April 19, 20232 yr The long term answer, if we want a prosperous future, will lay in automation and artificial intelligence, and economic reforms to make sure the benefits of those are widely shared by all. Unfortunately, I have little faith in the last of those happening.
April 19, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Gramarye said: I'm surprised that that number isn't higher. Let's make it 200 million for the sake of argument. I'd think we could get 80 million from India alone. Though I admit I have a rather high opinion of America so I may be overselling it in my mind. If we wish into existence science fiction powers, teleporters to bring every single one of those people here and matter replicators and skyscraper-sized 3D printers to provide every single one of them a residence (preferably in a mixed-use midrise in a walkable urban neighborhood with quality transit and biking options), but change nothing else, it merely gets us closer to being what China is today: large in population but still circling the demographic drain. Moreover, we just took 200 million people away from other countries that are likewise also likely facing similar problems, and while I'm comfortable calling myself an American nationalist, we ought to at least consider the consequences of solving our problems on the backs of everyone else. We might well go ahead and do it anyway, but we should at least think for a moment first. Heck, suppose we used our hypothetical sci-fi powers and simply annexed Canada. Poof! We just increased our population by almost 40 million. But we actually make the demographic trend slightly worse adding their 1.40 TFR into ours. Suppose we annexed Mexico on top of that--make USMCA into an empire instead of a trade bloc. Poof again! We just added another 125-130 million ... that are also below replacement TFR (1.90, so a little above ours but not much). This is under the assumption that we want to maintain or increase our population. Given our birth rates if we want to maintain or increase then we need immigration. This is dependent on what most of the nation wants-population loss, population maintenance, or population growth. And yes we want young and skilled(but mostly young) to give us an advantageous population pyramid-we don't want it to become too top heavy with too many retirees and not enough workers, I am not putting AI into the equation at this point as I don't have great information(does anyone?)on what it's impact will be. *And yes, we will always have illegal immigration but we should strive for well educated talented young people emigrating here and yes, that will be a loss for some other nation. We have to look out for our wellbeing first IMO. I hope that is not too selfish. I don't want to see us at the point that China, Japan, South Korea, etc. are at. We don't birth our young workers/children, we import them I guess. *I was also surprised at the number-it was something like 82 million but I also thought it would be much higher. Of course 80 million people moving here within the next five years would be a catastrophe, a disaster for us. Edited April 19, 20232 yr by Toddguy
April 19, 20232 yr Well if they wanted people with degrees to have kids they could have made getting white-collar jobs more like the skilled trades where you just show up and they show you how to do the job over the course of a year or two instead of requiring you to have already done that exact job for 15 years then add a coding requirement like white-collar ones do. That's what they did before the dot com bust.
April 19, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, GCrites80s said: If AI really takes off nearly 100% of jobs will be blue collar. That Boston Scientific dog will fetch dropped remote controls in the nursing home.
April 19, 20232 yr On 4/18/2023 at 9:28 AM, Brutus_buckeye said: Shawn Kemp, Pokey Reese, and Nick Cannon Mick Jagger has 8 kids between 4 or 5 wives/girlfriends: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/19039901/how-many-children-does-mick-jagger-have/ His current girlfriend is significantly younger (35) than his oldest daughter (53), and might be good to pop out one or two more for the 'ol Mickster.
May 10, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, Lazarus said: A guy from my high school lunch table retakes the leaderboard: Amateur hour numbers. Last year, another family at my church just had their ninth baptized. 😎 But this is unfortunately a situation in which data trumps anecdotes. And we don't need a bunch more 6-9 child families. What we want is to enable American parents to actually have the family sizes they say they want: Quote As a result, the gap between the number of children that women say they want to have (2.7) and the number of children they will probably actually have (1.8) has risen to the highest level in 40 years. (From 1972 to 2016, men have expressed almost exactly the same ideal fertility rates as women: In a given year, they average just 0.04 children below what women say is ideal.) (This NYT article was from 2018, so that 1.8 has unfortunately dropped further, to 1.6-ish now.) The issue isn't that a lot of people want nine and don't get there. The issue is that a lot of people want three and don't get there, and in addition to them being happier if they did, we'd be much better off as a country if they did.
