Strollerderby : economy

Get Your Stock Tips from These Kids

JeanneSager — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:27:00 GMT

You might still be content to track the market with CNBC and the Wall Street Journal, but I've got a lead on investing in Wisconsin.

A classroom of mini traders in Neenah, Wis. to be exact.

A group of fifth graders from Neenah more than doubled their money investing in fifteen different stocks, with a target on the big banks. It was all hypothetical money (and their parents are kicking themselves now, I'd bet), but it won them a state-wide economics contest.

The kids started with $100,000 (again, fake bills), and turned it into $203,000 within a period of ten weeks. Their prize is a trip to the New York Stock Exchange.

I remember doing a stock project back in high school (they start 'em so young these days, don't they?), but with picks that were based completely on my favorite things (at the time, The Gap and Tootsie Rolls), I didn't fare too well. But letting kids pick their own stocks was the name of this game - their teacher says he tells his charges he's there to act like a broker, to give advice, but not to make the decisions for them.

But no matter how much research these fifth graders did, do you really think they know any more than the folks on Wall Street? Or is this just a good reminder that the stock market really is a crap shoot?

Lower-Income Kids Moving More Because of Recession

Amy Kuras — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:31:00 GMT

Although I live in Detroit, cradle of the auto industry, and thus have anxiety attacks on a daily basis about what will happen if GM goes out of business, we’ve been pretty insulated from the worst of the recession so far. It’s more because my husband works in academia and I am a freelance writer so it’s not like we had any money to begin with, but I definitely feel lucky that we aren’t facing foreclosure or significant loss of income (knock wood) like so many of our neighbors.

One of the many things that breaks my heart about this recession is the effect on kids. It’s not their fault, they didn’t make any of the irresponsible decisions that helped bring the economy down, and yet they are facing the loss of their homes, significantly reduced standards of living and worse.

Teachers and school counselors are seeing an increase in mobility among lower income families due to the recession, and this was a group that already moved around a lot as their fortunes rose and fell. Teachers tell stories of kids who start school one week before standardized testing begins and are just lost, who are sleeping on a couch at Grandma’s because their family lost their home and needs a place to stay, who face a new school with no friends in the middle of the school year.

I feel so bad for these kids – my family moved a lot when I was a kid and it sucked, and we were, as middle class people, insulated from the myriad other difficulties faced by a low-income family. And I did live through a parental job loss when I was in college, and even then when I wasn’t living at home the stress and anxiety my family was facing affected me a lot.

My only point here, I guess, is be nice, and teach your kids to be too. If a new kid shows up midyear, encourage your kid to maybe sit with them at lunch or get to know them, because chances are things are hard enough for this kid at home and a little kindness can make a big difference.

Kids are Suffering in Emergency Rooms Nationwide

JeanneSager — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:00:00 GMT

No one wants to spend a night with their child in the emergency room. But the numbers of kids spending hours in the nation's ERs waiting to be seen by doctors is on the rise.

The problem? It's the economy (duh).

Without health insurance to cover an expensive doctor's visit, parents are turning to the emergency room for their primary care. And they're bringing their kids.

Forty-four percent of children's hospitals in the U.S. have reported a spike in emergency room visits. That's just child-specific hospitals, but numbers are up at other hospitals too (where patients are both adults and kids). This comes on the heels of already growing numbers - even when the economy was steady, the CDC reported a decade-long hike in emergency room visits from 1996 to 2006. Of them, kids made up the largest number, followed by adults over the age of seventy-five.

The chief problem is health insurance, and one in nine kids is estimated to be without it (and of those kids, nine in ten has at least one working parent and is a U.S. citizen). Even folks who qualify for Medicaid often end up carting their kids to the ER because private doctors won't accept it.

But kids are waiting longer and longer periods of time before getting treatment. That's both in the ER (where more visits combined with fewer emergency rooms means longer waits) and out - where parents who worry about the hospital bill are delaying the trip to the hospital. A recent Kaiser survey found at least twenty-seven percent of Americans have actually delayed care because of the cost, And that's what has medical practitioners worried.

