for young children.

These are the folks where these "human infrastructure" measures are being aimed, to make it easier and more affordable to have child care that enables a parent, whether single or dual, to have such support so that they can indeed work, whether full or part time.

Slightly different re early childhood education though it all flows...there may be no greater lever to apply to the life trajectory than great early childhood educational prep.

As a 'conservative', who wants policy to smartly consider market economics, and thinks about global competitive environment, I can also look at this overall issue as a serious friction (and opportunity) on optimizing human capital potential.

[youthathletics]

But since you asked.....
Yup.....stay at home with your damned child(ren) until you no longer need to do so....that was easy. Sell the damned tahoe, stop buying the new iphone every year, eating out for lunch and dinner all the damned time, getting your hair and nails done every 8 weeks, and raise your own damned child. You can always go back to work....you only get one shot at your child.

That's a great solution for my coastal liberal elite friends, who have done precisely that. You're right. They're all set. Oh, and they have their kids in their 40's, when money is stashed away. So if there's an emergency, they're not F'ed.

Now...what about the bottom 50% earners in the US? What do they do?

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right. And those remaining in tough spots, that really and truly need support....there are already plenty of county, city, state and federal benefits for those that qualify.

We certainly are not going to solve world hunger here....but I believe this majorly stems from the pressure, and arguably the societal stigma of a stay at home mother. The "oh, you just stay at home" or "why don't you work...you deserve it" or "keeping up with the jones'", rather than the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God. Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason.

Any way....I can get long winded at times and probably dug myself a hole, go easy on me.

Actually only a slight exaggeration for the socioeconomic bracket about which he is speaking, "coastal liberal elites"...

But your data is averaging all moms, only a small portion of which are "coastal liberal elites"; sure, your diatribe about stigmas about stay at home moms who should enjoy "the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God" might fit for them.

He then asks about the "bottom 50% earners in the US". These indeed have children the earliest, the most likely to be out of wedlock or broken family, abusive parent, substance abuse, dad in jail, single mom or abused mom for all kinds of reasons largely outside of her direct control (for God's sake don't let her get an abortion) etc, but also simply a whole lot of working poor, struggling to keep their sh-t together.

And for them, the option to stay at home so that they can properly nurture their little one, ? A fantasy. But what are their options? Child care costs a bloody fortune and that's assuming you can even get a slot. sure, there are some gov't programs, but it's a nightmare of paperwork (watch "Maid" on Netflix for a good dramatization of this reality).

Not a problem we can just say, ahh well, straighten up and fly right and all will be hunky sorry...especially for those kids.

Could you please pass the Grey Poupon, whilst in the backseat.

Sounds like a question you would indeed ask.

Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding you on this, but it seems like your ire displays a complete lack of empathy for the circumstances of folks with less than, say, your family.

BTW, what do you mean by: "Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason." ?

Anger (ire)... not me MD. Not sure where that take came from by you....chalk it up to talking past each other.

Empathy, is something I certainly do not lack. My problem, is I speak a bit too frankly, which can come off harsh. I often have to say "cover your belly button" because here it comes.

As in, wives certainly would raise our children far better than we men would.

ahhh, I indeed missed that meaning. Coming from my generation's typical perspective and norms, I'd agree as to at least the 'maternal instinct' aspect, though I'd like to think my role as a parent was pretty darn important too. I changed fewer diapers though...

What does seem apparent to me is that it's a heck of a lot harder to do the entire parental 'job' alone; all the more so if coming from a lesser socioeconomic situation to begin with, much less getting paid less for same work...

It's also extremely difficult to make it at the lower level without two incomes. Not to mention the problem with power dynamics in a potentially abusive relationship. Most such folks really don't have the happy choice of simply staying home to care for young children.

These are the folks where these "human infrastructure" measures are being aimed, to make it easier and more affordable to have child care that enables a parent, whether single or dual, to have such support so that they can indeed work, whether full or part time.

Slightly different re early childhood education though it all flows...there may be no greater lever to apply to the life trajectory than great early childhood educational prep.

As a 'conservative', who wants policy to smartly consider market economics, and thinks about global competitive environment, I can also look at this overall issue as a serious friction (and opportunity) on optimizing human capital potential.

Agreed on the early childhood education. Our county has two pre-k classes, for 3y/o's, and 4 y/o's. You apply and it is primarily filled by those in the lower income/need-based demo. Keep in mind this is not an all day class....only a few hours. Keep in mind this is not an all day class...for obvious reasons

My wife is an early childhood major and teaches special needs pre-k. I get to see and hear all about this in her remote meetings and continuing education. Crazy out there......multiple evening of training just on restraints and behavioral situations. I always tell her...I prepared her for these kids, so it should be easy to deal with them, since youve had me to deal with for 28 years.

[MDlaxfan76]

But since you asked.....
Yup.....stay at home with your damned child(ren) until you no longer need to do so....that was easy. Sell the damned tahoe, stop buying the new iphone every year, eating out for lunch and dinner all the damned time, getting your hair and nails done every 8 weeks, and raise your own damned child. You can always go back to work....you only get one shot at your child.