May 10, 20232 yr I imagine a lot of women who say they want 3 or 4 kids when they are 20 wouldn't agree with that number at 40 when they stop at 1 or 2.
May 10, 20232 yr 58 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: I imagine a lot of women who say they want 3 or 4 kids when they are 20 wouldn't agree with that number at 40 when they stop at 1 or 2. So the NYT article didn't say this, but I think another place I saw these numbers, they were asking post-menopausal women, i.e., those they could be sure were done, how many kids they wish they could have had. Good question, though. I would be very interested to see if these numbers were different by age, and if so, whether those differed by age cohort (i.e., trend from 20-year-olds in 1990 vs. 50-year olds in 2020) or merely by age (i.e., 20-year-olds in 2020 and 50-year-olds also in 2020).
May 10, 20232 yr On 4/19/2023 at 10:22 AM, Lazarus said: Can't leave "Dakota" out of this conversation. Was it even semi-common before Dakota Fanning? She's won awards for a role she played at 7, over 20 years ago.
May 10, 20232 yr 22 minutes ago, E Rocc said: Was it even semi-common before Dakota Fanning? She's won awards for a role she played at 7, over 20 years ago. I don't know who that is. I don't watch TV or movies. One of my friends used to do a strip club DJ impersonation, and he especially liked to introduce "now appearing on the south stage...Dakota".
May 10, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, Lazarus said: I don't know who that is. I don't watch TV or movies. One of my friends used to do a strip club DJ impersonation, and he especially liked to introduce "now appearing on the south stage...Dakota".
May 10, 20232 yr On 2/20/2023 at 11:49 AM, Lazarus said: I absolutely never heard of a nanny as a real, going concern, until recently. It was something from a bygone era, like a chimney sweep. you aren't alone. speaking in generalities here, but the background is often midwesterners in particular have no idea about wealth. not lotto winners or the big boss, i mean enormous, generational wealth. it's like that old saw that trump is a poor person's idea of a rich man. i mean, babysitters sure, there can't possibly be live in foreign nannies anymore. except no. turns out nannies are very, very common. over 1.1M in the usa alone. only thing is they are most often to be found in areas where these longtime wealthy types live and hang around. out here in certain areas of nyc you literally bump into them all day during workdays left and right on the streets. but also, nannies are very much in ohio too. i used to hang out with a big clique of european nannies in columbus ... err, before i met my spouse. 😂
May 10, 20232 yr 28 minutes ago, mrnyc said: turns out nannies are very, very common. over 1.1M in the usa alone. Your figure is likely the total number of childcare workers, although I'm also seeing an article that places that number at 575,000: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4982205&page=1 I'm seeing 150,000~ nannies, which seems like a much more realistic number, although they might be including seasonal nannies. I know a UC grad who is worked as a nanny in Italy last summer and is doing it again this summer, so I assume that some nannies in the United States only do it during their summer break.
May 10, 20232 yr 10 minutes ago, Lazarus said: Your figure is likely the total number of childcare workers, although I'm also seeing an article that places that number at 575,000: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4982205&page=1 I'm seeing 150,000~ nannies, which seems like a much more realistic number, although they might be including seasonal nannies. I know a UC grad who is worked as a nanny in Italy last summer and is doing it again this summer, so I assume that some nannies in the United States only do it during their summer break. nope -- According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, there are over 1.1 million nannies employed nationwide.
May 10, 20232 yr On 4/19/2023 at 9:58 AM, ryanlammi said: the answer is so obviously increasing immigration. But people don't want to hear that. There are real overpopulation concerns in countries where birth rates are the highest. Not enough jobs to fulfill the population's needs. Then there are countries like ours, most of Europe, Japan, soon China, that have unfilled jobs (usually entry level and trades) that immigrants would happily take. But we artificially restrict immigration and only let in the highly skilled, educated immigrants, or we let in (not enough) migrant farmers for a limited time and then force them to leave and apply for a new visa. very true, but the thing is the current legal foreign born is around 15% of the usa population, which is the same at it was during peak usa euro immigration decades of 1860s-1920s. so despite ups and downs of annual immigration overall it is much improved already from recent decades. that said, we can take in many more legally and in fact it is going to need to be much higher regardless as the current illegal immigration is off the charts. two million last year i heard? can that be true??? and likely much more to come in the coming months per what you hear lately. it seems to be true as mayor adams is all hands on deck about it out here in in nyc the news, including reopening the roosevelt hotel near grand central for immigrants. that can only help this cause, albeit there are of course a lot other concerns about a de facto open borders situation.