Kids' bodies are changing quickly and their immune systems are less developed. They're at greater risk than the average adult, and they need healthcare more desperately than the average adult. Which means parents have to make tough choices - as hard as it may be, and as many sacrifices as it might take, that emergency room visit might be the best option.

Have you suddenly found yourself in an emergency room when you'd never visited one before?

Image: CBS News

Build A Bear Slapped With Child Labor Violations

JeanneSager — Tue, 19 May 2009 20:34:00 GMT

Child labor is heinous in its own right, but something about a company that makes stuff for kids abusing kids makes for particularly vile subject matter.

And isn't there something ironic about Build-a-Bear, the company that lines our kids up in little factory worker queues to "build" massively expensive toys which we then have to shell out to outfit, getting in trouble for child labor law violations?

The company has been fined by the U.S. Department of Labor for allowing fourteen minors to perform tasks that violate federal laws at sites in four states. A closer look at the charges reveals the company wasn't working kids to the bone for five cents an hour (the kind of sweatshop, third world country images that come to mind when I think of child labor issues). Teens ages sixteen and seventeen were being allowed to operate trash compactors and similar duties. The company has been fined by the Department of Labor, and it has adapted its rules so no one under age eighteen will be hired to work in the factories.

The latter seems unfair, as though the kids are being punished here rather than the company. And I can't say the company's statement, "Importantly, no one suffered any injuries from performing these tasks" sounds like much of a mea culpa.

As a mom who has so far avoided the big Build-a-Bear birthday celebrations, this was just another nail in that coffin. What about you, will you be humping it to build a bear anytime soon?

Image: Build-a-Bear

Economy Down, Adoptions Up

Shannon LC Cate — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:30:00 GMT

Adoption agencies around the country are reporting a rise of between 10 and 30% in pregnant women and new mothers inquiring about placing their infants with new families, since the recession began.

The story of one such woman, a single mother to three teens who found herself unexpectedly pregnant again with no support from her baby's father, is outlined in a report at USATODAY.com.

As an adoptive mother, I understand the joy of adoptive parents. As an advocate of reproductive choice, I believe strongly in ethical adoption as an option for women who need it and choose it freely from other options. But I am saddened by this rise in adoptions due to economic crisis.

When adoptions happen strictly because a mother can't afford--financially--to raise her baby, society has failed both mother and child. When the cost of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare and education can only be met by some, all families are devalued. The only solution to a mother's financial desperation should not be sending her child to live with wealthier parents. When that is the case, it suggests that only people with a certain income deserve or are capable of raising children.

I can already hear the protests that people without the means to support their children shouldn't have children in the first place. But even if I believed that (which I don't), pregnancy is not 100% preventable by any means at all. I include abstinence, because sex is not always a woman's choice.

But I simply don't believe that the care and raising of children ought to be an exclusively private enterprise. In fact, neither do those involved in adoption. Adoption is all about the communal care of children. It is about people outside a family working with that family--becoming additional family--for the support of children who need more than just their birth parents' support.

But adoption has enormous consequences for all parties involved--adopted people, first parents, adoptive parents--and should be a last resort option when other alternatives are exhausted. Mere inability to pay a hospital bill should not lead to adoption.

If I thought my children were with me just because their first mothers were too poor to raise them, I couldn't sleep at night. I've been poor in the past, myself. Poverty does not make a person unfit to be a parent. And circumstances change. My family could find itself in financial trouble in the future. I would hope that under those circumstances, I wouldn't be told my only option were giving my children to others.

Before we celebrate a rise in adoptions, we need to rethink what society could be doing to help original families stay together. Universal healthcare, quality public education, fair housing costs and other supports are a few modest proposals to get us started.

Your Kid's Identity Is at Risk

JeanneSager — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:01:00 GMT

Identity theft may be the hot topic at many a dinner party, but it might be time to start talking social security numbers on the playground.