That's a great solution for my coastal liberal elite friends, who have done precisely that. You're right. They're all set. Oh, and they have their kids in their 40's, when money is stashed away. So if there's an emergency, they're not F'ed.

Now...what about the bottom 50% earners in the US? What do they do?

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right. And those remaining in tough spots, that really and truly need support....there are already plenty of county, city, state and federal benefits for those that qualify.

We certainly are not going to solve world hunger here....but I believe this majorly stems from the pressure, and arguably the societal stigma of a stay at home mother. The "oh, you just stay at home" or "why don't you work...you deserve it" or "keeping up with the jones'", rather than the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God. Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason.

Any way....I can get long winded at times and probably dug myself a hole, go easy on me.

Actually only a slight exaggeration for the socioeconomic bracket about which he is speaking, "coastal liberal elites"...

But your data is averaging all moms, only a small portion of which are "coastal liberal elites"; sure, your diatribe about stigmas about stay at home moms who should enjoy "the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God" might fit for them.

He then asks about the "bottom 50% earners in the US". These indeed have children the earliest, the most likely to be out of wedlock or broken family, abusive parent, substance abuse, dad in jail, single mom or abused mom for all kinds of reasons largely outside of her direct control (for God's sake don't let her get an abortion) etc, but also simply a whole lot of working poor, struggling to keep their sh-t together.

And for them, the option to stay at home so that they can properly nurture their little one, ? A fantasy. But what are their options? Child care costs a bloody fortune and that's assuming you can even get a slot. sure, there are some gov't programs, but it's a nightmare of paperwork (watch "Maid" on Netflix for a good dramatization of this reality).

Not a problem we can just say, ahh well, straighten up and fly right and all will be hunky sorry...especially for those kids.

Could you please pass the Grey Poupon, whilst in the backseat.

Sounds like a question you would indeed ask.

Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding you on this, but it seems like your ire displays a complete lack of empathy for the circumstances of folks with less than, say, your family.

BTW, what do you mean by: "Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason." ?

Anger (ire)... not me MD. Not sure where that take came from by you....chalk it up to talking past each other.

Empathy, is something I certainly do not lack. My problem, is I speak a bit too frankly, which can come off harsh. I often have to say "cover your belly button" because here it comes.

As in, wives certainly would raise our children far better than we men would.

ahhh, I indeed missed that meaning. Coming from my generation's typical perspective and norms, I'd agree as to at least the 'maternal instinct' aspect, though I'd like to think my role as a parent was pretty darn important too. I changed fewer diapers though...

What does seem apparent to me is that it's a heck of a lot harder to do the entire parental 'job' alone; all the more so if coming from a lesser socioeconomic situation to begin with, much less getting paid less for same work...

It's also extremely difficult to make it at the lower level without two incomes. Not to mention the problem with power dynamics in a potentially abusive relationship. Most such folks really don't have the happy choice of simply staying home to care for young children.

These are the folks where these "human infrastructure" measures are being aimed, to make it easier and more affordable to have child care that enables a parent, whether single or dual, to have such support so that they can indeed work, whether full or part time.

Slightly different re early childhood education though it all flows...there may be no greater lever to apply to the life trajectory than great early childhood educational prep.

As a 'conservative', who wants policy to smartly consider market economics, and thinks about global competitive environment, I can also look at this overall issue as a serious friction (and opportunity) on optimizing human capital potential.

Agreed on the early childhood education. Our county has two pre-k classes, for 3y/o's, and 4 y/o's. You apply and it is primarily filled by those in the lower income/need-based demo. Keep in mind this is not an all day class....only a few hours. Keep in mind this is not an all day class...for obvious reasons

My wife is an early childhood major and teaches special needs pre-k. I get to see and hear all about this in her remote meetings and continuing education. Crazy out there......multiple evening of training just on restraints and behavioral situations. I always tell her...I prepared her for these kids, so it should be easy to deal with them, since youve had me to deal with for 28 years.

The Lord's work...

Seriously, this is a huge challenge...and that also means opportunity.

Setting aside the overall challenge/opportunity part, 'special needs' poses additional sets of issues.

One is that we, as a society, tend to lump together all sorts of quite different 'needs' as if all the same, mostly to simply remove those students from getting in the way of the progress of 'regular' students; but this lumping together into a single group doesn't address well the actual needs that are quite different; don't need to tell you this, of course. Offered for other readers.

For instance, a child with mild Downs is very different than a child with some autism, or ADHD, or dyslexia...and not all of each of these sorts is the same, as well, each needs very specific educational tactics and processes.

But lumped together, it all too often becomes about "restraints and behavioral situations" as you describe. Just controlling kids' behaviors becomes a huge priority, rather than the individualized educational needs.