May 10, 20232 yr 9 minutes ago, mrnyc said: nope -- According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, there are over 1.1 million nannies employed nationwide. That can't possibly be true.
May 12, 20232 yr On 5/10/2023 at 4:33 PM, Lazarus said: That can't possibly be true. yeah, 'zippia' vs your uncle sam. ok. 😅
May 12, 20232 yr Bring them in-so many are young and eager to work and build a life. We need them and I want to see the US population hit 400 million. We can absorb them-that is what we do best-that is our way, our creed-it is part of Americana.
May 12, 20232 yr ^ yup, immigration should be much, much higher. birth rates have also fallen off, so we need new blood all over. but it does have to be some kind of orderly process, which is of course the problem politically and seems almost impossible sadly. and we can't get anyone to work anymore in any jobs, so i would imagine government border related support jobs struggle with hiring too.
May 12, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, mrnyc said: yeah, 'zippia' vs your uncle sam. ok. 😅 They appear to be using a very loose definition of "nanny", i.e. any sort of babysitter. A nanny lives in the house full-time, cooks food, does laundry, and maybe gets one day off per week. They might travel with the family on trips. It's not someone who comes over and watches the kids regularly or semi-regularly.
May 12, 20232 yr Just now, Lazarus said: They appear to be using a very loose definition of "nanny", i.e. any sort of babysitter. A nanny lives in the house full-time, cooks food, does laundry, and maybe gets one day off per week. They might travel with the family on trips. It's not someone who comes over and watches the kids regularly or semi-regularly. like anything, your personal assumprtions and definitions may vary from your uncle sam's.
May 12, 20232 yr ^ regardless, whether or not they are half million or five million current nannies or whatever in the states, clearly nannies are very common and not some relic of history as you have just discovered for yourself. your own experience with that is what was limited.
May 12, 20232 yr oh gee, rather than being so stubborn, take a look at what one more moment of googling uncovers ... 😂 cute name for this ... and it wasn't the only one. https://cincynanny.com
May 12, 20232 yr 46 minutes ago, mrnyc said: ^ yup, immigration should be much, much higher. birth rates have also fallen off, so we need new blood all over. but it does have to be some kind of orderly process, which is of course the problem politically and seems almost impossible sadly. and we can't get anyone to work anymore in any jobs, so i would imagine government border related support jobs struggle with hiring too. Yes, we don't need another Mariel boatlift. But it should be higher and open to more people.
May 12, 20232 yr nanny. noun. nan·ny ˈnan-ē : a woman who is paid to care for a young child usually in the child's home. They don't have to live there 6 days a week, but they need to be more ongoing and intensive than a babysitter IMO. I am laughing at the great nanny debate! :)
May 12, 20232 yr 48 minutes ago, Toddguy said: nanny. noun. nan·ny ˈnan-ē : a woman who is paid to care for a young child usually in the child's home. They don't have to live there 6 days a week, but they need to be more ongoing and intensive than a babysitter IMO. I am laughing at the great nanny debate! :) I just asked several people around the office. Nobody has heard of anyone ever having had a "nanny". Maybe the rise of the term "nanny" to refer to a babysitter is just a humble brag sort of thing (I have important things to do and so much money that I can hire a nanny), or to make it sound like the babysitter is doing more than they are. I mean, they pretty much just sit there. I pretty much just remember babysitters watching TV and tying up the phone line with hour-long conversations re: soap operas to their girlfriends. We had a male babysitter 2-3 time, Matt. He'd bring over WWF wrestling tapes. I remember him bringing over the first Royal Rumble.
