youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:25 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:08 am
youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:31 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:21 am
youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 8:10 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:56 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:17 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:43 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:31 pm
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.