I don't have easy answers, but I do know that in say, dyslexia, it's very possible to overcome this problem and for students to eventually thrive and be super productive through life...yet most 'learn' that they are 'stupid' and become so frustrated and with low self-esteem that they give up...our jails are disproportionately filled with such.

Here in our Baltimore region we are blessed with two of the very best schools in the nation for dyslexic students, but it's very expensive private education and slots are very limited...but kids thrive. Kids without these opportunities rarely do.

[youthathletics]

But since you asked.....
Yup.....stay at home with your damned child(ren) until you no longer need to do so....that was easy. Sell the damned tahoe, stop buying the new iphone every year, eating out for lunch and dinner all the damned time, getting your hair and nails done every 8 weeks, and raise your own damned child. You can always go back to work....you only get one shot at your child.

That's a great solution for my coastal liberal elite friends, who have done precisely that. You're right. They're all set. Oh, and they have their kids in their 40's, when money is stashed away. So if there's an emergency, they're not F'ed.

Now...what about the bottom 50% earners in the US? What do they do?

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right. And those remaining in tough spots, that really and truly need support....there are already plenty of county, city, state and federal benefits for those that qualify.

We certainly are not going to solve world hunger here....but I believe this majorly stems from the pressure, and arguably the societal stigma of a stay at home mother. The "oh, you just stay at home" or "why don't you work...you deserve it" or "keeping up with the jones'", rather than the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God. Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason.

Any way....I can get long winded at times and probably dug myself a hole, go easy on me.

Actually only a slight exaggeration for the socioeconomic bracket about which he is speaking, "coastal liberal elites"...

But your data is averaging all moms, only a small portion of which are "coastal liberal elites"; sure, your diatribe about stigmas about stay at home moms who should enjoy "the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God" might fit for them.

He then asks about the "bottom 50% earners in the US". These indeed have children the earliest, the most likely to be out of wedlock or broken family, abusive parent, substance abuse, dad in jail, single mom or abused mom for all kinds of reasons largely outside of her direct control (for God's sake don't let her get an abortion) etc, but also simply a whole lot of working poor, struggling to keep their sh-t together.

And for them, the option to stay at home so that they can properly nurture their little one, ? A fantasy. But what are their options? Child care costs a bloody fortune and that's assuming you can even get a slot. sure, there are some gov't programs, but it's a nightmare of paperwork (watch "Maid" on Netflix for a good dramatization of this reality).

Not a problem we can just say, ahh well, straighten up and fly right and all will be hunky sorry...especially for those kids.

Could you please pass the Grey Poupon, whilst in the backseat.

Sounds like a question you would indeed ask.

Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding you on this, but it seems like your ire displays a complete lack of empathy for the circumstances of folks with less than, say, your family.

BTW, what do you mean by: "Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason." ?

Anger (ire)... not me MD. Not sure where that take came from by you....chalk it up to talking past each other.

Empathy, is something I certainly do not lack. My problem, is I speak a bit too frankly, which can come off harsh. I often have to say "cover your belly button" because here it comes.

As in, wives certainly would raise our children far better than we men would.

ahhh, I indeed missed that meaning. Coming from my generation's typical perspective and norms, I'd agree as to at least the 'maternal instinct' aspect, though I'd like to think my role as a parent was pretty darn important too. I changed fewer diapers though...

What does seem apparent to me is that it's a heck of a lot harder to do the entire parental 'job' alone; all the more so if coming from a lesser socioeconomic situation to begin with, much less getting paid less for same work...

It's also extremely difficult to make it at the lower level without two incomes. Not to mention the problem with power dynamics in a potentially abusive relationship. Most such folks really don't have the happy choice of simply staying home to care for young children.

These are the folks where these "human infrastructure" measures are being aimed, to make it easier and more affordable to have child care that enables a parent, whether single or dual, to have such support so that they can indeed work, whether full or part time.

Slightly different re early childhood education though it all flows...there may be no greater lever to apply to the life trajectory than great early childhood educational prep.

As a 'conservative', who wants policy to smartly consider market economics, and thinks about global competitive environment, I can also look at this overall issue as a serious friction (and opportunity) on optimizing human capital potential.

Agreed on the early childhood education. Our county has two pre-k classes, for 3y/o's, and 4 y/o's. You apply and it is primarily filled by those in the lower income/need-based demo. Keep in mind this is not an all day class....only a few hours. Keep in mind this is not an all day class...for obvious reasons

My wife is an early childhood major and teaches special needs pre-k. I get to see and hear all about this in her remote meetings and continuing education. Crazy out there......multiple evening of training just on restraints and behavioral situations. I always tell her...I prepared her for these kids, so it should be easy to deal with them, since youve had me to deal with for 28 years.

The Lord's work...

Seriously, this is a huge challenge...and that also means opportunity.

Setting aside the overall challenge/opportunity part, 'special needs' poses additional sets of issues.

One is that we, as a society, tend to lump together all sorts of quite different 'needs' as if all the same, mostly to simply remove those students from getting in the way of the progress of 'regular' students; but this lumping together into a single group doesn't address well the actual needs that are quite different; don't need to tell you this, of course. Offered for other readers.