May 12, 20232 yr My wife works in finance and I can tell you that nannies are much more common than I ever thought... at least in that demographic. I'm in engineering / manufacturing and it's obviously much less common in my field, but I can tell you that I knew at least a few other engineers that had nannies. Universally nannies were in dual high income households and more often than not both parents were travelling significantly for work.
May 12, 20232 yr 8 hours ago, mrnyc said: ^ yup, immigration should be much, much higher. birth rates have also fallen off, so we need new blood all over. but it does have to be some kind of orderly process, which is of course the problem politically and seems almost impossible sadly. Well, I'm pretty sure the "orderly process" for new children via birth has been pretty much the same for 300,000+ years ... But with respect to immigration, yes, an orderly process would be a substantial improvement. 8 hours ago, Lazarus said: They appear to be using a very loose definition of "nanny", i.e. any sort of babysitter. A nanny lives in the house full-time, cooks food, does laundry, and maybe gets one day off per week. They might travel with the family on trips. It's not someone who comes over and watches the kids regularly or semi-regularly. What you describe as the "loose" definition of nanny is also the one used by Care.com, which I believe is the largest childcare-hiring site, and where we found the nanny that was with us for the longest during the pandemic: https://www.care.com/c/babysitter-nanny-definition/ The real difference is in the amount of expectations the employer has--and the concomitant amount of control they exercise. From a legal perspective, most likely, that means that a babysitter is a contract employee ("just keep my kids alive until I get back, thanks"), and a nanny is very likely to meet the definition of a W-2 employee. For our nanny during the pandemic, I had to file a Schedule H, pay Social Security and FICA and unemployment taxes. I had to get a personal EIN, and had to get a W-4 from her and give her a W-2. There was no way she didn't qualify, even if she didn't live under our roof: she worked at our house 40+ hours a week, and we worked with her to develop age-appropriate lesson plans for each of our three kids to minimize pandemic-lockdown learning loss--she was a teacher, not just a barebones caregiver. Our youngest began potty training during the pandemic, too, and helping with that was part of what she did for us--not just asking us how his potty training was going and taking it as a given. We set targets for outdoor play for the kids, maximum amounts of TV time for the kids, etc. It would be very much underselling her role to call her a "full-time babysitter" even though she didn't live under our roof. I introduced her to others as our nanny and, when the time came for her to move on, if anyone called for a reference or a letter of recommendation, I used the term as well, and I don't think I was exaggerating at all. 6 hours ago, Hootenany said: My wife works in finance and I can tell you that nannies are much more common than I ever thought... at least in that demographic. I'm in engineering / manufacturing and it's obviously much less common in my field, but I can tell you that I knew at least a few other engineers that had nannies. Universally nannies were in dual high income households and more often than not both parents were travelling significantly for work. To actually bring this back (at least somewhat) to the subject of fertility rates: It's not just about two high incomes, though of course that's the setup for which it makes the most sense. The number of children you have also makes an enormous difference in the cost-effectiveness, because you generally pay a nanny a nearly-flat rate regardless of the number of children you have. It's close to a salaried position. When the pandemic hit, our youngest was less than a year old, and because our children arrived somewhat close together, we actually had three at below kindergarten age at that point, so still in daycare. Our nanny was actually cheaper than daycare for three (which runs about $1000/mo/child at the place we use)--but would have been more expensive than daycare for two. However, on one issue, our situation was exactly the opposite from the one you described: during the pandemic, we were emphatically not traveling for work. We were not going anywhere--and neither were our kids. And that was exactly the problem. We told the nanny that the kids could get into the tool shed, the wine cellar, the liquor cabinet, the circuit breaker box, the ravine behind the house, or follow a clown down the storm drain out front, but don't let them into the home office.
