Childcare, an impossible paradox

Their contract is over, they leave. It's pretty easy.

Who would you get to do a critical job for only 12 weeks and then leave? I am not talking about trained chimp type jobs but something that takes experience and skill, something like management or something that requires a professional degree.

I am specifically talking about private companies, places that are small enough not to have every position in triplicate. I am definitely not talking about government style bureaucracy where nobody really does anything.
 
Who would you get to do a critical job for only 12 weeks and then leave? I am not talking about trained chimp type jobs but something that takes experience and skill, something like management or something that requires a professional degree.

I am specifically talking about private companies, places that are small enough not to have every position in triplicate. I am definitely not talking about government style bureaucracy where nobody really does anything.

Have you ever heard of a temp agency?
 
Who would you get to do a critical job for only 12 weeks and then leave? I am not talking about trained chimp type jobs but something that takes experience and skill, something like management or something that requires a professional degree.

I am specifically talking about private companies, places that are small enough not to have every position in triplicate. I am definitely not talking about government style bureaucracy where nobody really does anything.

You have a point. But as a whole, it's a point that only pertains to a small number of people and jobs. The number one reason why most jobs pay peanuts is because most job are interchangeable.
 
Have you ever heard of a temp agency?

A temp agency can fill the trained chimp sort of jobs but it can't fill important positions.

Positions you can't get filled at a temp agency:
1.) Anything involving management
2.) Anything involving privileged information
3.) Anything with fiscal responsibility

These are the types of jobs that I am talking about.
 
A temp agency can fill the trained chimp sort of jobs but it can't fill important positions.

Positions you can't get filled at a temp agency:
1.) Anything involving management
2.) Anything involving privileged information
3.) Anything with fiscal responsibility

These are the types of jobs that I am talking about.

Just checked a couple temp agency sites, those are all included in the positions you can get.
 
Just checked a couple temp agency sites, those are all included in the positions you can get.

Ok here is the scenario: you are the owner of a small business. Your accounts manager is going on 12 week paternity leave, the position has access to your companies bank and credit lines. Are you going to trust that to a random stranger from a temp agency?

Replace the above with division manager, project superintendent or whatever position you want. Temp agencies can fill the easily replaced, fill a slot on an org chart, seat warmer chimp type jobs.

If a temp was that good they would have a real job.

Most jobs probably could be replaced with a temp but there are plenty that could not. It is these jobs that would be adversely affected by guaranteeing men 12 weeks of paternity leave as well as women. Companies can minimize their exposure to this risk by not hiring women for these types of positions, how would they control the risk if men could do the same? Only hire homosexuals?
 
There is enough redundancy and with the internet that such jobs can be held for that person without them even being filled by a temp employee. In a mobile society there is no need to be tied to any certain location, and people who go out on leave if necessary can still be contacted and give support even though they are not physically in the office.
 
Ok here is the scenario: you are the owner of a small business. Your accounts manager is going on 12 week paternity leave, the position has access to your companies bank and credit lines. Are you going to trust that to a random stranger from a temp agency?

Replace the above with division manager, project superintendent or whatever position you want. Temp agencies can fill the easily replaced, fill a slot on an org chart, seat warmer chimp type jobs.

I see no reason why a temp can't fit those roles. Business is rarely based on trusting the employee beyond an initial probationary period. Most businesses have the employee sign a contract which clearly states that the employee will need to keep everything to themselves and if they don't they'll be taken to court. What's the biggest risk? Funneling company funds secretly to their own account? That happens even in the most trustworthy of business relationships.

Your understanding of what a temp agency does is incredibly flawed.

If a temp was that good they would have a real job.

That is laughable. You hold no understanding of the job market or temp agencies.
 
Yeah, there is an entire cottage industry of temporary accountants. Software developers, lawyers, and other high skill, white collar, sensitive information positions also often work on temporary assignments, including those on 12 week cycles. Even management can be brought on in such a temporary basis. That's part of what business consultants ARE, after all.

I've hired two developers and one business analyst since I've started at my firm who worked approximately 12 week contracts.

FWIW, the US doesn't *really* mandate maternity leave at all, as there are several conditions for which the FMLA act does not apply (i.e, the firm has less than 50 employees, employee worked less than 1,250 hours over the last 12 months, etc). The mandated leave is also unpaid, so there is a fairly powerful incentive to not take the entire time if you're a mom.