For instance, a child with mild Downs is very different than a child with some autism, or ADHD, or dyslexia...and not all of each of these sorts is the same, as well, each needs very specific educational tactics and processes.

But lumped together, it all too often becomes about "restraints and behavioral situations" as you describe. Just controlling kids' behaviors becomes a huge priority, rather than the individualized educational needs.

I don't have easy answers, but I do know that in say, dyslexia, it's very possible to overcome this problem and for students to eventually thrive and be super productive through life...yet most 'learn' that they are 'stupid' and become so frustrated and with low self-esteem that they give up...our jails are disproportionately filled with such.

Here in our Baltimore region we are blessed with two of the very best schools in the nation for dyslexic students, but it's very expensive private education and slots are very limited...but kids thrive. Kids without these opportunities rarely do.

In our school system, the the special needs pre-k class ratio is 1:2 (one adult for two children) a teacher and two aides for a max of 6 students. Add in on deck. behavioral specialist, SLP (Speech language pathologist), OT (occupational therapy fine motor skills), Physical therapist (gross motor skills), and the school psychologist. Certainly no shortage of support....but quite often, not enough of them, b/c the needs are not linear/uniform each year....certainly a joggling act.

[MDlaxfan76]

But since you asked.....
Yup.....stay at home with your damned child(ren) until you no longer need to do so....that was easy. Sell the damned tahoe, stop buying the new iphone every year, eating out for lunch and dinner all the damned time, getting your hair and nails done every 8 weeks, and raise your own damned child. You can always go back to work....you only get one shot at your child.

That's a great solution for my coastal liberal elite friends, who have done precisely that. You're right. They're all set. Oh, and they have their kids in their 40's, when money is stashed away. So if there's an emergency, they're not F'ed.

Now...what about the bottom 50% earners in the US? What do they do?

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right. And those remaining in tough spots, that really and truly need support....there are already plenty of county, city, state and federal benefits for those that qualify.

We certainly are not going to solve world hunger here....but I believe this majorly stems from the pressure, and arguably the societal stigma of a stay at home mother. The "oh, you just stay at home" or "why don't you work...you deserve it" or "keeping up with the jones'", rather than the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God. Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason.

Any way....I can get long winded at times and probably dug myself a hole, go easy on me.

Actually only a slight exaggeration for the socioeconomic bracket about which he is speaking, "coastal liberal elites"...

But your data is averaging all moms, only a small portion of which are "coastal liberal elites"; sure, your diatribe about stigmas about stay at home moms who should enjoy "the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God" might fit for them.

He then asks about the "bottom 50% earners in the US". These indeed have children the earliest, the most likely to be out of wedlock or broken family, abusive parent, substance abuse, dad in jail, single mom or abused mom for all kinds of reasons largely outside of her direct control (for God's sake don't let her get an abortion) etc, but also simply a whole lot of working poor, struggling to keep their sh-t together.

And for them, the option to stay at home so that they can properly nurture their little one, ? A fantasy. But what are their options? Child care costs a bloody fortune and that's assuming you can even get a slot. sure, there are some gov't programs, but it's a nightmare of paperwork (watch "Maid" on Netflix for a good dramatization of this reality).

Not a problem we can just say, ahh well, straighten up and fly right and all will be hunky sorry...especially for those kids.

Could you please pass the Grey Poupon, whilst in the backseat.

Sounds like a question you would indeed ask.

Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding you on this, but it seems like your ire displays a complete lack of empathy for the circumstances of folks with less than, say, your family.

BTW, what do you mean by: "Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason." ?

Anger (ire)... not me MD. Not sure where that take came from by you....chalk it up to talking past each other.

Empathy, is something I certainly do not lack. My problem, is I speak a bit too frankly, which can come off harsh. I often have to say "cover your belly button" because here it comes.

As in, wives certainly would raise our children far better than we men would.

ahhh, I indeed missed that meaning. Coming from my generation's typical perspective and norms, I'd agree as to at least the 'maternal instinct' aspect, though I'd like to think my role as a parent was pretty darn important too. I changed fewer diapers though...

What does seem apparent to me is that it's a heck of a lot harder to do the entire parental 'job' alone; all the more so if coming from a lesser socioeconomic situation to begin with, much less getting paid less for same work...

It's also extremely difficult to make it at the lower level without two incomes. Not to mention the problem with power dynamics in a potentially abusive relationship. Most such folks really don't have the happy choice of simply staying home to care for young children.

These are the folks where these "human infrastructure" measures are being aimed, to make it easier and more affordable to have child care that enables a parent, whether single or dual, to have such support so that they can indeed work, whether full or part time.

Slightly different re early childhood education though it all flows...there may be no greater lever to apply to the life trajectory than great early childhood educational prep.

As a 'conservative', who wants policy to smartly consider market economics, and thinks about global competitive environment, I can also look at this overall issue as a serious friction (and opportunity) on optimizing human capital potential.

