Conference turris::womannotes-v2

       The following is list of actual prices that people are being
    charged for watching children...do you think they are reasonable
    or unreasonable?
    
    1 child:   $65-$135 /week This depends on age of child.
    2 children: $120-$150/week this also depends on age.
    
    Then they take into consideration whether the child is an infant.
    You get charged more for an infant, because they feel they must
    do more work...changing diapers, feedings...GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
    
    I know child care isn't easy, but what some providers and Daycare
    Centers are charging is not right, in my opinion.
    
    
    Chris
    

       Then we see such things called "FLAT RATES" no matter what.
    
    I have a friend who has 2 school age children who she pays a 
    flat rate of $40.00 per week/child so that's a total of $80.00/week
    
    Now, I know that most children stay in school almost all day, so
    how do they get off charging that kind of money to watch a child
    who is in school for 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour after school
    each day?????
    
    Boy, this stuff really burns me up!!
    
    And, the thing is, Providers are allowed to charge 'anything they
    want' for their services. I feel that too many of them are into
    it for the money only, and not for the satisfaction of the job.
    
    
    chris
    

    Re .1:
    
    Those prices are low.  I pay $130/week now for my (toddler) daughter.
    At the same place, the price for an infant is $150/week.  Since
    I am expecting again, I will be pay $265/week after this child is
    born (that includes a 10 percent discount for the second child).
    This is for a center in Westboro, MA, and was the about the same
    at all the centers we considered in the area.
                                     
    -Tracy
    

    Another reason for the higher cost of infants is that the state
    requires something like 7 older children to 1 teacher in a certified
    daycare place, and the ratio becomes something like 4 toddlers to
    1 teacher when you have younger children there.  This drives their
    costs up - but it's a logical requirement because younger children
    must be watched more carefully than gradeschool or kindergarten
    types who can entertain themselves better, and are aware of the
    rules and generally follow them.
    
    Also, I believe the younger the children, the higher the insurance
    cost (and insurance costs for daycare centers are driving a great
    deal of them out of business).  
    
    -Jody
    

    Come on, let's not blame the providers quite so much.  They are
    not getting rich on the prices you quote. I'm using New
    Hampshire's ratio of preschoolers to provider, which was 6:1 last
    time we looked for Steven: 
    
      6 * 65 = 210 /week                      6*135 = $810/week
    210 * 52 = 10,920 /year                 810*52 = 20,250/year
    
    Do you think you could live on that?  Pay the insurance and the
    upkeep on the house?  Pay the overhead of the incredible amount of
    paperwork that goes into getting certified?  Feed your own
    children? 

    I can appreciate the resentment of having to pay double for two
    kids, but on the other hand, is the second child from the same
    family any less work for the provider than a child of another
    family would be? 
    
    Yes, day care in this country is a scandal, but the providers are
    not the ones to blame. 
    
    --bonnie

    
    If my calculator batteries are fully charged...
    
    $810.00 times 52 weeks equals $42,120.00 per year.

    I pay $95/week for 45 hours/week care for my son.  That's just over
    $2.00 per hour.  (When I was using family day care, the costs were
    higher.)  I don't consider this unreasonable, especially considering
    the care he is getting.
    
    It is true that if a parent is only making $200/week, that child
    care expenses are half of that, but I don't see that as a reason
    to argue against the child care providers trying to not lose money.
    
    Also, realize that if you use part-time day care (say an hour or
    two in the morning and in the afternoon), you are preventing the
    provider from holding a full-time job of their own, and reducing
    the number of full-time children they can care for.  Higher
    rates for part-time care is reasonable and common.
    
    					Steve

    No wonder so many single mothers are on wellfare.  If I had to pay
    for daycare for a child I wouldn't have enough money left over to
    live on and support the child afterwards.  Daycare is obviously
    only for parents with high paying professional jobs.  
    
    Lorna
    

    The reason  child  care  is  expensive is that it's a lot of work.
    (Very labor intensive for you economists.) Staying home and taking
    care of children is a full time job, so if you ask someone else to
    do it, they will insist on being paid full time wages.

    Having child  care  for everyone would cost a significant fraction
    of  GNP.  It's  not the sort of expense that is small enough to be
    covered by some slush fund or another.

A rough calculation:
    Each  person  has  1 child who needs 5 years of full-time day care
    with  an average child-staff ration of 5 to 1. So each person must
    pay for 1 person-year of salary, plus an equal amount of overhead.
    If  day care providers get an average salary that means 2 years of
    each person's salary goes to day care. Assume a working life of 40
    years (25-65) and you come up with a cost of 5% of GNP.

    You might  want to argue that my assumptions are somewhat off, but
    they're  certainly  close  to reasonable. The only one that's very
    far  off  is the assumption that day care providers get an average
    wage.  But  do  you  really  want  children cared for by unskilled
    people getting much less?

    Note that this cost is in addition to the current costs of school.