Because hackers have turned their eyes toward our kids, making them the number one target of identity theft.

According to a recent article in Hitched, kids identities are the fastest growing sector for theft, and because kids aren't generally USING their own identities (not in the sense of a credit identity anyway), it can go unnoticed for years.

Just think, when was the last time you had to haul out your child's social security number for anything? Besides our yearly tax filing, I can count on one hand the number of times I've used it since she was born, and each time I've had to pull out the card to check the digits. Where we as parents can keep close tabs on our credit card bills to monitor any odd spending, most kids don't have bills coming to the house. Even kids' savings accounts are less likely to be monitored by adults - chiefly because we don't use them for anything other than holding money, which we'll check in oh, about eighteen years when the first tuition bill arrives.

No wonder the FTC has found half a million child identities are stolen every year, a number they expect to rise. According to the Identity Theft Resource Center, more than half of those children whose identities were corrupted were under the age of six. Late last year, a study from Javelin Strategy and Research estimated one in twenty kids overall have been victimized. They've rung up an average of $12,000 in wrongly assigned debt.

Foster kids are a major target too. Shuttled in and out of homes, their most secret information is an open book shared with hundreds of adults, and not always the most trustworthy types. They're also more likely to come out of homes where parents have fallen on hard times, parents who used their identity with the best of intentions. A mom who couldn't get an electric company to allow her to open an account in her name, for example, uses her child's name and social security number to try to keep lights on for the family. But when she can't get a job and fails to pay the bills, the black marks grow on the child's credit.

With the grim economic picture, that's a factor that's spreading to more and more homes. The economy is no doubt having an affect on the numbers of desperate people looking for a clean slate.

Makes you want to run out and order your child's credit report, doesn't it? You should. Hitched has a list of other tips to protect your kids here. Will you be making some changes?

Image: Dr Bulldog

Morning News - Astronauts Watch Star Trek In Space

Brett Singer — Mon, 18 May 2009 02:01:00 GMT

You are either tired of hearing me talking about "Star Trek", or you can't get enough of it. It's like Kirk vs. Spock in "The Apple", a classic episode of the original series. Actually, it's not really like that very much at all, but saying that it was allowed me to get in another "Trek" mention. Sorry.

Anyway, even if you don't care about "Star Trek", you may still think that this is cool -- Real Live Astronauts are Watching ‘Star Trek’ in Outer Space - Right Now. Actually, it happened on Friday, but perhaps due to a singularity created by red matter, it's possible that the astroanuts are, in fact, watching the movie as you read this. Unlikely. But possible.

Moving on to a topic I don't really understand, how about some international economic news? The Motley Fool tells us Why China's Stimulus Plan Will Change the World. Um, OK. Remember when you thought putting 20 bucks a week into your savings account was a solid method of planning for the future?

Barack Obama spoke at Notre Dame, which was a big deal because he is pro-choice. MSNBC says that he called "for 'fair-minded' abortion debate." So they booed him. Not everybody, of course.

David Geffen may want to buy the New York Times. I hope someone does. The idea of the Times going under is something I have trouble with. It's not just the paper, it's the reporters behind it. Sure, they may have made mistakes. But it's a great institution that should live on. So if selling it to a massively successful music and movie mogul is the way to do that, I say "whoo-hoo."

Swine flu, or H1N1, is still here. CNN reports that a "New York middle school assistant principal who was hospitalized with the H1N1 virus died Sunday. BUT he might not have died of swine flu. They won't tell us. Fun. Keep sanitizing the children, and yourself.

David Wells, who has both pitched a perfect game and attacked someone at a diner while drunk (allegedly), says that any home runs that Alex Rodriguez -- aka "The Rod" -- hit while he was taking steroids shouldn't count. Wells was a great pitcher when he was sober (allegedly) but he's got a big mouth. I never liked The Rod, but Wells just rubs me the wrong way.

