Women In The Workforce Damages Children Redux

[Log]

Recent study:

Chris M. Herbst, Erdal Tekin, "Child Care Subsidies, Maternal Well-Being, and Child-Parent Interactions: Evidence From Three Nationally Representative Datasets," NBER Working Paper 17774 (Jan. 2012).

Abstract:

A complete account of the U.S. child care subsidy system requires an understanding of its implications for both parental and child well-being. Although the effects of child care subsidies on maternal employment and child development have been recently studied, many other dimensions of family well-being have received little attention. This paper attempts to fill this gap by examining the impact of child care subsidy receipt on maternal health and the quality of child-parent interactions. The empirical analyses use data from three nationally representative surveys, providing access to numerous measures of family well-being. In addition, we attempt to handle the possibility of non-random selection into subsidy receipt by using several identification strategies both within and across the surveys. Our results consistently indicate that child care subsidies are associated with worse maternal health and poorer interactions between parents and their children. In particular, subsidized mothers report lower levels of overall health and are more likely to show symptoms consistent with anxiety, depression, and parenting stress. Such mothers also reveal more psychological and physical aggression toward their children and are more likely to utilize spanking as a disciplinary tool. Together, these findings suggest that work-based public policies aimed at economically disadvantaged mothers may ultimately undermine family well-being.

I actually downloaded it last week and came across this thread today.

The evidence mounts. Thanks for that contribution!

[thesometimesaint]

KtG:

With over 50% of the population as women it might not be such a bad idea to have a job if something unfortunate happens in a marriage. The family where only one has the necessary skills to keep in that family with income is in a precarious place in todays economy. Plus welfare today is nothing like it was until towards the end of the Clinton administration. Remember the "End of Welfare as we know it campaign"?

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareincentive.htm

[bcuzbcuz]

It sounds like your grandchildren's "quality" daycare was not what the OP article was addressing. It was the daycare children of middle class people who cannot afford upscale daycare. However, I'm also always skeptical of these types of studies without a good look at the data.

Nope, not talking about upscale daycare, if I gave that impression. Yes the workers get paid well, but this is for standard, middle, low, high income families. It costs the same amount of tax dollars. Every daycare that takes children from one year old and must have a separate program for 6 year olds (Grade one starts at age 7) is available regardless of city, town, village, income level or education of parents. 16 kids max per group, 2 pre-school teachers (trained as such, two year university training) and 2 child workers for max 2 groups. This is the standard, enforced by law and regulations.

[bcuzbcuz]

The evidence mounts. Thanks for that contribution!

I keep forgetting that looking at US stats and articles like the ones quoted by you and others here, are in a "bell jar environment". Yes, giving money to subsidize child care in a system that suppresses incomes so that a single parent may only afford the worst possible care is going to give negative outcomes.

A lot is needed to be changed before the US catches up to child care standards of Europe.

The only evidence that seems to be mounting is that a dysfunctional system continues to be dysfunctional until actual change takes place; money doesn't solve the problem.

I suggest you re-read the study and especially the conclusions drawn by Herbst and Tekin. You can find the complete evaluation at http://voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/5642. But once again, read carefully and note that their comments are in reference to "child care subsidies". And their comments do not address the OP.

[WalkerW]

I keep forgetting that looking at US stats and articles like the ones quoted by you and others here, are in a "bell jar environment". Yes, giving money to subsidize child care in a system that suppresses incomes so that a single parent may only afford the worst possible care is going to give negative outcomes.

A lot is needed to be changed before the US catches up to child care standards of Europe.

The only evidence that seems to be mounting is that a dysfunctional system continues to be dysfunctional until actual change takes place; money doesn't solve the problem.

I suggest you re-read the study and especially the conclusions drawn by Herbst and Tekin. You can find the complete evaluation at http://voxeu.org/ind...hp?q=node/5642. But once again, read carefully and note that their comments are in reference to "child care subsidies". And their comments do not address the OP.

Important distinction

[Nominee]

I want to give really, sincerely, heart-felt thanks to Lehi and others with similar views for your contributions to this thread. I feel my voice has at least been heard, as speaking for myself has proven difficult due to the painful sensitivity I have to the subject. I think it is downright disturbing to hear people make oxymoronic statements regarding the good found in the mother working outside the home to better supply the needs of the family. What "needs" would that be referring to? Financial? Oh. And that is what's important? Oh.