--David

    I don't think anyone is "blaming" the daycare providers...at least
    I'm not.
    
    I do think there is a real dilemma.  At present, we have two good
    salaries and one child--and we certainly feel the pinch of daycare
    costs.  I don't know how single parents, or people who don't earn
    much, or people with more kids afford it.
    
    On the other hand, I think that most day care providers are underpaid.
    What job is more important than taking of our children?  It is hard
    work that demands many skills and much patience, and returns little
    in financial or social rewards (like so many jobs traditionally
    held by women).  It's a wonder that the shortage of good care, adn
    the turnover problems, aren't worse than they are.
    
    And I don't have any answers.
    
    -Tracy
    

    "She doesn't need a decent income; she has a husband." ?!

    Value should be attached to the services rendered.
    
    The need of the provider is irrelevent.
    
    

    I have a friend who is a daycare provider. I think she works
    very hard and deserves what she makes (I don't know the exact
    number but I am told it's low for our area). She started doing
    it when her husband was laid off and they needed the money for
    things like food. She also loves children and is very good with
    them or I know she would have done something else. I suspect
    that the same is true for most daycare providers.
    
    Just because someone loves what they do and/or have a spouse
    shouldn't matter when figuring their wage. Lord, knows if it
    did I'd have to take a cut as I love my job a lot. You pay
    for the value you receive.
    
    Yes, the costs of daycare are high. If it's too high, as it is
    for many of the working poor, then something has to be done. Making
    the caregiver work for less then a living wage is not a fair way
    to do it though. I'd like to see companies help out. I'd like to
    see churchs help out. I don't want to see government do it though.
    
    			Alfred

Re: .14

    If you  want  to see companies "help out" you must realize that if
    they  were  to  pay half the costs of daycare, it would cost about
    2-3%  of  the total wages they pay. Are you willing to accept a 3%
    pay  cut  so  Digital could pay for half of its employees day care
    costs? (Assuming both parents work for Digital, one quarter of the
    costs if one parent does).

    I probably  would accept that even though I don't have kids. But I
    can certainly imagine that alot of other people wouldn't like it.

    As I  said  earlier,  this  is  a major fraction of GNP, you can't
    provide  daycare  without  someone's standard of living going down
    noticeably.  It is possible however that our quality of life would
    go  up  enough to compensate for the lower income. I tend to think
    that it would.

--David

    I think daycare costs are relative to geographical location. My
    daughter goes to daycare during the school year for after school
    only.  It cost me $32 a week.  if she was there during the morning
    before school it would be $36. This includes the bus to and/or from
    the elementry school to the center and after school snack.  
    however during the summer,the costs were $67 a week.  
    The kids can stay in this day care till they are 14 years old. 
    there aren't too many 14 yr olds there during the school year but
    theres alot of em during the summer.  There is an abundance of 
    daycares here in colorado and they have pretty competitive prices.  
    The daycare I brought Patty to this summer is one of the most active 
    I have seen yet, the kids had to be there by 8 am sharp, they went 
    on trips daily, swimming, tourist stuff, train rides, geeez countless 
    things.
    I was impressed and had no complaints about what it cost me weekly.
    However, I realize that colorado isn't the same as other places.
    some of the cost I have seen are astronomical and I have "never"
    seen a waiting list here.  I would probably go into shock if I
    relocated. 
    
    vivian

    re .11:
    
    As the husband of a day care provider, I'm getting a little offended
    by your portrayal of providers.
    
.1> You get charged more for an infant, because they feel they must
.1> do more work...changing diapers, feedings...GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
    
    o Give WHO a break? Infants are a LOT more work than even toddlers.
      Anyone who believes otherwise has never had children.
    
.2>    I have a friend who has 2 school age children who she pays a 
.2>    flat rate of $40.00 per week/child so that's a total of $80.00/week
          
    Okay, say that is for 2 hours a day per child, that is still only
    $4/hour, barely above the minimum wage.
    
    o Your objection to charging full rate for part time care is specious.
      Have it your way, no provider accepts part time clients, where
      do the part time kids get care from? A provider is limited to
      a maximum of 6 children in the house at one time no matter how
      many helpers she might have; of those six, only two can be infants
      per provider. A part time client does represent a loss of a full
      time client.
    
    o so the provider is "just extra income"? I seem to have heard this
      applied to the CLIENTS of providers. _Most_ of them are "just extra
      income". We could not afford our house on only my income in this
      area.                                                
    
    o as for the rates themselves, have you any idea the kind of wear
      6 kids (all age 4 and under) put on a house? 
    
    o no money involved in getting certified? you must not be in Mass.
      even if there is no fee for the actual license, there are expenses
      involved in meeting safety regulations.
    
    o insurance is not cheap, homeowners insurance does not cover liability
      for daycare. Lack of insurance specifically for daycare lliability
      will void your homeowners insurance.          
    