Agreed on the early childhood education. Our county has two pre-k classes, for 3y/o's, and 4 y/o's. You apply and it is primarily filled by those in the lower income/need-based demo. Keep in mind this is not an all day class....only a few hours. Keep in mind this is not an all day class...for obvious reasons

My wife is an early childhood major and teaches special needs pre-k. I get to see and hear all about this in her remote meetings and continuing education. Crazy out there......multiple evening of training just on restraints and behavioral situations. I always tell her...I prepared her for these kids, so it should be easy to deal with them, since youve had me to deal with for 28 years.

The Lord's work...

Seriously, this is a huge challenge...and that also means opportunity.

Setting aside the overall challenge/opportunity part, 'special needs' poses additional sets of issues.

One is that we, as a society, tend to lump together all sorts of quite different 'needs' as if all the same, mostly to simply remove those students from getting in the way of the progress of 'regular' students; but this lumping together into a single group doesn't address well the actual needs that are quite different; don't need to tell you this, of course. Offered for other readers.

For instance, a child with mild Downs is very different than a child with some autism, or ADHD, or dyslexia...and not all of each of these sorts is the same, as well, each needs very specific educational tactics and processes.

But lumped together, it all too often becomes about "restraints and behavioral situations" as you describe. Just controlling kids' behaviors becomes a huge priority, rather than the individualized educational needs.

I don't have easy answers, but I do know that in say, dyslexia, it's very possible to overcome this problem and for students to eventually thrive and be super productive through life...yet most 'learn' that they are 'stupid' and become so frustrated and with low self-esteem that they give up...our jails are disproportionately filled with such.

Here in our Baltimore region we are blessed with two of the very best schools in the nation for dyslexic students, but it's very expensive private education and slots are very limited...but kids thrive. Kids without these opportunities rarely do.

In our school system, the the special needs pre-k class ratio is 1:2 (one adult for two children) a teacher and two aides for a max of 6 students. Add in on deck. behavioral specialist, SLP (Speech language pathologist), OT (occupational therapy fine motor skills), Physical therapist (gross motor skills), and the school psychologist. Certainly no shortage of support....but quite often, not enough of them, b/c the needs are not linear/uniform each year....certainly a joggling act.

Are the dyslexic kids in the same group, or are they in another pod? A whole lot of them, I'd think.

Indeed, estimated at 20% of overall population and 80-90% of those with learning issues.
posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=300742

However, societally we tend to not diagnose the issues until quite a few years of damage have been done, if at all.

[a fan]

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right.

Ah, but if this is REALLY your belief? That parents should pay for their own choices? Why do we have .gov K-12 funded by taxpayers? Why do we have .gov Universities funded by taxpayers? Why do we have .gov backed loans for college?

Why aren't we forcing these parents to pay for their choices? Private Schools, across the board....why are they coming to me to pay them for their choice to have kids?

Your team starts calling for that? Ok, you'll get more of my votes out of sheer respect for putting your money where you mouth is. Until then? Taking my money so you can subsidize your choices to the 1 yard line and then saying "no thanks" to help with childcare after I paid for the other 99 yards is a bit much for me to take.

Education is by far the biggest consumer of taxes on the State and local level. If you want to hold Americans responsible for having kids: stop taking everyone's taxes to educate these kids. It would make your protestations about childcare subsidies make a heckuva lot more sense.

So.....no comment here? You're happy to take taxpayer's money to help people who CHOSE to have kids?

This goes against what you say above regarding decision making.

[youthathletics]

But since you asked.....
Yup.....stay at home with your damned child(ren) until you no longer need to do so....that was easy. Sell the damned tahoe, stop buying the new iphone every year, eating out for lunch and dinner all the damned time, getting your hair and nails done every 8 weeks, and raise your own damned child. You can always go back to work....you only get one shot at your child.

That's a great solution for my coastal liberal elite friends, who have done precisely that. You're right. They're all set. Oh, and they have their kids in their 40's, when money is stashed away. So if there's an emergency, they're not F'ed.

Now...what about the bottom 50% earners in the US? What do they do?

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right. And those remaining in tough spots, that really and truly need support....there are already plenty of county, city, state and federal benefits for those that qualify.

We certainly are not going to solve world hunger here....but I believe this majorly stems from the pressure, and arguably the societal stigma of a stay at home mother. The "oh, you just stay at home" or "why don't you work...you deserve it" or "keeping up with the jones'", rather than the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God. Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason.

Any way....I can get long winded at times and probably dug myself a hole, go easy on me.

Actually only a slight exaggeration for the socioeconomic bracket about which he is speaking, "coastal liberal elites"...

But your data is averaging all moms, only a small portion of which are "coastal liberal elites"; sure, your diatribe about stigmas about stay at home moms who should enjoy "the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God" might fit for them.