OK, getting back to movie news, "Angels & Demons" took the number one spot at the box office this week with $48 million, despite generally bad reviews and a complete lack of facial expressions from Tom Hanks. "Star Trek" was close behind ( like a Klingon Bird of Prey) with $43 million, and "Wolverine" dropped to third with only $14.8 million. I saw "Anvil! The Story of Anvil" this weekend, mostly beacuse it was playing nearby at a convenient time. It wasn't as good as it should have been. It's sort of a real-life "This Is Spinal Tap", except that when you watch actual 50-year-olds who never made it in the music business still trying to make it, it can get a little depressing. Also, the film itself was too long (even though it was only 90 minutes) and didn't dig deep enough to hold my interest. Oh well. At least I got to see a movie in a theater with my wife, which happens far too infrequently. And the sushi we had before the film was really good. So there's that.

More tomorrow...

Image: Wikipedia

The Chubbiest Cheeks You Will Ever See

UPDATE: Dad Who Forced Son To Get Tattoo is Arrested

Top Cause of Death for Pregnant Women is Murder

Mom Puts 9 Year Old Girl On Craigs List For Revenge

Weird Holiday Alert: Lost Sock Memorial Day

JeanneSager — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:04:00 GMT

Settle down now. I'd like to call for a moment of silence for all of my daughter's teeny tiny little socks, paid for with my precious funds and STOLEN by the gnomes that live in my dryer.

And while you're snickering, I am all too glad to tell you that somewhere, out there, there is someone who has thought to treat this tragic loss with proper reverance.

Also known as the loon who thought up Lost Sock Memorial Day.

It's a real honest-to-goodness holiday. I'm expecting Hallmark to roll out a card any moment now y'all!

Of course, the day preceding Lost Sock Memorial Day may have something to do with it. See, tomorrow, May 8, is NO Socks Day. It's the day after that, May 9, that's Lost Sock Memorial Day. So I'm thinking that all the people who ran around without their socks on No Sock Day were mourning the loss of their socks, and . . . well, OK, I'm thinking much too deeply about this one.

Perhaps this is why Crocs got so popular in the first place? No socks means no lost socks.

But this is such a parent-friendly holiday. Because, like it or not, we have to encase those adorable little tootsies in fabric at least some of the time. And since even the teeniest baby manages to burp her food to all the way down there, they will, at some point, have to go into the washing machine. And then to the dryer. Oh, the dryer, place where socks head shaking their little elastic tops in dread.

Anyone smell a dryer industry/sock industry conspiracy? Well, it's a thought. If we could only get the gnomes to move to their homes.

Have a happy lost sock memorial day this weekend!

Image: LittleMissMatched

Stay At Home Moms Worth $122,000

JeanneSager — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:29:00 GMT

I was recently accused of inciting a mommy war between the "stay at homes" and the "working mothers." I honestly out-right guffawed. Because as a working mom who spends part of her time working from home, I've always felt sort of betwixt and between. And respected the heck out of both sides!

Not to mention the list of stay at home dads and working dads I know (including some of my fellow 'Derby writers).

And now to show all you stay-at-home full-timers how much I think you're worth, a little math from Salary.com. In the "real" world, you'd be raking in six figures.

Based on ten daily functions described by a survey of some twelve thousand stay-at-home moms (why they didn't include dads I don't know - those numbers are growing!), the average stay-at-homer should be earning $122,732 a year. In other words - that's what they'd be paying someone else to do all of those duties.

The reason I love this number? Because everytime one of my stay-at-home mom friends tells me she feels like she should kowtow to her working partner, I can throw it at her. See, you're not just worth something as a human being. You're also worth something in the world of family finance.

My biggest contention has always been that those of us who work out of the home usually PAY someone to watch our children. So a stay-at-home mom or dad is saving the family that money.

Then throw in how many more take away meals are consumed in families where both partners work (because as Keri noted the other day, the finances weigh out - it's cheaper to cook it than to buy it). Ironically, several comments left on Keri's post came from parents who don't believe a baking parent's time is worth anything special. This survey begs to differ.