A small handful of states or cities and approved more generous leave packages, and firms are free to create more generous plans. I don't see many fancy white collar jobs without some sort of more generous maternity leave as part of their benefits package.

Access to early childhood care is spotty at best in large swaths of the US, and working on fixing that problem would probably do more to improve educational outcomes in the country than any other single educational reform policy. The achievement gap starts, after all, well before kids start 1st grade.
 
Ok here is the scenario: you are the owner of a small business. Your accounts manager is going on 12 week paternity leave, the position has access to your companies bank and credit lines. Are you going to trust that to a random stranger from a temp agency?

Replace the above with division manager, project superintendent or whatever position you want. Temp agencies can fill the easily replaced, fill a slot on an org chart, seat warmer chimp type jobs.

If a temp was that good they would have a real job.

Most jobs probably could be replaced with a temp but there are plenty that could not. It is these jobs that would be adversely affected by guaranteeing men 12 weeks of paternity leave as well as women. Companies can minimize their exposure to this risk by not hiring women for these types of positions, how would they control the risk if men could do the same? Only hire homosexuals?

Having your business critically depends on a single person without any redundancy or back-up plan is not very sustainable anyway. The guy might break a leg or get hit by a truck, and then your business is dead.

In fact, paternity leave is less of a problem, since typically you know in advance that someone will be going on leave, so you can arrange for a temp. If a guy gets hit by a truck, you've got a problem immediately.
 
Are you calling kindergarten what we would call pre-school over here?
We call pre-school what you call kindergarten. It's possible that the Skandinavians do that too.
How do other countries handle the costs and challenges of infant and toddler daycare? Are the costs similarly high? Obviously if we lived closer to family this would be less of an issue, but these days it takes 2 incomes to get by, even for my in-laws and parents.
Ok...let me back up a bit. Otherwise we could very possibly run into some problems.
1. You have to appreciate that there is a word in the German language that is situated somewhere between "raising" and "educating". It means the process of "educating" children character-wise/in a non-skill-related fashion. You know, "sharing is good", "violence is bad", "don't interrupt adults when they speak" etc.
You'll see in a moment why this is relevant.
2. I can't really explain to you why, but in Germany a traditional sentiment got stuck that primarily mothers (or fathers if you're modern) are supposed to do this.
It's important that you understand this as a classist entitlement, not a moral commanment. A German mother would want to shoot herself royally in the foot in order to do this, because that's what it means to be middle class. The parents of children who get raised in all sorts of institutions must be trash who has to work in some factory 12 hours a day.
I'm sure Americans are not completely unfamiliar with the idea. Just feed it a ton of steroids and you're at the German level. That's the way it used to be. Of course there has been some considerable dialogue over the last two decades on the fact that this is ridiculously impractical and things are changing somewhat.

Ok...there are essentially three types of institutions relevant to your question:

1. There's pre-school. This is essentially comparable to what you call "kindergarten". Children would attend this pre-school for a year (before the actual 1st grade of elementary school) and the whole thing would be somewhat school-ish in nature.
This typically ends at noon, is typically publicly financed and run. Attendance may or may not be mandatory for some or all children (typically it's not). This depends largely on the education policies of the individual state, since the thing is essentially coming from the school side of things. So regulations for pre-schools are usually set by states and the actual facilities are mostly run by circuits, cities and municipalities.
That this comes form the school side of things also means that it's typically completely free.
As far as i know a minority of children ever attend such a pre-school.

2: There's Kindergarten. This is essentially a place where children between ages 3 and 6 (or 5 if they go to pre-school) spend time roughly from 8 am to 1 pm supervised by people with some mediocre paedagogic education, doing largely non-educational things (playing, singing, painting and the like).
Other than pre-school this is a "normal" thing. I'd guess that about 80 to 90% of children attend such a facility. Recently it has become more common for these facilities to stay open into the afternoon.
These Kindergärten are (like many German things) in a nether realm between private and public. Some of them are run by cities and municipalities (not circuits though, that would be beneath them), but most of them are being run by large non-profits (churches, the non-profit monstosities that run most of our healthcare as well, non-profit organisations that originated on the trade union side of things etc.).
This is heavily regulated and subsidised. Sending your kid to kindergarten will cost something like 100 or 200 bucks a month (it may even be cheaper if you are lucky).
In small towns this will work just fine. In a city you may run into trouble cause there's a chronic shortage of these (the shorfall isn't big, but, well chronic, as i said).
Of course who gets their kid in and who doesn't in such a case is heavily regulated, too. Doing this on a first come first serve basis would be exceptional if it happens at all. Though that may apply incidentally, cause it's essentially left to you to phone around to like a copulation ton of these institutions if your city is experiencing such a shortage.