He then asks about the "bottom 50% earners in the US". These indeed have children the earliest, the most likely to be out of wedlock or broken family, abusive parent, substance abuse, dad in jail, single mom or abused mom for all kinds of reasons largely outside of her direct control (for God's sake don't let her get an abortion) etc, but also simply a whole lot of working poor, struggling to keep their sh-t together.

And for them, the option to stay at home so that they can properly nurture their little one, ? A fantasy. But what are their options? Child care costs a bloody fortune and that's assuming you can even get a slot. sure, there are some gov't programs, but it's a nightmare of paperwork (watch "Maid" on Netflix for a good dramatization of this reality).

Not a problem we can just say, ahh well, straighten up and fly right and all will be hunky sorry...especially for those kids.

Could you please pass the Grey Poupon, whilst in the backseat.

Sounds like a question you would indeed ask.

Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding you on this, but it seems like your ire displays a complete lack of empathy for the circumstances of folks with less than, say, your family.

BTW, what do you mean by: "Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason." ?

Anger (ire)... not me MD. Not sure where that take came from by you....chalk it up to talking past each other.

Empathy, is something I certainly do not lack. My problem, is I speak a bit too frankly, which can come off harsh. I often have to say "cover your belly button" because here it comes.

As in, wives certainly would raise our children far better than we men would.

ahhh, I indeed missed that meaning. Coming from my generation's typical perspective and norms, I'd agree as to at least the 'maternal instinct' aspect, though I'd like to think my role as a parent was pretty darn important too. I changed fewer diapers though...

What does seem apparent to me is that it's a heck of a lot harder to do the entire parental 'job' alone; all the more so if coming from a lesser socioeconomic situation to begin with, much less getting paid less for same work...

It's also extremely difficult to make it at the lower level without two incomes. Not to mention the problem with power dynamics in a potentially abusive relationship. Most such folks really don't have the happy choice of simply staying home to care for young children.

These are the folks where these "human infrastructure" measures are being aimed, to make it easier and more affordable to have child care that enables a parent, whether single or dual, to have such support so that they can indeed work, whether full or part time.

Slightly different re early childhood education though it all flows...there may be no greater lever to apply to the life trajectory than great early childhood educational prep.

As a 'conservative', who wants policy to smartly consider market economics, and thinks about global competitive environment, I can also look at this overall issue as a serious friction (and opportunity) on optimizing human capital potential.

Agreed on the early childhood education. Our county has two pre-k classes, for 3y/o's, and 4 y/o's. You apply and it is primarily filled by those in the lower income/need-based demo. Keep in mind this is not an all day class....only a few hours. Keep in mind this is not an all day class...for obvious reasons

My wife is an early childhood major and teaches special needs pre-k. I get to see and hear all about this in her remote meetings and continuing education. Crazy out there......multiple evening of training just on restraints and behavioral situations. I always tell her...I prepared her for these kids, so it should be easy to deal with them, since youve had me to deal with for 28 years.

The Lord's work...

Seriously, this is a huge challenge...and that also means opportunity.

Setting aside the overall challenge/opportunity part, 'special needs' poses additional sets of issues.

One is that we, as a society, tend to lump together all sorts of quite different 'needs' as if all the same, mostly to simply remove those students from getting in the way of the progress of 'regular' students; but this lumping together into a single group doesn't address well the actual needs that are quite different; don't need to tell you this, of course. Offered for other readers.

For instance, a child with mild Downs is very different than a child with some autism, or ADHD, or dyslexia...and not all of each of these sorts is the same, as well, each needs very specific educational tactics and processes.

But lumped together, it all too often becomes about "restraints and behavioral situations" as you describe. Just controlling kids' behaviors becomes a huge priority, rather than the individualized educational needs.

I don't have easy answers, but I do know that in say, dyslexia, it's very possible to overcome this problem and for students to eventually thrive and be super productive through life...yet most 'learn' that they are 'stupid' and become so frustrated and with low self-esteem that they give up...our jails are disproportionately filled with such.

Here in our Baltimore region we are blessed with two of the very best schools in the nation for dyslexic students, but it's very expensive private education and slots are very limited...but kids thrive. Kids without these opportunities rarely do.

In our school system, the the special needs pre-k class ratio is 1:2 (one adult for two children) a teacher and two aides for a max of 6 students. Add in on deck. behavioral specialist, SLP (Speech language pathologist), OT (occupational therapy fine motor skills), Physical therapist (gross motor skills), and the school psychologist. Certainly no shortage of support....but quite often, not enough of them, b/c the needs are not linear/uniform each year....certainly a joggling act.

Are the dyslexic kids in the same group, or are they in another pod? A whole lot of them, I'd think.

Indeed, estimated at 20% of overall population and 80-90% of those with learning issues.
posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=300742

However, societally we tend to not diagnose the issues until quite a few years of damage have been done, if at all.

There would be a 504 on that child, most commonly in the same group with their peers in gen-ed and would often be either pulled out or pushed in with specialist to support them. They are also provided extra time with studies, tests, etc. A few kids I coached where like this....always with their peers, through HS graduation, and each of excelled in and beyond college.