The Salary.com survey goes on to list eight other occupations filled by a stay-at-home parent, including "housekeeper, computer operator, facilities manager, van driver, psychologist, laundry machine operator, janitor and chief executive officer."

The survey puts a working parent's "at home" salary around $76,184. You have to tack on their actual wages to come up with a fair number - but I'd reckon you then have to subtract daycare, take away meals, etc.

So who's better? Neither one. And I say that as a betwixt and between parent. We're all just doing what works for us. But we're all worth something - just ask our kids.

Image: More4Kids

Also on Babble:

Families Still Spending Big on Prom

JeanneSager — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:01:00 GMT

If you have watched a teen movie from any of the last few decades (pick one, any one), there's one lesson to be learned. Your kids have to go to prom.

If they don't, apparently, something dasterdly will befall them, and they will regret it for the REST of their lives. Like, totally, forever and ever and ever, along with their BFFs.

Not buying it? Me neither. But parents across the nation are.

Because with the economy tanking, parents are still apparently going hog wild on prom spending. According to a New York Times report, spending may even be up this year.

And that's not just on the gowns. The tuxes too. And the limos. And the tiaras. Some families are forced to put the finery on layaway and pay down their debt, but they've got their hearts set on making it work.

Why?

Before you write me off as some prom-hating feminist (the latter I'll own up to, but not the former), I attended two proms. I went to each with very nice boys (yes, they were boys back then), one of whom is even on my Facebook now and reads some of my Babble posts (hi Tim!). We had fun. You might even say we made some fond memories. But memories that I couldn't have lived without?

Let me put it this way - I was recently doing a thorough cleaning of my attic and chucked a never burned blue candle coated in dust with the words "Remember Me This Way" inscribed on the glass holder. I can't believe I still had it. I wasn't going to hold onto it for a minute longer.

My first time around, my dad put out at least $200 on the gown, the alterations, the shoes. The only thing I still have? A pair of earrings he bought me as a daddy/daughter special thing, which I still wear for special occasions. The dress itself was donated to a Project Cinderella group - a non-profit effort to put prom dresses in the hands of girls who don't have a whole lot of cash. They're sold for a very small sum (so the girls can feel pride in knowing they paid for them, instead of feeling like a charity case), and the money goes back into the project.

My second time around, I knew better. The dress was off the rack and under $30. The shoes were even cheaper. I already had a pair of earrings. The most expensive piece of the evening would have been the price I'd have paid if my parents learned I'd let him drive my car.

Compare the two evenings, and I can't say which one was better. The second, cheaper night, because I was actually dating the guy? The first, more expensive night, because my date for the night is someone I still talk to today? In other words, a prom on the cheap was perfectly acceptable, and a whole lot of fun. I wasn't being cheated by going cheap.

Neither will any of these kids. Send your kids to prom - if they want to go - or don't. If they don't want to, don't pressure them into doing it, and yourself into making the finances work. And for Gawd's sake, if you can't afford it, step away from the couture. Your pocketbook will thank you. And in two years, when they're trying to rustle up tuition, they will too.

Image: New York Times

Morning News: Some of It's Not Flu-Related

Amy Kuras — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Good morning! Brett and I will be switching off Morning News for awhile.

So! A huge ice shelf is breaking up in Antarctica, the economy did even worse than expected in the first quarter of the year, and President Obama gave an important press conference marking his first 100 days in office.

But you don’t care, do you? You just want to know about swine flu.

Yeah, me too. The World Health Organization raised the threat level to 5 for the first time, well, ever, signaling that a pandemic is imminent. A little kid just shy of his second birthday was the first confirmed US death. Schools across the country are closing to stop the spread of the disease.

Screw the masks we’re all supposed to be thinking about; I want a paper bag I can breathe into when the panic begins to overwhelm, thanks.