May 12, 20232 yr 58 minutes ago, Lazarus said: I just asked several people around the office. Nobody has heard of anyone ever having had a "nanny". Maybe the rise of the term "nanny" to refer to a babysitter is just a humble brag sort of thing (I have important things to do and so much money that I can hire a nanny), or to make it sound like the babysitter is doing more than they are. I mean, they pretty much just sit there. I pretty much just remember babysitters watching TV and tying up the phone line with hour-long conversations re: soap operas to their girlfriends. We had a male babysitter 2-3 time, Matt. He'd bring over WWF wrestling tapes. I remember him bringing over the first Royal Rumble. Even if there are a million of them that just means that there are 334 million other people here who are not "nannies". I never knew anyone who had one, but people with higher incomes do use people in positions that really are more like real jobs(part or full time)and they really can't be thrown in with "babysitter". At the same time I am sure they are not all like Fran Drescher or something like that. There is a gradation that exists, where to draw the line? *I had a great babysitter and she still lives across the street from where I lived and I just visited her last week. We fight about politics and then just laugh it off. On topic, will you breeders please start pushing out some more spawn? You will find a way to get by financially-"hard times is good for people"(Joan Crawford quote, best mother evar.)
May 13, 20232 yr 6 hours ago, Toddguy said: Even if there are a million of them that just means that there are 334 million other people here who are not "nannies". I never knew anyone who had one, but people with higher incomes do use people in positions that really are more like real jobs(part or full time)and they really can't be thrown in with "babysitter". At the same time I am sure they are not all like Fran Drescher or something like that. There is a gradation that exists, where to draw the line? *I had a great babysitter and she still lives across the street from where I lived and I just visited her last week. We fight about politics and then just laugh it off. On topic, will you breeders please start pushing out some more spawn? You will find a way to get by financially-"hard times is good for people"(Joan Crawford quote, best mother evar.) i think of a nanny as more live in, or at least at first. and it seems most often as a foreigner. its a good way to see the states. or so they told me. prior to columbus, i knew a couple foreign nannies who did that in chagrin falls, then came to college at bgsu. also at bg i knew someone from cleveland who moved to nyc right after college and became a nanny for a year or so for that couple from the talking heads band.
May 13, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, mrnyc said: i think of a nanny as more live in, or at least at first. and it seems most often as a foreigner. its a good way to see the states. or so they told me. I think this is what we call an au pair to distinguish from a regular nanny. And that does tend to be a more exclusive and rarer arrangement, likely something you'll see a lot more of in NYC than even the wealthiest Ohio burbs.
May 13, 20232 yr I will chime in this fertility rate / child care / family size discussion. I am a young X'er with 3 kids. Like Gramarye, we went the nanny route when we had our second. Our nanny's were equal in cost to two kids in daycare. They came to our house 8-5pm, full time with pay check and all. We had to establish ourselves as an "employer". Only a small percentage of nanny's are "live-in". Nanny definition in my mind is someone who dedicates taking care of a child at the family's home as a career. Nanny's are mostly used for couples that have two or more children, has a child requiring special care, or parents who need child care outside of the traditional 7-6pm M-F time frame. Lots work nights and weekends. We used a local nanny agency for our first nanny and care.com for our last one. We maintain our relationship with each even years later. Our youngest is in early elementary now. The nanny numbers listed are too low. Like many professions and employment numbers in general under counted, we knew a number who are paid "under the table". Child care is underpaid and many need to take whatever advantage they can get. The nannys we hired were in relationships that can provide a second income and benefits. We didn't want to be the sole provider to one's household income. Child care and it's cost, college debt, life delays, and commitment are all influencing family sizes. Social norms and economics all play a roll. I don't think there is one solution. Love the discussion.
June 2, 20232 yr On 5/12/2023 at 11:24 PM, Gramarye said: I think this is what we call an au pair to distinguish from a regular nanny. And that does tend to be a more exclusive and rarer arrangement, likely something you'll see a lot more of in NYC than even the wealthiest Ohio burbs. actually, i learned that from nannies in columbus in the early 90s, who were all foreign.