"...as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Yeah, I said it. And Yeah, I choose poverty to spend time with my family, who needs ME more than they need financial stability. And to fulfill a sacred responsibility that I will be held accountable for. It'd be great if that weren't a choice that I have to make in life right now but it is. Because I won't put my children in daycare just so I can buy more "basic needs." We may live in a tiny house but we each have our own room, and we may have no gas to put in the car but our clothes don't have holes in them and we get to all our Sunday meetings and church activities (by bike or walking together if we need to). We are together and our home is FILLED with love and security and righteousness. There are people all around who do not seem to understand my choice to spend every single moment I can manage devoted to the all-important rearing of my children to walk in the way of the Lord. And yes, at the expense of all other things. But I admit that it hurts most when those people are members of the LDS church. Just sayin'. I don't doubt my priorities or my choices for a minute. I do look forward to the day when others don't need to judge these choices negatively or knock them down ~to justify their own.

edit: I believe in learning as much as you can, working as hard as you can, and providing the most that you can... in addition to or as a part of but not at the expense of the time you need to spend with your children.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Nominee

[thesometimesaint]

See the Two Income Trap.

[Traela]

I've always been puzzled that a woman (or a man, for that matter) needs a paying job to be fulfilled. I grew up with a mother who did not work, but she was always busy. She volunteered in a number of different organizations. One was an art group that she went to the museum with several times a year. She also had various groups of friends she spent time with. She very rarely spent the entire day at home.

I thought it was great. She did lots of interesting things, but always had the freedom to arrange her life around the home as needed.

Currently, my only paying job is doing the selling end of our family's small farm operation. In our case, having only one parent with a full time job means that my children will always have a parent to take them to their frequent doctor appointments, or stay with them in the hospital, four hours from home.

[divinenature]

Recent study:

Chris M. Herbst, Erdal Tekin, "Child Care Subsidies, Maternal Well-Being, and Child-Parent Interactions: Evidence From Three Nationally Representative Datasets," NBER Working Paper 17774 (Jan. 2012).

Abstract:

A complete account of the U.S. child care subsidy system requires an understanding of its implications for both parental and child well-being. Although the effects of child care subsidies on maternal employment and child development have been recently studied, many other dimensions of family well-being have received little attention. This paper attempts to fill this gap by examining the impact of child care subsidy receipt on maternal health and the quality of child-parent interactions. The empirical analyses use data from three nationally representative surveys, providing access to numerous measures of family well-being. In addition, we attempt to handle the possibility of non-random selection into subsidy receipt by using several identification strategies both within and across the surveys. Our results consistently indicate that child care subsidies are associated with worse maternal health and poorer interactions between parents and their children. In particular, subsidized mothers report lower levels of overall health and are more likely to show symptoms consistent with anxiety, depression, and parenting stress. Such mothers also reveal more psychological and physical aggression toward their children and are more likely to utilize spanking as a disciplinary tool. Together, these findings suggest that work-based public policies aimed at economically disadvantaged mothers may ultimately undermine family well-being.

I actually downloaded it last week and came across this thread today.

Does the study indicate who these subsidized mothers are being compared to? Are they being compared to other mothers who qualify for subsidy but stay home instead or are they being compared to all mothers or something else?

[Bond...James Bond]

I've always been puzzled that a woman (or a man, for that matter) needs a paying job to be fulfilled.

How about pure pragmatism? What if her husband (or his wife) dies before financial security is achieved? Suddenly a woman/man finds herself alone with no career, no quarters towards social security, and more importantly no job history/experience to help find a decent job. What's left is minimum wage jobs. Go to your local Wal-Mart and you'll see the poor women in their fifties and sixties who thought they were going to be homemakers for life until their husband died before the mortgage was paid.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[Bond...James Bond]

I choose poverty to spend time with my family, who needs ME more than they need financial stability.

I hope your husband/wife never loses their job.

[MorningStar]

And this is the fun thing about being a woman. We might have tons of talent and interests, but we have to ask ourselves if it's worth it to pursue those things if it means leaving our babies with someone else, telling yourself you'll do those things later. I always knew I would stop whatever I was doing to stay with my kids. I could never forgive myself if they were mistreated or if I missed moments where they needed me - not a daycare worker. When I'm on my deathbed, I will never regret staying with my kids, but I would regret it if challeges they had were a result of me leaving them. Now that my oldest can babysit, I can teach piano lessons part time and it's wonderful. It allows me to be with my daughter all day and she also gets to play with siblings of kids I teach at times. We're still in a two bedroom apartment and are hoping to get a house soon after being here for almost 10 years and in other apartments before this one.