[MDlaxfan76]

But since you asked.....
Yup.....stay at home with your damned child(ren) until you no longer need to do so....that was easy. Sell the damned tahoe, stop buying the new iphone every year, eating out for lunch and dinner all the damned time, getting your hair and nails done every 8 weeks, and raise your own damned child. You can always go back to work....you only get one shot at your child.

That's a great solution for my coastal liberal elite friends, who have done precisely that. You're right. They're all set. Oh, and they have their kids in their 40's, when money is stashed away. So if there's an emergency, they're not F'ed.

Now...what about the bottom 50% earners in the US? What do they do?

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right. And those remaining in tough spots, that really and truly need support....there are already plenty of county, city, state and federal benefits for those that qualify.

We certainly are not going to solve world hunger here....but I believe this majorly stems from the pressure, and arguably the societal stigma of a stay at home mother. The "oh, you just stay at home" or "why don't you work...you deserve it" or "keeping up with the jones'", rather than the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God. Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason.

Any way....I can get long winded at times and probably dug myself a hole, go easy on me.

Actually only a slight exaggeration for the socioeconomic bracket about which he is speaking, "coastal liberal elites"...

But your data is averaging all moms, only a small portion of which are "coastal liberal elites"; sure, your diatribe about stigmas about stay at home moms who should enjoy "the maternal instinct that was blessed upon them by God" might fit for them.

He then asks about the "bottom 50% earners in the US". These indeed have children the earliest, the most likely to be out of wedlock or broken family, abusive parent, substance abuse, dad in jail, single mom or abused mom for all kinds of reasons largely outside of her direct control (for God's sake don't let her get an abortion) etc, but also simply a whole lot of working poor, struggling to keep their sh-t together.

And for them, the option to stay at home so that they can properly nurture their little one, ? A fantasy. But what are their options? Child care costs a bloody fortune and that's assuming you can even get a slot. sure, there are some gov't programs, but it's a nightmare of paperwork (watch "Maid" on Netflix for a good dramatization of this reality).

Not a problem we can just say, ahh well, straighten up and fly right and all will be hunky sorry...especially for those kids.

Could you please pass the Grey Poupon, whilst in the backseat.

Sounds like a question you would indeed ask.

Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding you on this, but it seems like your ire displays a complete lack of empathy for the circumstances of folks with less than, say, your family.

BTW, what do you mean by: "Lord knows, our wives (for the most part ) do a helluva lot better than we do and that is for good reason." ?

Anger (ire)... not me MD. Not sure where that take came from by you....chalk it up to talking past each other.

Empathy, is something I certainly do not lack. My problem, is I speak a bit too frankly, which can come off harsh. I often have to say "cover your belly button" because here it comes.

As in, wives certainly would raise our children far better than we men would.

ahhh, I indeed missed that meaning. Coming from my generation's typical perspective and norms, I'd agree as to at least the 'maternal instinct' aspect, though I'd like to think my role as a parent was pretty darn important too. I changed fewer diapers though...

What does seem apparent to me is that it's a heck of a lot harder to do the entire parental 'job' alone; all the more so if coming from a lesser socioeconomic situation to begin with, much less getting paid less for same work...

It's also extremely difficult to make it at the lower level without two incomes. Not to mention the problem with power dynamics in a potentially abusive relationship. Most such folks really don't have the happy choice of simply staying home to care for young children.

These are the folks where these "human infrastructure" measures are being aimed, to make it easier and more affordable to have child care that enables a parent, whether single or dual, to have such support so that they can indeed work, whether full or part time.

Slightly different re early childhood education though it all flows...there may be no greater lever to apply to the life trajectory than great early childhood educational prep.

As a 'conservative', who wants policy to smartly consider market economics, and thinks about global competitive environment, I can also look at this overall issue as a serious friction (and opportunity) on optimizing human capital potential.

Agreed on the early childhood education. Our county has two pre-k classes, for 3y/o's, and 4 y/o's. You apply and it is primarily filled by those in the lower income/need-based demo. Keep in mind this is not an all day class....only a few hours. Keep in mind this is not an all day class...for obvious reasons

My wife is an early childhood major and teaches special needs pre-k. I get to see and hear all about this in her remote meetings and continuing education. Crazy out there......multiple evening of training just on restraints and behavioral situations. I always tell her...I prepared her for these kids, so it should be easy to deal with them, since youve had me to deal with for 28 years.

The Lord's work...

Seriously, this is a huge challenge...and that also means opportunity.

Setting aside the overall challenge/opportunity part, 'special needs' poses additional sets of issues.

One is that we, as a society, tend to lump together all sorts of quite different 'needs' as if all the same, mostly to simply remove those students from getting in the way of the progress of 'regular' students; but this lumping together into a single group doesn't address well the actual needs that are quite different; don't need to tell you this, of course. Offered for other readers.

For instance, a child with mild Downs is very different than a child with some autism, or ADHD, or dyslexia...and not all of each of these sorts is the same, as well, each needs very specific educational tactics and processes.