June 2, 20232 yr On 5/12/2023 at 11:24 PM, Gramarye said: I think this is what we call an au pair to distinguish from a regular nanny. And that does tend to be a more exclusive and rarer arrangement, likely something you'll see a lot more of in NYC than even the wealthiest Ohio burbs. There are big Au Pair communities in most large and mid-sized cities. You just have to be involved with them to know how the process works. I know a bunch of friends who have Au-Pairs and it is quite an interesting thing. Most of the time, these are college age students who take 1-2 years off school to come over for an "american adventure" They typically have a student visa or something similar (not completely sure which Visa it is) that lets them work as an Au-Pair in the states for up to 2 years. There are strict rules for families with Au-Pairs regarding the hours they are allowed to work and time off. Just because they live in the house, you cant have them working all hours of the day and night. From what I understand, they typically work during the day and after 7PM they are considered "off the clock" which means if the family goes out to dinner, the Au-Pair cannot babysit unless they are paid extra. If the family travels, the Au-Pair has the choice to accompany the family on travels in some cases (oftentimes they do, because they get to see different parts of the country that way). The Au-Pair will get time off as well and they can mingle with the Au-Pair community and do activities. It is not a bad gig for the Au-Pair on the whole. Many initially are attracted to come to the US and want to be in the big cities like NY, DC, LA, etc, because that is what they know. However, when they actually get involved in the process, many will look at mid sized markets and even smaller markets like Dayton because they get a much better quality of life, often will have a bigger house and more private space, more money, and more ability to travel, etc. Like anything, communities form and once a foothold from one country is established, it is easier to get others from that country to come to a particular area. From what people have told me, like anything, there are good and bad Au-Pairs and anytime you have an 18-20 year old you have to deal with immaturity issues that come with it. Some are good, some are terrible and get sent back midway through their term. There are a few of them that have the goal to meet an American husband so they can remain in the US. It is quite an interesting program.
December 1, 20231 yr Here's a new article that incorporates many of the ideas that have appeared in the last year of this thread that maintains that much of the various things that governments all over the world have tried to raise birthrates has proven ineffective: You can’t even pay people to have more kids These countries tried everything from cash to patriotic calls to duty to reverse drastically declining birth rates. It didn’t work. https://www.vox.com/23971366/declining-birth-rate-fertility-babies-children In the US, the birth rate has been falling since the Great Recession, dropping almost 23 percent between 2007 and 2022. Today, the average American woman has about 1.6 children, down from three in 1950, and significantly below the “replacement rate” of 2.1 children needed to sustain a stable population. In Italy, 12 people now die for every seven babies born. In South Korea, the birth rate is down to 0.81 children per woman. In China, after decades of a strictly enforced one-child policy, the population is shrinking for the first time since the 1960s. In Taiwan, the birth rate stands at 0.87.... ...“Even the richest, savviest, most committed governments have struggled to find policies that produce sustained bumps in fertility,” Trent MacNamara, a history professor at Texas A&M who has written about fertility rates, told Vox in an email. “If such policies were discoverable, I think someone would have discovered them.” So basically, the help cannot be under the category of "aid". About the only thing that works is making sure people have good jobs that aren't utterly life-dominating so that they can trust their situation and to keep costs down rather than lean on aid. Instead of trying to boost birth rates, experts say lawmakers should focus on policies that allow people to have the families they want, regardless of size. “We need to invest in people and their success,” Gemmill said. In the US, that means measures to improve access to high-quality jobs, paid leave, and affordable child care, as well as supporting families in the transition to parenthood. “We always hear that it takes a village, but that village is just not what it used to be,” Gemmill said. “It just seems like everything’s set up to be very hostile to parents.”
December 5, 20231 yr On 11/30/2023 at 8:46 PM, GCrites said: “We always hear that it takes a village, but that village is just not what it used to be,” Gemmill said. “It just seems like everything’s set up to be very hostile to parents.” My friends, a couple living in Seoul, Korea, recently had a baby. The mother just finished up her paid 15 month maternity leave. (Fathers are eligible for several months of paid leave as well, but I'm told that most men don't actually take it unless they are already planning to leave their current job and want some extra PTO on the way out--alas, the system is not perfect.) After birth, the mother and child spent about 2 week at a "post-natal hotel" where the mother can recover comfortably and high quality child care is provided when the mother and baby aren't together. After that, home child care is also provided standard, so the mother can leave the house to run errands or maybe just have a relaxing day. Sounds like the type of policies that other countries might want to adopt if they want their citizens' birth rate to increase.