Let me just repeat the important stuff, though: Wash your hands, wash your kid’s hands, don’t for the love of God go anywhere when you’re sick (or send your kid to school or playdates if they are), and see your doctor as quickly as you can if you do start to feel flulike symptoms. There are antivirals that help lessen the severity and duration of the illness: Tamiflu can be used for children ages one and up, and Relenza can be used for kids age five and up. The key is you’ve got to get them quickly, within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms. The FDA has approved ememrgency off-label uses of the drugs during the swine flu crisis.

Moving on to more cheery topics, the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica is breaking up and falling into the ocean. The shelf, in the western part of the Antarctic Peninsula, has remained stable for most of the last century, but lost two huge chunks on Friday and is due to lose a chunk bigger than Rhode Island soon. Researchers believe the cause likely is global warming, although they stress they are still working to prove that.

Also shrinking is the US economy, which contracted at a 6.1 percent annual rate in the first three months of the year. That’s worse than the 5 percent economists predicted. The first quarter 2009 drop in gross domestic product, which is the total US output of goods and services followed a 6.3 percent drop in the last quarter of 2008.

But the president gave a press conference. He’s reassured us that the government has this flu thing under control, that we’ve ended torture as an interrogation technique because we’re just better than that, and that the federal budget (which newly minted Dem Arlen Specter helped get passed) will help revive and restructure our economy. Here’s a transcript if you missed it.

I tried to find something for you guys that would not make you want to go back to bed and pull the covers over your head (seriously, I Googled “puppies”) but no luck so far. See ya in the hand-sanitzer aisle!

NYT Asks: Are There Too Many Ways to Conceive?

Jen Chaney — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:29:00 GMT

Lisa Belkin over at the NYT's Motherlode blog wonders if the pursuit-of-parenthood market may be oversaturated.

Citing the recent examples of the Sarah Jessica Parker/Matthew Broderick surrogate twins and the woman attempting to become a surrogate grandmother by using her dead son's sperm, Belkin asks if science -- with its IVF, egg donations, fertility drugs and other advances -- has perhaps given us too many options. She quotes The Washington Post's Liza Mundy, who recently wrote a book about assisted reproduction: "When there is always something else to try ... there is no permission to stop. That’s the hardest part of the process for couples. For most of them, the ‘permission’ to stop comes when they run out of money."

Mundy mentions a key word there: money. I suspect that the only people who may feel overwhelmed by the vast conception options out there are people with either a. unbelievably awesome health insurance, or b. sizeable amounts of wealth.

For the average, fertility-challenged couple, it's more like: try the old-fashioned way, maybe pursue fertility drugs or IVF for a short period of time, then start looking into adoption. (Which, for the record, ain't cheap either.) As Mundy rightly points out, people usually exhaust their options when the funding runs out, and that can make them feel guilty. But I think most parental hopefuls realize their resources are limited. It's a terrible feeling to spend all that time, energy and cash on one conception option or another and still not have a child as a result. I guess I'm not just sure how many people cope with that feeling by, say, turning from in vitro fertilization to intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

I think it's valid to raise the questions Belkin mentions, for sure. I just think most Americans won't ever have to answer them because practical, economic factors will steer their decisions more than any excess of scientific options ever will. As a commenter on Belkin's blog post put it: "I agree that the possibilities can be wonderful for people who very much want to become parents, but those possibilities right now are only available to those with deep pockets. Insurance does not cover most infertility treatments."

Related Links:

Babble Talk: Can You Detach the Womb from the Woman?

Handy Tips for Infertility Awareness Week

Genetic Mom Gets OK to Adopt Baby Carried by Partner

Mom Gets OK to Collect Dead Son's Sperm

Will Kids Lose Their Crocs?

JeanneSager — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:01:00 GMT

Could your kids' summer Crocs be the last they ever where?

The rubbery shoes that set the market alight in 2007 and had parents running out to buy easy on, easy off footwear for their kids is being described by business analysts as highly risky for investors. Some have gone as far as to say they see the Colorado shoemaker folding by the year's end.