But lumped together, it all too often becomes about "restraints and behavioral situations" as you describe. Just controlling kids' behaviors becomes a huge priority, rather than the individualized educational needs.

I don't have easy answers, but I do know that in say, dyslexia, it's very possible to overcome this problem and for students to eventually thrive and be super productive through life...yet most 'learn' that they are 'stupid' and become so frustrated and with low self-esteem that they give up...our jails are disproportionately filled with such.

Here in our Baltimore region we are blessed with two of the very best schools in the nation for dyslexic students, but it's very expensive private education and slots are very limited...but kids thrive. Kids without these opportunities rarely do.

In our school system, the the special needs pre-k class ratio is 1:2 (one adult for two children) a teacher and two aides for a max of 6 students. Add in on deck. behavioral specialist, SLP (Speech language pathologist), OT (occupational therapy fine motor skills), Physical therapist (gross motor skills), and the school psychologist. Certainly no shortage of support....but quite often, not enough of them, b/c the needs are not linear/uniform each year....certainly a joggling act.

Are the dyslexic kids in the same group, or are they in another pod? A whole lot of them, I'd think.

Indeed, estimated at 20% of overall population and 80-90% of those with learning issues.
posting.php?mode=quote&f=66&p=300742

However, societally we tend to not diagnose the issues until quite a few years of damage have been done, if at all.

There would be a 504 on that child, most commonly in the same group with their peers in gen-ed and would often be either pulled out or pushed in with specialist to support them. They are also provided extra time with studies, tests, etc. A few kids I coached where like this....always with their peers, through HS graduation, and each of excelled in and beyond college.

It's ideal if able to be mainstreamed as early as feasible, but I'd be surprised if 20% of kids are getting this kind of intensive support.

My 32 year old goddaughter had pretty severe dyslexia, once her folks understood why she was so angry and acting out, they got her into an extremely expensive program outside of NY...within a few years she was able to go back to Rye Country Day to finish, went to Middlebury and captained both field hockey and lacrosse. Tremendous success in business world.

Odyssey here in Baltimore was largely built through the energies of my "Uncle" Gordon Jones, my pop's UVA team mate and for many years hunting and business/real estate partner (both deceased now, I still manage a residual real estate investment for the two families). Gordon was very, very severely dyslexic, beaten by his father, "stupid" and "lazy", promoted through St. Paul's and UVA despite not being able to read (heck of an athlete, Turnbull winner, captain of UVA's '52 national championship team)...didn't learn about dyslexia until his 40's!!

https://www.theodysseyschool.org

[Farfromgeneva]

I’m pretty sure my son has adhd, it’s not uncommon in a types. Waiting another year or two but testing to have the knowledge is important, medicating it is not

[youthathletics]

That 40 y/o thing you mentioned is about 15 years too high.....now come back to earth for a moment, mmk? You see what you are doing? ....creating a problem where there is none. It is enabling poor(er) behavior and even poor(er) decision making. You see, when you provide a means for an easy way out....(many)people will take it, then exploit it, then abuse it. But when it is an either or choice......they often straighten up and fly right.

Ah, but if this is REALLY your belief? That parents should pay for their own choices? Why do we have .gov K-12 funded by taxpayers? Why do we have .gov Universities funded by taxpayers? Why do we have .gov backed loans for college? And those remaining in tough spots, that really and truly need support....there are already plenty of county, city, state and federal benefits for those that qualify.

Why aren't we forcing these parents to pay for their choices? Private Schools, across the board....why are they coming to me to pay them for their choice to have kids?

Your team starts calling for that? Ok, you'll get more of my votes out of sheer respect for putting your money where you mouth is. Until then? Taking my money so you can subsidize your choices to the 1 yard line and then saying "no thanks" to help with childcare after I paid for the other 99 yards is a bit much for me to take.

Education is by far the biggest consumer of taxes on the State and local level. If you want to hold Americans responsible for having kids: stop taking everyone's taxes to educate these kids. It would make your protestations about childcare subsidies make a heckuva lot more sense.

So.....no comment here? You're happy to take taxpayer's money to help people who CHOSE to have kids?

This goes against what you say above regarding decision making.

Sorry, I missed this.

I added the full quote back...in red, which may help put my thought back into context. I still do not like the feds getting involved in child care and would much prefer that a family member raise their child...perfect world yes, which is where the majority of my effort goes. If we want to be like Denmark....then lets just say it out loud to make it real.

Side note: Just saw the stat after Biden spoke earlier...the average American spends roughly $9k/yr on child care.....roughly 20% of their annual income and he wants to get it down to 7%....that;s a heavy load.

I simply have a hard time swallowing the pill that we need a major makeover and billions/yr to revamp childcare. And if they do subsidize these places....then we have red tape and added expenses that get passed right on down to us....and we end up paying even more.

We already have this white elephant in the room of our current public school debates. THe childcare issue just seems to muck up more of what the feds touch.