Nobody wants to take care of kids anymore

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: JAGStorm

When my 9 month-old Grandson is dropped off to be babysat, I thoroughly enjoy him!...for about 2 hours. After that, the main goal is to get him to SLEEP.

LOLOL! That's every 9 month old.

originally posted by: incoserv
Just this,

44% of Millennials See Their Pets as Starter Children, and That’s a Big Opportunity for Brands

and an observation that many will never get past that "starter."

That's just sad. Ridiculous. Most young people also think that marriage is just a bigger step in being boyfriend and girlfriend. That's why marriages never last anymore.

People will get all wound up to save fetuses, but once they're babies they're on their own. I figure if somebody talks anti-abortion and they don't adopt at least one kid (including those who aren't the same color) then they're hypocrites.

Once kids can talk, forget 'em.

originally posted by: LSU2018
That's why marriages never last anymore.

Or... way back when if you got divorced you were scorned by the community, or if you're Muslim, just burned to death. That's the key to a long-lasting marriage!

a reply to: JAGStorm

I used to babysit my neighbors kids when needed but that ended when the husband got a major promotion. Now his wife is home and loves kids and watches all the neighbors kids. One thing that always scared me was when they asked to go swimming in the pool. I felt bad but that answer was always a no unless that kids parent was present.
In today's world I can understand why no one wants to do that job. The huge number of things that can go wrong should deter most from doing it. I don't have kids (i think) but if I did I don't imagine having anyone but a good friend watching them. Big risk otherwise IMHO

a reply to: JAGStorm

True. It gets even sketchier when we talk about looking after the infirmed or elderly.

It's all a butt load of work. Maybe in days gone by or in other cultures, the emphasis on family was/is greater. Therefore, since it was/is deemed more important, the extra effort feels justified.

When you don't give a dang about anybody but you and your phone, the effort is overwhelming.

originally posted by: incoserv

Pets as Starter Children

Thanks for that! Made me laugh.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Remember the last presidential election? Trump and Hillary both put forth all these plans for childcare. Tax credits to pay for daycare, all kinds of stuff. After the election, nothing ever heard again. I think it was Ivanka that was supposed to be in charge of that.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
Child rearing is hard, often unappreciated work, but quite possibly the most important work of all.

Nobody wants to do it!

I think we've all seen a trend lately, nobody wants to watch kids. Moms and dads are too busy working/surviving.

I saw on social media people practically begging for a nanny and babysitter.
I did a quick search, there are a THOUSAND jobs looking for sitters, nannies and child care workers.
The pay is around 14 bucks and still no takers!!

This will be here before we know it:
This Robot Takes Care of Your Children
www.nextnature.net...

I was having this discussion with my father the other day. My sister has a young daughter three years of age and they pay clise to what my sister makes in childcare to keep her all day while she works. Ironically my sister works at the same place which her daughter attends but I digress. They always talk about how expensive it is but we seriously live in a building with 100+ elderly retired ladies. When I was a child I was practically raised by older women of the neighborhood as both my parents worked. Why doesn't she find some older lady and in a sense provide residual income for her on top of their pension? It was always the way.

Well like you said, no one wants to do it. Maybe once in while but not consistently. Also, as I see in my sister's demeanour is that she wouldn't feel comfortable leaving her daughter with a 'stranger' yet is more than happy to pay through the nose for other 'professional strangers' to watch her. There is a certain paranoia that plays on both sides of the equation. Its unfortunate as it seemed simpler and more logical how I was raised but like many things lawyers, insurance industry, regulation and perspective has pretty much put an end to community based childcare.

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: incoserv

Pets as Starter Children

Thanks for that! Made me laugh.

Well, given some of the folks I've seen with their pets in the last few years, maybe it's better they just stay there.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Projection and redirection, obfuscation.

Won't work.

In the case of only married working parents here, it's crap. Single/divorced ones are a different ball of wax, but let's agree to think of this dual working parent junk logically.

It's crap. Willfully raising latch key kids when you can choose otherwise is crap.

BTDT, latch key kid of divorced parents, but at least I had a SAH stepmom I could go over to my dad's house and spend time with.
I spent so much time with her and she dove right on in. She didn't necessarily play mom, so much as she was a mentor & confidante. Mine wasn't exactly up to snuff when she had a job, nor when she didn't, so the traditional nuclear stability at my dad's house meant quite a bit to me and my younger brother. So much so for my younger brother that he moved in with my dad & stepmom at 11 (hindsight is 20/20 -- I should have done the same)
He has no regrets for his choice to date, and he hasn't spoken to our mom beyond basic "I'm going good, gotta go" avoidance on SM in about 15 years. The latch key stuff is only part of it, our mother's a regular piece of work. My older brother stopped talking to her 12 years ago.
That's a gripe for a different thread topic, however.