    
.1>    1 child:   $65-$135 /week This depends on age of child
.1>    2 children: $120-$150/week this also depends on age.
.1>    ...do you think they are reasonable or unreasonable?             
                                                           
    assuming ten hours per day per child (not unreasonable):
    
    	1 child: $1.3-$2.7/hour
        2 children(2x the work): $1.2-$1.5/hour/child
    
    is there ANY other job that pays wages this low?

.2>    And, the thing is, Providers are allowed to charge 'anything they
.2>    want' for their services. 
    
    So are mechanics and plumbers and doctors and engineers and lawyers
    and housekeepers and ...
    Daycare providers are just as subject to market forces as any other
    service industry.
    
.2>    I feel that too many of them are into
.2>    it for the money only, and not for the satisfaction of the job.
                                 
    Are you really saying that daycare providers should be doing it
    purely for the "satisfaction of the job"? Why should a provider
    be any different than anyone else? And what about the clients? 
    Why should they care how much profit they make after they pay daycare,
    shouldn't they just be working for "the satisfaction of their job"?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    My conclusion...
    
        Day care is work which requires specific skills, it is important
        and I want quality day care for the children that require the
        services.  Therefore it will be expensive.
    
    We therefore have some problems.  
    
        People who must work for a living and require day care services
        will need some help either from the government or from the
        companies they work for.  And/or the government can provide
        incentives to industry for day care.
    
        People who do not need to work but choose to need to think of
        the expense of day care and their working in a different light.
        Although they might not receive any monetary benefit from working
        when their children are young they do receive career benefits.
        They are able to advance in their career during those years
        and will realize significant gain when the day care services
        are no longer required.
    
    Having day care services at the place of employment will reduce
    costs in that the child will only require 40 hours a week care,
    travel time to and from the site is eliminated.
    
    

    Though my input may not be immediately usable, as I live in
    Switzerland, I thought I could mention what's done in Canton Geneva
    (I am not sure what the rest of Switzerland does, as, like the US,
    we are a "Confederation of States"), as Chris mentioned in her base-
    note that "something should be done". This is what is done:
    
    Day-care centers are subsidized by the townships. If you bring your
    child to the Day-care center of the town you live in or work
    in (you pay local taxes both at your place of work and at your place
    of residence), you pay 10% of your total income, whatever it is.
    I.e., a single parent will surrender monthly 10% of it's monthly
    paycheck, however low it may be, while a dual-revenue couple will
    pay 10% of what they earn, however high. Children whose parent
    live/work in the town get priority on available slots. Any slots
    left are open to other children, whose parents then pay 13,5% of
    their monthly revenue, the 30% difference representing what part
    of their local taxes would have gone to support the day-care center
    had they lived/worked in the town. Small towns with no day-care
    center of their own are included in larger communities, and also
    pay 10%, while their township shoulders the difference.
    
    Yes, it can be pretty steep for dual-revenue parents (and is NOT
    tax-deductible) but I always felt good at the idea that, had I been
    a single parent, my child would have received the same attention
    and had the same care as a child from a more financially favoured
    family.
                                                             
    Joana
    
    
    PS: EVERYTHING ELSE is expensive in Geneva!            

    RE: .15 I believe that government funded day care must cost me
    (and everyone else) more in the long run then company funded
    daycare. I also have a philosophical problem with government
    run day care (and am getting that way about grade school as well)
    so I have an none monetary reason for preferring company funded
    help.

    Either way there is no such thing as a  free lunch. Either society
    as a whole is going to help pay for day care or individual families
    are going to pay the full load. The latter may be ok for the middle 
    class and up but is pretty hard on the poor.
    
    				Alfred

    Re .17  Thank you for your note!  Some of these replies seem to
    be motivated by the idea that child care is not worth paying for,
    since it has traditionally been done for free by mothers.  I think
    that companies should provide day care and that it could be
    handled creatively by employees paying for it with before tax dollars,
    or by making it a benefit "option", or if need be by paying for
    it out of smaller increases in salaries.  It is like insurance,
    which you pay for whether you use it or not.  The people who don't
    make claims end up subsidizing the people who do.  Raising the next
    generation should be the concern of our whole society.
	Linda

    re: .18
    
    "Choose to work" - A problem I have with your division at whether
    one chooses to work or must work is how do you differentiate? Yeah,
    I know, some cases are really easy to put into one category or the
    other, but what about the borderline cases? How would you decide?
    
    re: .19
    
    Joana - do you pay 10% of your weekly salary before or after you've
    paid taxes? And if you live and work in the same town, do you pay
    twice as much in taxes to that place (instead of half to where you
    work and half to where you live)? It's very interesting.
    
    -Amy.

    Who is in the right here:
    
         I have a contract with a provider, which I decided to terminate.
    I gave the 2 weeks notice. During the week before I gave notice,
    my child care giver's child came down with a case of 'pinworms'.
    This I hear is a highly contagious disease; especially when the
    infected child is in constant contact with my children.
    
