I finally understand why people say kids are expensive - daycare!

[Brett_Cameron]

LOL!: All people (parents and children) are different for some it is easier than others.

 

[TN_INVEST]

I nicknamed my two oldest kids: Porsche & Mercedes. I suspect I could have made the bank note on those two cars for what we paid to put them in daycare.

 

[MichaelB]

I nicknamed my two oldest kids: Porsche & Mercedes. I suspect I could have made the bank note on those two cars for what we paid to put them in daycare.

I can identify with that and also admit to the occasional thought that I wish I had chosen the porsche...

 

[Hamlet]

Yes, we weren't particulary price sensitive in this exchange :>

This center turns into a Montessori pre-school as she gets a little older. I think that it will be beneficial to have the people there making the effort to try and teach her, rather than just "baby sitting".

It probably costs about $300/month more than the lowest cost center in our area.

Kids probably shouldn't be cared for by the lowest bidder. Maybe you're paying for quality.

 

[Brat]

$300/mo is reasonable given the difference in programs.

 

[FUEGO]

Here is a timely blog post from Mr. Money Mustache that also coincides with my philosophy on child rearing: Avoiding Ivy League Preschool Syndrome | Mr. Money Mustache

To summarize the blog post, it isn't necessary to spend a bunch of money on expensive preschools and extra-curricular activities for your kids to turn out above average. Just spend time with them, expose them to different things, and encourage learning.

 

[haha]

Like most blog things, this is just opinion, not fact. Some things, like steep mountain snow boarding, playing tennis well, riding English, playing the violin or piano and foreign language are learned differently and better from a young age then when you are older and are different neurologically and also have less time to devote to it. He is wrong that instructors for riding and golf and violin etc. have recently sprung up to service this clientele- these teachers have always been around, for hundreds of years, and if they are well chosen you get skilled instruction for your money.

I am not about to argue that these things are worth the money for a money constrained family, but they do make differences that become part of the child's lifetime experience. These things are not stupid expenditures, any more than newer well maintained cars are stupid expenditures. They are also not necessities, and a subtext to many ER sites is that only necessities are worthy expenditures.

Ha

 

[HFWR]

I nicknamed my two oldest kids: Porsche & Mercedes. I suspect I could have made the bank note on those two cars for what we paid to put them in daycare.

I knew a couple of [-]topless[/-] dancers named that...

 

[Nords]

This center turns into a Montessori pre-school as she gets a little older. I think that it will be beneficial to have the people there making the effort to try and teach her, rather than just "baby sitting".
It probably costs about $300/month more than the lowest cost center in our area.

Montessori seems like good stuff. But the attention paid by the caregivers and the parents matters more than any curriculum.

Our kid seemed far more happy with (and challenged by) the AP classes at her public high school than a kid up the street who hated her private school.

 

[Bimmerbill]

I was lucky and had access to a child care center at the military base where I work. I also negotiated down the price a bit since my kid was there on 3 days a week. Turned out to be $110 a week.

 

[Sarah in SC]

I, too, found the Ivy League preschool blog post to be compelling. I used to think that one of the critical things my middle class parents gave me by sending me to private school and showing horses and whatnot was a comfort level in talking to people wealthier than me, as well as the experiences I had working with (as a teen) people who were poorer than me. I find that being comfortable in both environments has been an enormous part of my work-life success to date.
However, my husband, who did not have these advantages, is also comfortable in both environments, albeit to a slightly lesser degree with wealthier people than I might be. I'd say that given this information, my parents could have saved on the riding lessons and private school, had they been inclined. But these things gave them a leg-up socially as well, so it wasn't all for my benefit.
Fuego, giving your children time with you and a good work ethic may well be the most important thing you do. GusLevy, I snorted with laughter over your description of life with the little one. My brother stays home with 3 boys and I would surely dig ditches rather than spend one day in his life.

 

[FUEGO]

Like most blog things, this is just opinion, not fact. Some things, like steep mountain snow boarding, playing tennis well, riding English, playing the violin or piano and foreign language are learned differently and better from a young age then when you are older and are different neurologically and also have less time to devote to it. He is wrong that instructors for riding and golf and violin etc. have recently sprung up to service this clientele- these teachers have always been around, for hundreds of years, and if they are well chosen you get skilled instruction for your money.

I am not about to argue that these things are worth the money for a money constrained family, but they do make differences that become part of the child's lifetime experience. These things are not stupid expenditures, any more than newer well maintained cars are stupid expenditures. They are also not necessities, and a subtext to many ER sites is that only necessities are worthy expenditures.

I think his point is that these high caliber child rearing expenses aren't necessities, but are being treated as such by money constrained families (aren't we all money constrained?).

Regardless of cost constraints, there are also time constraints. There is only a finite amount of time that adults and children have each day. When most or all of that time is devoted to pursuing activities (and driving to and from these activities), there is little time left for spontaneous learning, exploring, and creativity. I would rather my children find something awesome, entertaining, and engaging to pursue at their leisure than corral them into an escalating path of training on tennis, golf, equestrianism, etc. It isn't that I am cheap (which I am!), but rather that I don't think I am competent or clairvoyant enough to know what activities to conscript my children into that will lead to increased happiness and success and high levels of social, emotional and academic vitality.

 

[brewer12345]

I, too, found the Ivy League preschool blog post to be compelling. I used to think that one of the critical things my middle class parents gave me by sending me to private school and showing horses and whatnot was a comfort level in talking to people wealthier than me, as well as the experiences I had working with (as a teen) people who were poorer than me. I find that being comfortable in both environments has been an enormous part of my work-life success to date.
However, my husband, who did not have these advantages, is also comfortable in both environments, albeit to a slightly lesser degree with wealthier people than I might be.