December 5, 20231 yr 36 minutes ago, taestell said: Sounds like the type of policies that other countries might want to adopt if they want their citizens' birth rate to increase. I prefer babies to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, thank you very much. And you don't need all that fancy stuff so long as you have prayer and church. /s
December 5, 20231 yr 38 minutes ago, taestell said: My friends, a couple living in Seoul, Korea, recently had a baby. The mother just finished up her paid 15 month maternity leave. (Fathers are eligible for several months of paid leave as well, but I'm told that most men don't actually take it unless they are already planning to leave their current job and want some extra PTO on the way out--alas, the system is not perfect.) After birth, the mother and child spent about 2 week at a "post-natal hotel" where the mother can recover comfortably and high quality child care is provided when the mother and baby aren't together. After that, home child care is also provided standard, so the mother can leave the house to run errands or maybe just have a relaxing day. Sounds like the type of policies that other countries might want to adopt if they want their citizens' birth rate to increase. South Korea in general has one of the worst work life balances of any industrialized country. They typically work at least 6 days a week and 10 hour days. The child benefit is nice, but they definitely work around the clock over there.
December 5, 20231 yr Quote My friends, a couple living in Seoul, Korea, recently had a baby. The mother just finished up her paid 15 month maternity leave. (Fathers are eligible for several months of paid leave as well, but I'm told that most men don't actually take it unless they are already planning to leave their current job and want some extra PTO on the way out--alas, the system is not perfect.) After birth, the mother and child spent about 2 week at a "post-natal hotel" where the mother can recover comfortably and high quality child care is provided when the mother and baby aren't together. After that, home child care is also provided standard, so the mother can leave the house to run errands or maybe just have a relaxing day. Sounds like the type of policies that other countries might want to adopt if they want their citizens' birth rate to increase. And that's not so much "aid", it's just keeping work from ruining the postpartum situation. Edited December 6, 20231 yr by GCrites
December 5, 20231 yr 39 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said: South Korea in general has one of the worst work life balances of any industrialized country. They typically work at least 6 days a week and 10 hour days. The child benefit is nice, but they definitely work around the clock over there. Sure in agrarian times this still led to babies but in modern times it leads to loneliness, isolation and no babies. Hence S. Korea's rock-bottom TFR.
September 12, 2024Sep 12 Trump sells himself as a ‘leader’ on IVF, angering some Republicans Donald Trump pitched himself as a “leader” on in vitro fertilization during his Tuesday debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. His plans are angering swaths of the Republican Party. The former president, eager to deflect attacks that his election would threaten fertility care, has gone so far as to pledge free IVF treatments to all Americans, paid for either by insurance companies or the federal government. Schumer cornering GOP on Trump IVF plan Schumer will force Senate Republicans to vote on a measure that mirrors former President Trump's proposal to mandate insurance coverage of IVF treatments. The IVF bill will hit the Senate floor over the next two weeks, a source familiar with the plans told Axios. Senate Republicans are likely to kill it.
November 7, 2024Nov 7 welp we don’t to fret about fertility rates anymore. welcome back to trumpworld — they’re already out there on social media with your body, MY choice and bumped up hitler posts, etc.. ay oh way to go ohio voters.
November 9, 2024Nov 9 On 11/7/2024 at 11:34 AM, mrnyc said: doc sabine chimes in on this topic — If I had to power to issue mandates I would mandate that for the next three generations, ALL White women have at least four children. I name White women because that is the demographic in collapse. If all of the other groups want to join in that's fine as well.
November 9, 2024Nov 9 ^ if i had the power i’d mandate you to the cornfield. you are frightening. did you miss how sabine showed there have been all kinds of mandates and stunts to promote having children in the west and none of them work? but you know what is happening? women are choosing to not have sex and are stocking up on contraceptives and abortion pills. edit: Trump's election has women swearing off sex with men. It's called the 4B movement. Charles Trepany USA TODAY https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2024/11/08/trumps-election-has-women-swearing-off-sex-inside-the-4b-movement/76131121007/ *** Should You Be Stockpiling the Morning-After Pill? Many Women Are BY MARGAUX ANBOUBA November 7, 2024 https://www.vogue.com/article/women-stockpiling-morning-after-pill-election-trump Edited November 9, 2024Nov 9 by mrnyc
Create an account or sign in to comment