    Anyhow, the infected child was treated, and STILL IS BEING TREATED
    for the pinworms. This treatment is supposed to continue over the
    next 2 to 4 weeks in order clear the worms and their eggs.
    
    My dilemna: The provider still wants to be paid for these last 2
    weeks, even though my children will not be there. The reason they
    won't be there is because I'm not taking them....I feel that since
    her child is still contagious, I don't want my children getting
    them. If her child were fine, then I feel that she would be entitiled
    to the 2 weeks final pay. What do you think?
    
    
    Chris
    

    In the case of a contagious disease I don't think you should 
    have to pay for the unused time.
    
    Bonnie

       Re: .25
    Bonnie,
    
    Neither do I. But the F.C.C. office thinks different. (Family Child
    Care). They are telling me that the contract between me and my sitter
    is binding no matter what. So, in other words...they are siding
    with the care-giver.
    
    Also, they say that as long as the Provider has dis-infected her
    home..it SHOULD  be safe for my children to go back there. This
    I disagree with. Even so, if it is true, then I felt that someone
    should inspect her home to make sure that she's complied with what
    she's supposed to do in order to clean the home properly. They told
    me that her word should be good enough. Come on now....
    
    
    
    Chris
    
    

    Pinworms!  A "contagious disease"?  Come on now.

    I'd have to agree with .27.  Once the child has been treated,
    there shouldn't be any problems.  Disinfecting the house would
    mean washing the dishes and any things that would be likely to
    end up in the children's mouths.  (It's not as though they need
    to fumigate the house or anything.)  Even if your child does get
    them, this has to be just about the easiest to deal with of all
    childhood conditions.
    
>    Anyhow, the infected child was treated, and STILL IS BEING TREATED
>    for the pinworms. This treatment is supposed to continue over the
>    next 2 to 4 weeks in order clear the worms and their eggs.
 
    The "treatment" for pinworms is one pill now, and another one
    in a couple of weeks just to make sure you got them all.

    	Version 1 topic begins a new in version 2 - again.
    
    	The concept used in a canton of Switzerland is quite interesting,
    nad is probably concidered fair by some, if not most, of the people
    who are subjected to the rule.  I very much enjoy Switzerland and
    vacation there as often as possible (next trip scheduled for 18
    October of this year).  However, the U.S. is not Switzerland.  We
    have much less socialism here than in Switzerland. Not that socialism 
    is good or bad.
    
    	I strongly disagree with empolyer subsidized day care but recognize
    we will have it when the companies believe it is necessary for them
    to hire and retain good employees.
    
    	I am also strongly against any across the board program of federal
    or state subsidized day care.  Day care assistance should be based
    on financial need.  I don't have a formula for determining financial
    need but could develop a decent one given enough time.
    
    	My stand against across the board financial support of day care
    is based on my economic philosophies and not a lack of concern relative
    to children.  We pay about $3,000 a year in property taxes, 61%
    of which goes to support the school system in Acton, MA.  We don't
    have, and will not have, children.  But I don't object to the monies
    we are paying for the school system (I do object to the management
    of the school system but that is another arguement).
    
    	Financial support of a type such as day care should be reserved
    for those families in financial need.
    
    	(For what it's worth, my sister-in-law runs a day care center
    in Boston and makes an excellent salary when all financial rewards
    are correctly factored into the equation.)
    
    Douglas

    By the way, since your child has effectively been a member of
    your day-care provider's family, and since, as you note, the
    normal practice is to treat all family members simultaneously
    when any of them come down with pinworms, the natural thing to
    do would be to treat your child as well.  If she is going to
    get them, she probably already has.  Have you suggested this
    to your pediatrician?  Then you wouldn't have to worry.
    
    	-Neil

    
    I have two answers to your dilemma. Ignoring the specifics of the
    disease, I would think that the ethical thing for your provider
    to do is to not charge you for the two weeks that her child is
    contagious. There were several times that Arlene (my wife) had to
    close down because Chris (our son) had picked up something from
    the other kids. She did not charge for those days.
    
    However, if you do have a written contract where the terms and
    conditions of her payment are clearly and specifically stated, then
    you are bound by it.                               
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    one of the ways pinworms are transmitted is via fecal matter. 
    If the child has a tendancy to handle themselves, they will    
    transmit the condition to anything they touch.  
    a favorite place is bedding, pillows, stuffed animals,
    furniture.  When ever a child came into the hospital with pinworms
    we not only isolated them, we put mittens on their hands and restrained
    their hands so that they couldn't touch themselves.  children who
    have heavy anal itching are usually suspected of having pinworms.
    
    If the care person hasn't washed everything in the house to include
    toys and stuffed animals, I would be a little suspicsious.  If her
    child still has a tendancy to keep their hands down their pants,
    I would take my child out of there.
    I have been told they are quite common, but thats no reason to take
    the situation so lightly as the child care people seem to. 
    It won't make your children sick, but they will have worms. so why
    expose them?
    
    vivian

    Chris,
    
    This is a really hard one to call, I certainly feel for your
    desire to keep your child free from pinworms..but, the chances
    are that given the age of the kids yours have already been
    exposed.
    