[divinenature]

I hope your husband/wife never loses their job.

Me too. Living in Mom and Dad's basement gets old. Poverty is not enjoyable.

[Bond...James Bond]

And this is the fun thing about being a woman. We might have tons of talent and interests, but we have to ask ourselves if it's worth it to pursue those things if it means leaving our babies with someone else, telling yourself you'll do those things later. I always knew I would stop whatever I was doing to stay with my kids. I could never forgive myself if they were mistreated or if I missed moments where they needed me - not a daycare worker. When I'm on my deathbed, I will never regret staying with my kids, but I would regret it if challeges they had were a result of me leaving them. Now that my oldest can babysit, I can teach piano lessons part time and it's wonderful. It allows me to be with my daughter all day and she also gets to play with siblings of kids I teach at times. We're still in a two bedroom apartment and are hoping to get a house soon after being here for almost 10 years and in other apartments before this one.

No regrets that if you'd gotten a job 10 yrs ago you might have been a 1/3 of a way into paying a 30 yr mortgage instead of spending money for rent you'll never see again?

Edited March 30, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[Nominee]

I hope your husband/wife never loses their job.

As stated, I am a single mother making these outlandish remarks. Money isn't everything, I would gladly share what little I do have with others; however, I do not feel the same about my children.

[Log]

No regrets that if you'd gotten a job 10 yrs ago you might have been a 1/3 of a way into paying a 30 yr mortgage instead of spending money for rent you'll never see again?

Bow down before the one you serve. You're going to get what you deserve.

[Bond...James Bond]

As stated, I am a single mother making these outlandish remarks. Money isn't everything, I would gladly share what little I do have with others; however, I do not feel the same about my children.

Then I hope your ex-husband, family member, whoever is supporting you doesn't lose their job.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[thesometimesaint]

Bond...James Bond:

Just depends on what you value more. We rented for the first 18 years of our marriage raised three kids pretty successfully. I don't regret it. I've owned my own home now for the last 21 years. No regrets there either.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I can state unequivocally that Nominee does, in fact, share what she has with others, and has her heart in the right place. If anyone gets on her case about this topic I will EAT THEM.

[Bond...James Bond]

Bow down before the one you serve.

The liberal elite?

You're going to get what you deserve.

What's that exactly? Fire and brimstone? Prison time? Chastisement from you?

[Nominee]

Then I hope your ex-husband, family member, whoever is supporting you doesn't lose your job.

Who says I can't support my family while being with them? Maybe your idea of support and mine are different? We have what we NEED. And for the record, again, I hope for more in the future but not at the expense of my children's upbringing.

[Bond...James Bond]

Bond...James Bond:

Just depends on what you value more. We rented for the first 18 years of our marriage raised three kids pretty successfully. I don't regret it. I've owned my own home now for the last 21 years. No regrets there either.

I'm glad you and/or your wife didn't lose your jobs during that time or face any other calamities. My point is that two incomes provide security and redundancy to protect the family against the unforeseen problems of life.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Bond...James Bond

[Log]

As stated, I am a single mother making these outlandish remarks. Money isn't everything, I would gladly share what little I do have with others; however, I do not feel the same about my children.

The responses to your situation that come from some LDS are unfortunate. I would even hazard to guess that condemnation is the majority response, which is even more unfortunate.

[Nominee]

The liberal elite?

What's that exactly? Fire and brimstone? Prison time? Chastisement from you?

Nine Inch Nails.

[katherine the great]

Nope, not talking about upscale daycare, if I gave that impression. Yes the workers get paid well, but this is for standard, middle, low, high income families. It costs the same amount of tax dollars. Every daycare that takes children from one year old and must have a separate program for 6 year olds (Grade one starts at age 7) is available regardless of city, town, village, income level or education of parents. 16 kids max per group, 2 pre-school teachers (trained as such, two year university training) and 2 child workers for max 2 groups. This is the standard, enforced by law and regulations.

The system you describe is obviously different than the one cited in the article. I don't think it should be any reflection on your grandchildren where government regulations on the quality of care (and perhaps everything else) seems to be much higher. It would be interesting to see the actual study though to decide whether or not the report is actually accurate.