3: There is day care - or as it was until recently understood: Evil communist/french child storage. This is where children below the age of 3 can be placed as well as children 3 to 6 in the afternoon if that is necessary and their kindergarten closes at noon. The price, organisation etc. is comparable to Kindergärten.
The main difference practically is that the shortage is in this case not marginal and managable (from the p.o.v. of the idividual parent) but an unmitigated catastrophe.

Both 2 and 3 are technically entitlements - you have a legal right that placement in such an institution will be provided to you (for Kindergarten this has been true for a long time, for day care this is pretty much brand new and so far very potemkin-ish).
This all being semi-publicly run and heavily subsidized is an absolute necessity. Since, as you know, Germany is very much not in the business of running a "service based economy" doing any of this on the open market is prohibitively expensive.


The whole thing is a permanent political battle in Germany. Counterintuitively (for Americans) the German conservatives are the ones who are always pushing all these funny new entitlements for parents (parental leave, parental premiums etc.), that would be heresy to any American conservative, because they want to maintain the tradition of pre-school children being raised by parents at home (except for the few hours of Kindergarten a day).
It's the liberals who are pushing the expansion of all these facities. You know, cause they are commies and want to live like one did in the GDR.
Due to reality's bias liberals appear to be winning albeit slowly.


Anyway, once you are done with all that and your kid is 6, it will attend a public elementary school, which is, once more, regulated by a state, run (typically) by a municipality, circuit or city, and has teachers who are tenured public servants who cannot strike and cannot be fired.
This elementary school would (until recently) educate your child on an irregular schedule for roughly 3 to 4 hours a day in the morning and completely shut down at noon. For real. No joke.
And since your child was already 6 you coundn't send it to any other institution. For real. No joke.
(This is changing rather fast. After 50 years of loads of women being in the workforce people have suddenly realised what an incredibly stupid idea this was.)

This would be pretty much exactly the point where you, if you were the mother, would migrate to a mental place of undying frustration and develop the stern determination to warn your daughters about this fecal matter and tell them to not have kids.
Which is what German women did, like, decades ago.

I hope there is at least some overlap between these ramblings and what you actually wanted to know. :mischief: ;)
 
I believe even in well-to-do Western German states teachers gradually seize to be public servants (because even well-to-do Western German states can only look in horror at future pension liabilities)?
Also, in Communist Chemnitz, Saxony, the kindergarten (as understood over here) also took care of elementary school kids until late afternoon :smug: Even were brought there (though it was a short walk from the school). Me and many others of my class went there.
 
This can't be right - that means that it's impossible to get by if you have children and make less money than your manny - and I don't think (though I admit I'm not familiar with the stats) there's anywhere in the western world with a dramatic drop-off in fertility among people with less income potential than what third-party childcare costs.

I dunno, it sounds about right to me. New York is idiotically expensive to live in. Daycare is likewise idiotically expensive. If you happen to be a low income single mother with multiple children living in such an area thus are oh-so-derisively-labeled "welfare queens" created. And they still probably work and send their children to subsidized daycare that would probably rightfully get labeled as crummy. Costs of daycare seem to scale with wherever you happen to live, and they never seem low. If I were to use the daycare provided by my state employer, I might as well quit the job except for the health insurance, since with the costs associated with commute/parking/daycare all totaled up it would start being of questionable profit with one child. Two would be a relative no brainer. Unless, of course, I need the health insurance. So if you have the family support available, as I am fortunate enough to, you move to where you can use them and make the career fit the part of your life that, you know, is actually important. Grandparents watch the little-guy sometimes, and our neighbor across the street is a high school classmate and licensed day care. She's working for some secondary income as she stays home with her own kids, we get a steal at just under $4 an hour.
 