   So, if you had gotten the medication from your doctor to kill
    any potential infestation, then your kids would be safe at the
    sitters for the two weeks..
    
    I dunno...unless you want to hire a lawyer, you may have to pay
    the two weeks or stiff your care giver.
    
    For what it is worth...when my oldest son was in 7th grade he
    came home with head lice. We disinfected the entire house and
    all the bedding. (Infact my husband and I and my two youngest
    daugthers slept that night under one 'space blanket'. Three
    weeks later he had lice again! I called up the school and raved!!!
    
    Turns out, the nurse inspected every 7th grader as a result of my
    call. All clean! We found that our son was milking our goat with
    his head tucked into the side of the goat and the lice had laid
    eggs and hatched out and survived long enough (human lice don't
    live on goats) to reinfect him! So my husband did the milking for
    the next month and we have had no more problems..
    
    The point of this story is that no matter what you do, nature
    throws you the unexpected.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: Amy's questions in 190.23
    
    1) If you are a salaried employee, you pay 10% on gross income,
       as taxes are calculated on the basis of your yearly income and
       you pay them the year after you earn the money. Taxes follow
       an exponential curve, i.e. extremely small for small revenues
       and getting higher as revenues increase (so your head is never
       quite out of the water, as the water rises every time you get
       a foot-hold - pardon the lyrism, but that's the effect taxes
       have on me!) If you are self-employed, you present your balance-
       sheet and pay 10% on your net income (or something equivalent,
       I haven't been exposed to the system in the last 4 years and
       am not too sure about my facts).
    
    2) No, we don't pay double taxes if we live and work in the same
       town! Taxes are calculated as a percentage of yearly income,
       and a share goes to your place of work and another to your place
       of residence. If they happen to be the same, your town just gets
       the lot!
    
    Sorry if this is a tangent, but I thought I should answer Amy's
    questions.
    
    Back to day-care: you also have a choice of entrusting your child
    to a family. You can either do it privately, for example by making
    an agreement with your neighbour, or go through the social services
    to go to an "authorized" family. Authorized families are visited
    regularly by social workers, who are available for discussion to
    both sets of parents. There is no subsidy for this sort of day-care,
    and you pay a flat rate to the provider, which makes it more difficult
    financially to single-parents.
    
    As off 4 years old, you are basically out of the wood financially,
    as Public Schools also provide a hot lunch at noon (6.-- francs,
    i.e. about 4 dollars for a soup, meat and 2 vegetables and dessert
    - I don't know if it's expensive for the U.S., but for Switzerland
    it's dirt cheap) and the child can stay at school until 6:00 p.m.
    doing non-paying tutored activities - and later homework. However
    most people don't choose that solution on a full-time basis, as
    it's pretty tough for a 4-year-old to be at school from 8:00 a.m. to
    6:00 p.m. every day!
               
    I am so glad all those problems are behind me! Thinking back
    to those years of running and penny-pinching, I still think the
    worst part was neither of the above, but rather the constant WORRY: 
    worry that your child wouldn't be happy, that it wouldn't be well-
    cared for, that it would grow up to be a juvenile delinquent and it 
    would be your fault for working full-time instead of knitting socks...
    and then the relief because your child grows beautiful, bright and strong,
    both thanks to what you did and in spite of what you did - or didn't
    do! 
        
    Joana

    re:.36
    
    Thanks, Joana. 
    
    -Amy.

	I'm a single parent.  My son goes to a private school in Nashua, NH.
He's in second grade.  There are 7 kids in his class, and he has an excellent
teacher.  They have him doing third-grade work now, and will soon have him doing
fourth-grade work.  They don't push him, it's mostly the result of lots of
individual attention.

	I can drop him off as early as 7:00 AM (if he's there before 8:00 AM
they feed him breakfast).  He gets a hot lunch every day (great menu, too).
I can pick him up as late as 6:00 PM.

	They are open for daycare on all school holidays, and have summer camp.
The only days they're closed are weekends, an extremely rare snow day (one every
few years) and national holidays.

	During the school year they have activities such as art after school.
They have numerous activities during the summer, including swimming lessons.

	For all this I pay $380.00 per month, which I think is quite reasonable.
It's much cheaper during the summer, but the hours and meal arrangements are the
same.  Considering what I'd have to pay just to have someone watch him before
and after school, during the summer and on school holidays I think I'm getting
off pretty cheap.

	I'm also paying $650.00 per month child support for my two adopted
children, so it's not easy.  But it certainly is worth it!!!

					Larry
					  ~

    re: .39
    
    Larry,
    
    I was wondering why you chose to distinguish between 'your son'
    and the two 'adopted children' that you support?   Would you feel
    comfortable clarifying this?
    