My husband and I are staunch adherents to the nuclear dynamic. We firmly agree we had better have a damn good reason for me to start working again before the kids can stay home alone and we trust they won't kill each other or burn the house down -- our personal threshold to be met -- such as medical issues or outright death. Even he agrees "I want more spending money!" is not a legit reason -- that's what budgets and saving is for.
There is no point to having kids if you're just going to shuttle them off to others to care for them while you work when you don't have to. This, we believe very strongly.

Kids gravitate toward that nuclear stability naturally, it's ingrained to seek it. Why the hell someone would pick their job over their offspring when they can do the reverse with relative ease, or financial adjustments, is beyond me. Money isn't that important.
Whichever parent is the breadwinner by leaps and bounds, sure, stay employed. That's a no-brainer, it doesn't HAVE to be mom to be the SAH, though. If you can definitely manage on one income, DO. IT. The SAH parent is doing their real job, raising what you decided to make and keep.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

I think we've all seen a trend lately, nobody wants to watch kids.

Is this true? I don't have any statistics on hand to say ether way; but anecdotally my opinion is that this was a much bigger problem when I was a kid than it is now.

Back in the 70s and 80s we had "latchkey kids" now we have "helicopter parents".

Can't I just get some wolf to raise my childrens?

It worked out fairly well for Romulus and Remus.

a reply to: Lysergic

Well, not so much for Remus.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: JAGStorm

I think we've all seen a trend lately, nobody wants to watch kids.

Is this true? I don't have any statistics on hand to say ether way; but anecdotally my opinion is that this was a much bigger problem when I was a kid than it is now.

Back in the 70s and 80s we had "latchkey kids" now we have "helicopter parents".

The thing is, it's a stages helicoptering. If they took time off work for a few months, they do the normal baby helicoptering.
If they took a few years off to be out of the workforce, or transitioned to working from home/freelancing, the helicoptering is full tilt unless they pawn the kid off on a babysitter, child care, or relative (my god, this is so common)
If they're working, it's limited to their days off. Not even joking. They might nag the kids via smartphone, but that's about as involved as they get 5 days a week.
Edit: This is what I've personally seen from friends, mostly in Florida.

There is an element of the SAH parent wing of society that does helicopter, but it seems to be winding down. "Free range", or what we grew up knowing as "normal roaming", is coming back. There are a LOT of SAH parents in my neighborhood, mostly moms, but there's a dad here & there, too. None helicopter. We all have each other's cell numbers and call or text each other, "Hey, is my kid at your house? Tell them it's dinner time, please!" A reply of "Sorry, Jane was here, but they all went over to Suzie's house, try her mom's number!" isn't uncommon.

This is so refreshing, and I'm well aware it's likely regional attitudes making it so laid back. Other places in the country might have a cow, like where we used to live in FL (we live in MI now) Kids roaming the neighborhood was utterly unacceptable, which was a HUGE shift from back in my day where at 7, I was biking out to the neighborhood beach alone. Kids down there today can't even go to corner store themselves or "child abuse!!" is wailed.

The kids in our neighborhood roam far and wide. The park (actual big-ass park, not just a swing set in a wood chip pile) Or the corner store. Or the ice cream shop. Or all the way to the main drag to a fast food joint. And they don't cause trouble, they're always well-spoken, polite and respectful. There's no reason for heckles to be up when a group of 10 year olds walks a couple blocks for ice cream or a burger.

The differences between the helicoptered kids back in FL and the normal kids up here is stark. The FL kids are so high-strung and paranoid that it's not even funny.

a reply to: JAGStorm

From my perspective the trust factor is different then it was in the past.
Not saying the dangers today didn't exist then. It appears however that over time lessons have been learned trust misused and depleted as well as patience lost between those who need babysitters and neighbors and or family members.
In the past yes it appears that the opportunities existed.
But not all those opportunities were of sound mind.

a reply to: Nyiah

Amen.

originally posted by: Nyiah
In the case of only married working parents here, it's crap. Single/divorced ones are a different ball of wax, but let's agree to think of this dual working parent junk logically.