I never did any of that high falutin' stuff. I got used to talking to wealthy people by making a career of yelling at financial institution executives. Way more fun than riding a horse.

 

[GregLee]

... so that if she wants to quit (or if one of you loses their job) then the financial obligations don't lead you into the two-income trap.

Those interested in grammar might want to compare the alternatives:

1. "if one of you loses their job"
2. "if one of you loses his job"
3. "if one of you loses a job"

The difficulty with 1. is the failure of number agreement between "one" and "their". The difficulty with 2. is that one of those referred to is surely not a "he", so "his" sounds wrong. The difficulty with 3. is the vagueness about what job or whose job is lost (the job that was had by the one that lost it?).

 

[FUEGO]

I never did any of that high falutin' stuff. I got used to talking to wealthy people by making a career of yelling at financial institution executives. Way more fun than riding a horse.

In my experience, the middling rich are us. The truly wealthy - who wants to rub elbows with them anyway?

 

[haha]

Those interested in grammar might want to compare the alternatives:

1. "if one of you loses their job"
2. "if one of you loses his job"
3. "if one of you loses a job"

The difficulty with 1. is the failure of number agreement between "one" and "their". The difficulty with 2. is that one of those referred to is surely not a "he", so "his" sounds wrong. The difficulty with 3. is the vagueness about what job or whose job is lost (the job that was had by the one that lost it?).

I think 3 is best, since we know that the people are a man and woman. True, this leaves open the possibility that this couple have 3, 4, or more jobs, so losing "a job" might not be a big deal. However the main sin in writing today is not bad grammar or lack of clarity, but (horrors!) sexism.

So I would guess that 95% of right thinking writers would use #1, "their job", even though it is patently absurd.

"his or her job" is clumsy, but seems clear to me.

Ha

 

[Bestwifeever]

Those interested in grammar might want to compare the alternatives:.....

Raise your hand if you think you've never made a grammatical error in an impromptu post to a message board. The e-r.org grammar police were laid off long ago.

 

[GregLee]

Raise your hand if you think you've never made a grammatical error in an impromptu post to a message board.

<raises hand>

(And please note that I didn't imply the post that I commented on was erroneous.)

 

[REWahoo]

<raises hand>

A claim of perfection is implicitly imperfect.

 

[FlowGirl]

Like most blog things, this is just opinion, not fact. Some things, like steep mountain snow boarding, playing tennis well, riding English, playing the violin or piano and foreign language are learned differently and better from a young age then when you are older and are different neurologically and also have less time to devote to it. He is wrong that instructors for riding and golf and violin etc. have recently sprung up to service this clientele- these teachers have always been around, for hundreds of years, and if they are well chosen you get skilled instruction for your money.

Concur. I recently signed my 4 year-old up for the fancy expensive swim school after years of on-and-off mediocre (and cheap) swim instruction. I'm paying twice as much as the local YMCA but my son made faster progress in a month than I ever could have imagined. Sometimes you really do get what you pay for.

I wasn't that impressed with the Ivy League Preschool Syndrome essay. Maybe its because we already do a lot of that stuff - we homeschool on a budget and we encourage our kid in activities that my husband and I already do (hiking, rock climbing, snow sports, etc.) - or maybe its because I just don't know any parents who are paying $30K for preschool or who have their kids in riding lessons. Most of my mom friends are not shooting for Harvard but simply trying to give their kids a decent education without having to deal with violence, or bullying, or 40 kids in a single Kindergaten class.

 

[Bestwifeever]

<raises hand>

(And please note that I didn't imply the post that I commented on was erroneous.)

Really--pointing out two other ways to word a sentence (that is not at all pertinent to the thread topic) doesn't imply the original wording was erroneous? Then why point them out?

 

[haha]

Really--pointing out two other ways to word a sentence (that is not at all pertinent to the thread topic) doesn't imply the original wording was erroneous? Then why point them out?

It was perhaps off topic, but it did point out a very interesting grammar question. And interest is always welcome.

Ha

 

[GregLee]

Really--pointing out two other ways to word a sentence (that is not at all pertinent to the thread topic) doesn't imply the original wording was erroneous? Then why point them out?

No, it doesn't imply that the original wording was any more erroneous than the others I listed, because for each of the 3 wordings I listed, I gave a reason that made it problematic. Why point all three out? I just find it interesting that in such cases, English gives us no perfect choice. It's a defect of the language. But of course, you don't have to be interested. I'm interested, because I'm a grammarian.

 

[Bestwifeever]

And in my copyediting days I would have pointed out to the author of a manuscript that the singular subject did not agree with the plural pronoun and suggest "his or her" instead. In a message board post when the sentence in question doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the rest of the response? Never. But that's me.

 

[LOL!]

Concur. I recently signed my 4 year-old up for the fancy expensive swim school after years of on-and-off mediocre (and cheap) swim instruction. I'm paying twice as much as the local YMCA but my son made faster progress in a month than I ever could have imagined. Sometimes you really do get what you pay for.

Or perhaps your 4-year-old is now more comfortable with water and physical activity (motor - neuron skills) and ready to learn to swim now?

As a ridiculous example, how about this: You have your 4-year old take basketball lessons with a 10-foot high goal at the YMCA. But later when they are 12-years old, they take basketball lessons from an expensive place with an ex-NBA player as a coach. At which place are they going to make faster progress in a month?

Or switch that around: The 4-year old takes expensive lessons from the ex-NBA player and the 12-year old takes lessons at the YMCA.