    Regards,
    
    Laura
    

RE: .40

Laura,

	I simply though it would help explain why I have custody of my younger
son and do not have custody of my duaghter and older son.  Apparently it only
caused a different problem.

	My younger son is mine by my second wife, and the two adopted children
are those of my third wife.

					Larry
					  ~

    Did you and your third wife adopt the kids together or were they
    her kids before you married her?
    
    If the former then they are as much your children as they are your
    ex wife's.
    
    Bonnie

Bonnie,

	In answer to .42, They are my third wife's natural children from a
previous marriage.

					Larry
					  ~

I don't remember: did anyone ever respond to the question about terminology?
I like "birthparent", since the opposite is still true: "non-birthparent".
With the terms "natural" and "biological" the opposites are silly: "unnatural"
and "non-biological".  In addition, one could say that "Joey is my child
by birth" or "I am Joey's birthparent/birthmother/birthfather",
with the opposite for the former being "Joey is my child by adoption."

             Carol

    Well Carol, as far as the kids are concerned, I'm comfortable
    with the terms I've used already, my kids, and when asked/or it
    is necessary homegrown/adopted. When talking about their birthmothers
    to my kids I will often say their 'first mother'.
    
    Bonnie

	Getting back to the original topic, opinions across the
	spectrum have already been made, but I still feel the need
	to say something.

	I also think there aren't any easy answers because of the
	variability of the client's ability to afford good child care.
	
	Good day care providers are valuable, important people and should be
	paid well for a hard job well done.  Like any profession, there are
	good and bad examples of providers.  I try my best to find the
	good ones.  Fortunately, I make a salary where it's still makes sense
	for me to work even at "top notch" prices (a whopping $3 per child).
	I know not everyone is in that position, and I don't know the
	answer to that one.

	I helped found and am still involved in an After-School
	Program.  We try to pay the teachers a decent wage commensurate with
	standard teaching salaries (and we could also discuss at another time
	teachers salaries, whether they are enough, and how could they be made
	more merit-oriented), and the tuition comes pretty high, though within
	the range of most after-school programs.  In return we get a
	dedicated staff with little turnaround. We do offer discounts to
	people have problems paying, and we accept voucher payments from DSS.
	We even have one on a full scholarship this year. In some
	sense, those who can afford to pay are subsidizing those who
	can't, but the parents of the children in the program understand this
	and see the need to help out.  We also charge the same amount
	regardeless of when the child is picked up, whether 4pm, 5pm, 6pm, etc.
	We still have to pay those teachers.  Everyone understands this too.
	So far the our non-profit program is breaking even.

						Eileen

    A few months ago, Ellen Goodman, a Boston Globe columnist, wrote
    a piece about the economics of childcare, specifically concerning
    the two income family. In it she asks why it is so automatic that
    the cost of day-care is deducted from the mother's salary. She makes
    a very good case that day care should be deducted from the *total*
    income of the family. That it is simply another *family* expense
    and not the *mother's* expense.                                            
    
    I mention it here because I have seen the same assumption
    made in here a few times; that if the cost of daycare is close to
    what the mother earns, then she should not work.
    
    I had meant to transcribe it into this conference when it first
    appeared, but being a poor typist, and time constraints, etc. etc.
    I am sorry that I don't even remember the date on which it was
    published.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re .47
    Amen, Steve!
    
    I would think it would be "obvious" that the additional expenses brought
    about by having children are expenses of the *family*, not only
    of the woman who bore the children.
    
    I still want to point out (again) that there are other reasons why
    people work, and work in the professions they do, other than strictly
    monetary ones.  Of course, that isn't true of everyone, either,
    but it is not correct to assume that only the monetary rewards are
    important and that most people would choose not to work if money
    weren't an issue.
    

    I strongly agree that "salary" is not always the prime reason
    that a parent works and brings in a second household income.
    
    One of my daughters has just found a beautiful match job-wise:
    
    	She takes college classes in the morning.  In the afternoons,
    	she babysits for the two small children of one of the Seattle
    	Seahawks players, so that the wife can have time to do what
    	SHE enjoys doing, which is helping coach older children in
    	athletics.  
    
    I was amused to note that they are paying my daughter just about
    twice what the wife earns. Of course, my daughter is worth every
    cent... :-)

    The important thing is that *people* (regardless of sex) feel that
    they can make choices about their own lives, and not feel that society
    leaves them with no choice because of some extraneous factor like
    sex.  Otherwise, human potential is being wasted. I'm glad no one
    is actively trying to brainwash me into thinking that now that I
    have remarried, my income is the "secondary household income" just
    because my husband makes more than I do (he is a senior engineer
    here; I am a principal engineer; he still makes more than I do,
    by several thousand a year).  My salary pays the mortgage and utility
    bills, just as it always has.  Life is simply less precarious than
    it used to be (and much more fun).
    