Two years ago, the ugly (but oh so comfy) clogs were flying off shelves, and the stock was moving briskly at $72 a share. Now it's down to $2.99 a share; its fifty-two week high was a whopping $12.50. For parents who don't care for a stock lesson, let's just say things are bad. They lost more than half in 2008 of what they made in 2007.

But if the feet of the kids in my daughter's nursery school are a sign of anything, while Crocs popularity has fallen off with adults (who were largely made fun of by their friends), they're still holding strong with kids. As the mother of a Crocs wearer - the reasons are simple. They're easy for her to put on and take off by herself (especially as we haven't tackled how to tie your shoes) and easy to wash off when she stomps through a mud puddle or steps in something much worse.

Some parents were scared off by news that the shoes were getting caught in escalators last year (although others quickly pointed out that a foot clad only in a flip flop would be in even worse shape), but it seems parents are still buying Crocs.

What about you, Babble readers? Will you mourn Crocs if they slip off in the marsh or do you even care?

Image: Crocs

Economy Tanks; Child Abuse Rises

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:30:00 GMT

Child welfare agencies and emergency rooms around the country are seeing a significant increase in child abuse cases this year over last year and they blame the economy.

According to Ann Botash of the Child Abuse Referral and Evaluation Program at SUNY-Syracuse, "there's a lot more stress right now in society. And it comes out on the kids. They are the weakest link."

But Cindy Southworth of the Safety Net Project at the National Network to End Domestic Violence hastens to point out that tough economic times don't necessarily cause violence anymore than good economic times end it. What can happen, however, is a bad economy can increase the opportunities and the occasions for abusers to hurt children:

"If there is already domestic violence in a home, an abuser might have lost his job and is now home all day, as opposed to just evenings. There is more risk time."

Whatever the reason, hospitals are seeing more shaken babies, more abuse-related head injuries and other problems in numbers that are statistically significant. It is another good reason to reach and for some support if your family is struggling these days. It's another good reason to offer support to your family and friends in need, as well.

Two Parents Passing in the Night: Staggered Parenting

JeanneSager — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:31:00 GMT

It's a concern that's become even bigger than ever, but the stories of parents getting creative to avoid daycare costs are only getting wilder.

Take the parents who work opposite shifts, rarely getting to spend real quality time together in their marriage, because it enables at least one parent to be home with their two kids almost every moment of the day.

Lisa Belkin of the Motherlode took a look at Megan and Tim Garrett this past week, a couple who surmises in a good week they're able to limit the use of actual (paid for) daycare to six to nine hours. How do they do it? "Staggered parenting," Belkin calls it. One works nine to five, the other in swing shifts. Just not at the same time (if they can help it).

It's something like what I talked about in my own Bad Parent essay last week in honor of Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day. Daycare is so cost-prohibitive, that I worked out a deal with my boss - I go into an office twice a week while she goes to an actual (again, paid for) daycare. The rest of the time, I take my daughter to work. Some say I've got it easy because I can do this, and I will certainly say I am lucky to have this time with my daughter.

But neither I nor the Garretts have it easy. And unless you're one of those lucky ducks still swimming in the big bucks in this economy, I dare say you don't either.

It's why we're all thinking outside that proverbial box to get the daycare bills paid - or better yet, to avoid them at all. I'm a proponent of paying people what they're worth, so it's hard to come up with a solution for the high costs of daycare. We can't very well expect these people to watch our children for free.

But what of the mom who works nights, the dad who works days, so one can be home with their son at all times? Should they simply be expected to accept the strain that puts on their marriage and their family because, well, "they are doing what should be done when we decide to have children" as one commenter over on the Motherlode said? What about the Garretts, who are ensuring their kids get to spend almost all of their time with mom and dad, but who get almost no time alone to just be adults? Not to mention virtually no "family time." This isn't a knock on single parents, but when there ARE two parents in the situation, it's hardly optimal for the kids to never see them interact.