I dunno, it sounds about right to me. New York is idiotically expensive to live in. Daycare is likewise idiotically expensive. If you happen to be a low income single mother with multiple children living in such an area thus are oh-so-derisively-labeled "welfare queens" created. And they still probably work and send their children to subsidized daycare that would probably rightfully get labeled as crummy. Costs of daycare seem to scale with wherever you happen to live, and they never seem low. If I were to use the daycare provided by my state employer, I might as well quit the job except for the health insurance, since with the costs associated with commute/parking/daycare all totaled up it would start being of questionable profit with one child. Two would be a relative no brainer. Unless, of course, I need the health insurance. So if you have the family support available, as I am fortunate enough to, you move to where you can use them and make the career fit the part of your life that, you know, is actually important. Grandparents watch the little-guy sometimes, and our neighbor across the street is a high school classmate and licensed day care. She's working for some secondary income as she stays home with her own kids, we get a steal at just under $4 an hour.

If that's the case, people on a single income in New York would have statistically fewer children.

Otherwise you're just showing that kids cost more than the savings from a given single-income/expenses with a certain lifestyle, not that "it takes two incomes to get by".

She's working for some secondary income as she stays home with her own kids, we get a steal at just under $4 an hour.

How is that even possible? Does she not file taxes honestly, thus showing that she's being paid below minimum wage?
 
Norway pays how much for parental leave and daycare??

Norwegians: please invade the US or in some other way impose your parental leave laws here. Pretty please?
 
Swiss state support for childcare etc is rather on a stone age level, so probably similar to the US ;)

Giving our kids to daycare for a day per week would probably cost more than my wife would earn if she had a job for that day.

Thankfully, we're in the lucky situation that this question never posed itself: My mother as well as my wife's parents live nearby which means that we could get a day or two per week if we needed to. At the moment, my wife stays home full time, though she does some work from home. Thankfully, we don't actually need her income, so we're not forced to have two paying jobs. If she had wanted to keep a steady job, I would have tried to lower my own work hours to 60 or 80% to take care of the kids for a day or two.
 
Yeah, there is an entire cottage industry of temporary accountants. Software developers, lawyers, and other high skill, white collar, sensitive information positions also often work on temporary assignments, including those on 12 week cycles. Even management can be brought on in such a temporary basis. That's part of what business consultants ARE, after all.

Here in Norway, for example, getting temp jobs as replacement for someone on parental leave (or even other types of leave, parental is just the most common) is very much a standard, institutionalized way for younger workers to rack up some work experience in the first years after graduating. It's also a not-uncommon way to enter more permanent positions. Just looking at my own workplace, I've seen it happen more than once: The typical pattern is that some experienced employee goes on leave for approximately 6-12 months, during which most of the leave-taker's regular tasks (the ones that require specialized in-depth knowledge of matters) are shifted onto other experienced employees, and a suitable load of tasks that don't require quite so much in-depth knowledge is shifted from everyone to a fresh temp worker. When the leave-taker returns, he or she will probably resume some of his or her old tasks, get a few new ones, etc. -- and in the way of things, a permanent position might open up during that time window (due to someone quitting or retiring or the department expanding) and if the temp worker has done well and wants to submit an application, that application will very often end up at the top of the pile. This is quite basic stuff, really.
 
The current goverment has caved in a little to KrF which is basically a christian conservative semi-right party

Semi-right and conservative in terms of social policy but not quite so much economically. Hell, by US standards they're a bunch of stinking commies (but then so are nearly all other of our parties).
 
We call pre-school what you call kindergarten. It's possible that the Skandinavians do that too.

Literally "barnehage" means exactly the same as "kindergarten", i.e. "children's garden". It is Norwegian for "daycare", that is, the place where kids below school age are looked after and given some amount of paedagogical direction. Attending daycare is not mandatory but the vast majority of kids these days do go. Some begin as early as before their first birthday; with both our kids (now 5 and 2 years old) my wife and I have arranged things so they didn't have to begin until their second, and we plan to do the same with #3 (due in a month or so).

School begins at age 6 (which I personally think is about one year too early, but nevermind that for now); the last year before that, daycare kids are usually in a "pre-school" group (in our area it's a few hours once per week, where they meet up with other kids who'll mostly be attending the same school, and do various social and vaguely school-related things).
 
Companies can minimize their exposure to this risk by not hiring women for these types of positions,

Well, they really can't, because that's both super illegal and not difficult to prove. Any managed maternity leave risk would be dwarfed by the risk exposure of a lawsuit or fine, not to mention the damage to the firm's brand and reputation if that policy was ever made public.
 
Back
Top Bottom