    All my in-laws work in various "nurturing" professions: teaching
    handicapped children, speech therapists, college professors, etc.
    Most of them worked their ways through school doing these things,
    and that's great.  I worked my way through school working in a
    laboratory, where I was the only woman (girl?  I was only 20 when I
    graduated, since I finished college in 3 years while working half
    time).  My roommate worked as a maid in a hotel, where she made more
    than I did, but we were both doing what we preferred to do, like
    my sisters-in-law.
    
    I'm glad I wasn't born 30 years earlier, in my mother's generation
    (she is 30 years older than I am); options like we have today were
    much tougher to come by in those days, so much so that only really
    tough minded women and those with outstanding talent were able to
    buck the current.  But there is a long way to go.  More support
    for day care (both for children and for elderly people) would be
    a big help, which is where this note string started before I got
    us off on this tangent (blush).
    
    /Charlotte                          

    
    I have a question related to this issue. If this is not related
    enough, feel free to move it, Ms. Moderator.
    
    I don't mean to sound direspectful, because at 23 I don't yet
    feel an overwhelming desire to have children, so I realize I can't
    hope to put myself in other people's shoes in this regard; for this
    reson please take the
    following as a sincere question and not a rhetorical attack:
    
    What is the motivation for having children and (for those who do)
    immediately putting them in daycare? Is there enough time to spend
    with them, on weekends and evenings, that it makes it worth having
    the kids in the first place? I think if I had a kid I would want
    to spend more time with him/her, or what's the point? 
    
    Since this issue will probably come up in my life at some point,
    I'd appreciate any perspectives on it.
                                                          
    Roberta

    
    
    Roberta,
    
    I'll attempt to reply, since I'm a mom who had a kid and put him
    in daycare almost immediately.  I hadn't planned it that way, but
    would plan it that way if I had a second one.
    
    I found babies and toddlers, even my own, unbelieveably boring and
    frustrating to deal with.  He was mostly asleep and when he
    was awake, I usually hadn't the foggiest idea what to do with/for/to
    them once basic hygiene and feeding were taken care of.  And he
    couldn't tell me what he wanted to do, either!
                                          
    Once he got to be grade-school age, things improved immensely. 
    He got involved in sports.  He brought home papers from school we
    could talk about.  He started to be his own person, and someone
    that I wanted to get to know and help.  As he has gotten older (he
    is now 15), he has gotten more interesting and fun to be with. 
    Raising him has taught me a lot, not only about myself but about
    topics he is/was interested in that I knew nothing of until he brought
    them home.
    
    Not everyone who wants to be a parent is good with all stages of
    a child's development.  It's important to recognize this, not beat
    yourself up about it if the infant stage isn't *your* best time,
    and do what you can/must to provide the best environment for your
    child.  
    
    			Alison
     

    
    Thanks! That's very interesting.
    
    Funny, I am the opposite from you. I enjoy being around infants more 
    than older kids.
    
    I have a four month old nephew that I could play with all day. I
    love to get a smile out of him! I have also taught piano to kids
    in the grade school years (around ten years old) and although I
    can usually relate to what they are saying, I don't really find
    them terribly interesting. At least with babies I find it can be
    sort of intriguing to try to understand how they "think". And they're
    cute!
    
    So your point makes a lot of sense. And you sound like a terrific
    mom!
    
    Roberta

All but the seemingly most direct headers removed.
	Mez

From:	NAME: Erica Fox                     
	FUNC: Corp. Employee Relations
	TEL: 251-1319             <FOX.ERICA AT A1 AT BARTLE AT CFO>
Date:	11-Jul-1989
Posted-date: 12-Jul-1989
Precedence: 1
Subject: CHILD CARE UPDATE
To:	LEE PLEDGER @WFR
CC:	SALLY CUNNINGHAM @NYO,
	LAURIE MARGOLIES @CFO,
	CYNDI BLOOM @PKO




Lee:

Laurie Margolies asked that as Child Care Program Manager, I respond to your 
request for an update on current Child Care/Dependent Care policy and 
initiatives.

Let me start by saying that there has much activity in this area over the last 
several months!  Corporate Employee Relations has been involved in developing 
an overall strategy, to provide Digital with a context we can use to evaluate 
specific child care/dependent care proposals. Our objectives have been to take 
leadership in the area of child care/dependent care; to clarify the current 
Corporate position on these issues and to determine what needs to be done to 
move the Corporation forward.

The strategy actually has three components. The first is an umbrella or "Life 
Balance Strategy" which states that the Company can help employees perform at 
their peak, at and away from work, by providing a flexible work environment, 
as well as supportive policies and programs. This "Life Balance Strategy" is 
complemented by more detailed strategies on Dependent Care and Alternative 
Work.    

We presented the strategies, as well as a detailed proposal on child care, to 
the PMC at the end of April. ( Mainly because of funding issues, we have not 
yet proposed or implemented initiatives to support employees caring for 
elderly, ill or disabled dependents.) 