It's crap. Willfully raising latch key kids when you can choose otherwise is crap.

BTDT, latch key kid of divorced parents, but at least I had a SAH stepmom I could go over to my dad's house and spend time with.
I spent so much time with her and she dove right on in. She didn't necessarily play mom, so much as she was a mentor & confidante. Mine wasn't exactly up to snuff when she had a job, nor when she didn't, so the traditional nuclear stability at my dad's house meant quite a bit to me and my younger brother. So much so for my younger brother that he moved in with my dad & stepmom at 11 (hindsight is 20/20 -- I should have done the same)
He has no regrets for his choice to date, and he hasn't spoken to our mom beyond basic "I'm going good, gotta go" avoidance on SM in about 15 years. The latch key stuff is only part of it, our mother's a regular piece of work. My older brother stopped talking to her 12 years ago.
That's a gripe for a different thread topic, however.

My husband and I are staunch adherents to the nuclear dynamic. We firmly agree we had better have a damn good reason for me to start working again before the kids can stay home alone and we trust they won't kill each other or burn the house down -- our personal threshold to be met -- such as medical issues or outright death. Even he agrees "I want more spending money!" is not a legit reason -- that's what budgets and saving is for.
There is no point to having kids if you're just going to shuttle them off to others to care for them while you work when you don't have to. This, we believe very strongly.

Kids gravitate toward that nuclear stability naturally, it's ingrained to seek it. Why the hell someone would pick their job over their offspring when they can do the reverse with relative ease, or financial adjustments, is beyond me. Money isn't that important.
Whichever parent is the breadwinner by leaps and bounds, sure, stay employed. That's a no-brainer, it doesn't HAVE to be mom to be the SAH, though. If you can definitely manage on one income, DO. IT. The SAH parent is doing their real job, raising what you decided to make and keep.

When we had our first child, my wife stayed at home for 3.5 years, then we moved to her country, we both worked (self-employed). A child needs the family circle of life to feel wanted and loved, not a baby sitter for their 3 to 5 years after birth.

this is a problem caused in great part by the feminist movement. don't get me wrong, there is a lot more involved, but it was the feminist movement that started the ball rolling. and has even kept it going. with the idea that not just that a woman was fully capable of working, but the insistence that they do so. with many women who did not work and instead stayed home ostracised and looked down upon for doing so. that they were in fact failed women if they didn't have a career. and of course big business just loved that idea. it allowed them to keep wages stagnant, and yet raise prices, since it became expected that every adult work. and of course they now had twice as many workers to use. which of course for most people now means that a mother (or father for that matter), has no real choice but to work, as two incomes are pretty much needed to live on. especially if you have kids and the extreme amount of money that now requires (by design).

just look at the prices of anything to do with babies and children. hundreds to thousands of dollars for simple things like strollers and cribs. then you have the expense of things like diapers, clothing, and can't forget that expensive breast pump if you don't want to spend all the money for formula. and especially things needed things like car seats which are no longer just for babies but even required in many areas pretty much until the child is a teenager. and just to make things even more profitable regulations and requirements constantly change so that that baby seat you had for your first child is considered unsafe for a second or third child. requiring you not just buy new ones when children outgrow these seats and need new ones, but to also buy completely new ones for each child. all this is designed to take away yet more money to insure as best they can that everyone needs to work.

so all this takes the parents away from taking care of the children so both need to work, unless they happen to be rich. which brings us to things like daycare. again another expensive requirement for many people. and a very unhealthy thing for the kids. kids need attention. preferably the attention of the parents. not a person trying to deal with 5-10 kids at the same time for most of the day. and baby sitters used to be for the occasional outing of the parents, maybe a couple times a week if even that much. not every day as is expected now. now the rich have had things like nanny's almost forever. and those people who did the job years ago were actually highly respected and decently paid for their services. it was not a minimum wage or below job at all like it is now. and of course such nannies were actually expected to have skills such as nursing and teaching as well as to be competent at raising children. another huge difference of what a nanny is today. and at that time when it came to multiple young children they would likely have a nurse for each of the very young with a nanny in overall charge.


really what we need to do as a society is to give people proper wages that can supply the needs of a family on one wage. and if both parents want to work, that would be their business and they could then use that second wage to pay for things like daycare or a nanny if they choose. far from the government funding daycare as is wanted now. as well as to reduce the pure profit gouging on anything to do with children as we have now.