The Child Care Proposal was designed to encourage Digital to expand its 
response to child care. In the "range of responses", we included on or near 
site child care, direct employee subsidy, and involvement in legislative 
efforts which impact overall child care quality and affordability. The 
proposal did not "pitch" one type of program, rather, we wanted to get 
approval of all the options. In addition to presenting possible options, we 
also presented specific proposals from Holland and the UK. The Dutch proposal 
requested Digital participate in a direct child care subsidy program (common 
practice in the Netherlands). The UK proposed that Digital fund the start-up 
of a near-site child care center in Reading England. 

Our plan was to get conceptual approval for the proposal, and then for 
Corporate ER to assess child care need/proposals coming from the various 
locations and determine in which communities to pilot program models.
Implementation of programs in specific locations would be determined by local 
business needs and critical child care issues. 

The PMC said they were impressed by the thoroughness of our work, but, to no 
one's surprise, they felt that the business conditions in the US were not 
conducive to additional investments/ expanded response in the area of child 
care, when many of our major competitors offered "packages" similar to ours. 
They noted that competitive conditions and the business climate were 
significantly different in Europe, and they (and the FCDC) were willing to 
approve the Dutch proposal. The UK proposal is being investigated further.

We believe that the local organizations play a key role child care's next 
phase at Digital. We ask that if senior personnel/line management support for 
child care does exist, if the need is truly there (rather than a "nice to 
have" situation) groups contact their PMC/Exec Committee member. Let them know 
that business need does exist, that it does makes sense for Digital to invest 
in child care in your particular community.

In addition, organizations can work collaboratively with Community Relations, 
and their local Resource and Referral Agency to impact the supply and quality 
of child care right now. Both can help you in identifying child care needs (if 
this needs doing) , designing programs or solutions, and identifying allies 
(other businesses, government or community organizations) in the community who 
might join or fund your efforts.  

We're hoping that the deliberate effort described above will uncover new 
possibilities for Digital. Obviously, the greater the money, the more that can 
be done. Several years ago, for example, a group of 20 corporations formed a 
task force to address the shortage of child care in Charlotte, N.C. (IBM was 
one of them.) Their efforts and pooled funds resulted in the start-up of 3 new 
child care centers and many new jobs.

Best regards,

    This was forwarded to me in mail.
    
---------------------Forwarded item dated 2-APR-1990 11:33---------------------

From:	SYZYGY::SOPKA "Smiling Jack  02-Apr-1990 1123"
To:	@FRIENDS
CC:	
Subj:	interesting article on child care in SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW

"The ABCs of Child Care: Building Blocks of Competitive Advantage"
Linda Thiede Thomas and James E. Thomas
SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW  Winter 90  p. 31-41

"Many executives have misconceptions about child care services -- that they 
are perks for top-brass women, say, rather than strategically important 
benefits that can lower costs and increase profitability.  Adequate, large-
scale chlid care services do not exist in this country, and that lack is 
generating productivity and morale problems for parents and for parents' 
employers.  Corporations cannot completely address the need by themselves, 
but they can benefit substantially by addressing it at all.  This article 
offers strategic justification for supporting child care services, reviews 
myths and realities about corporate-supported child care, gives a menu of 
usable services and work-scheduling policies, and presents a step-by-step 
game plan for getting started."

    
    From Digital This Week, Vol 17, # 16, April 3 1990

DIGITAL GUIDELINES FOR CHILD CARE INITIATIVES
---------------------------------------------
    
The company has already taken steps to support employees' child care needs,
including the Child Care Resource and Referral Program and the Dependent
Care Reimbursement Account, both of which are for U.S. employees.

The Child Care Resource and Referral Program helps employees find the type
and location of care they want for their children or children from infancy
through age 15.

Employees in the U.S. who participate in the Dependent Care Reimbursement
Account set aside a portion of their pretax income - anywhere form $10 to
$151 a week - in an account earmarked for payment of dependent care
expenses.  The money is deducted before federal income and Social Security,
and in some localities, state and local taxes are calculated and withheld.


"Digital Guidelines for Child Care Initiatives' are the basis from which the
company can expand its response to child care problems worldwide.  Now
organizations across the company can collaborate with the Child Care
Program office to determine the response that makes the most sense, given
their specific business needs and employee child care needs.

A wide range of solutions is possible, according to Erica Fox, Child care
Program manager, "Local organizations might fund five emergency "places" at
a local day care center that parents could use when their own care provider
is sick.  Or they may decide to support the startup of a near-worksite
child care center."

According to the guidelines, individual organizations within the company can
propose and fund programs based on local business needs and employee child
care needs.  Proposals should address key child care problems, such as
availability, affordability and quality.  any child care initiatives should
support and strengthen existing child care resources in the community.

The proposal must be driven by "compelling business needs' in the
organization, such as a decline in productivity and/or an increase in
absenteeism which can be linked to employees' problems in locating or
maintaining satisfactory child care.

"We feel that there are multiple solutions to employees' child care
problems," Erica says.  "They key is to ensure that local responses are
driven by both business needs and employee child care needs."