Daycare is expensive. Daycare is often inflexible. And daycare is not created equal. My friend pays $30 a day for her son to go to a small registered daycare with a nursery school curriculum and both breakfast and lunch provided. That's $150 a week - not too bad, but not available to too many families. She's popular, and fills up fast. In the same town, another friend pays $490 a week for the same service. The disparity is hard to fathom.

For parents who work part-time, the problem isn't just expense but finding a program that will accept their child. We need the money, but few daycares want to take on a child who will not be bringing in steady income for them (can you blame them?) to the tune of five business days, and many are loathe to take on a child at the tail-end of toddlerhood because they know the money will soon dry up once the child is enrolled in "real" school. Infants are tough to place too - in many places they take the place of two older children. In other words, the provider can charge the parent of an infant one fee, or they could take in two toddlers and get two fees - but not both. Again, you can't fault the provider (I'd prefer a limit in kids, wouldn't you?) but it certainly doesn't make life any easier for parents.

So what do you do? Many of us go unregistered, which carries with it its own problems - when I recently wrote about setting up a quid pro quo system with an unemployed friend (cash in exchange for their babysitting time), a commenter pointed out that flies in the face of attempts to professionalize the industry. Again, I agree that daycare workers shouldn't be treated like scut labor, but "non-professional" daycare providers can provide top notch care too.

So what's the fix? Employer-sponsored daycare (um, yes)? Government intervention? For one, I'd like to see the childcare tax write-off system change so we can write off ALL daycare expenses (rather than the "up to $6,000 for families with two children under age thirteen"). Not to mention paid paternity leaves, lengthier paid maternity leaves, and . . .

For all those, of course, there are the arguments from the same people who popped up on the Motherlode citing the rest of the country shouldn't have to pay for our kids. But let me ask: would they rather provide universal programs for parents to keep us in the job market or pay for us all to sit at home with our kids all day being unproductive and FEELING unproductive? Might I point out, those kids are American citizens and future taxpayers too. So how about a little help?

Image: No Time For Laundry

Also on Babble:

Bad Parent: Me and My Shadow

Child Prostitution On the Rise on Craigslist

JeanneSager — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:29:00 GMT

Need another sad and horribly depressing story about kids? Sorry to have to oblige.

Craigslist, home of the great deals on couches and awesome hand-me-down sources for kids clothes, has become the go-to source for people trying to pimp out little kids. And numbers are rising.

The problem is particularly rampant in Atlanta, where A Future. Not A Past, a non-profit that works to fight child prostitution, says as many as one hundred seventy-six ads were posted on the free site in February trying to find a john for little girls.

The group released its findings last week, just as the FBI is working to prosecute two men they say pimped out a seventeen-year-old girl, passing her off as nineteen and using Craigslist to find men to have sex with her in an Atlanta motel. Last month, a Michigan man who called himself the Motor City Mink was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison for pimping kids out via the internet - with many of his ads on Craigslist. The man, Robert Daniels, was the first to be convicted in the nation under the Adam Walsh Law (named for the kidnapped and murdered child of America's Most Wanted host John Walsh), which requires federal penalties for running a child exploitation enterprise.

The fault isn't with Craigslist itself - the company has begun requiring all posters of ads that fall under the "erotic" category, and the company reached an agreement in November with the attorneys general of forty states to add a fee system for the erotic posters, including a valid credit card that could be tracked by law enforcement. Craigslist is also reportedly suing a group of software and Internet companies that allowed posters to circumvent its defenses and post illegal ads.

It's also not always adults doing the deed. Between 2005 and 2008, seventy teens were caught selling themselves on Craigslist.

Why the numbers are back up is anyone's guess, but I wonder how much of this is economic. Craiglist is free, which means people are turning to it more than ever now that the economy is bad. People are desperate, pushing a parent, a family friend, whoever, who might not have acted on an urge to sell a child's ~~soul~~ body for money are no longer held back by traditional mores. It's the same reason adults turn to it in hard times . . . and as a job, it's fairly recession proof.

As the economic picture gets bleaker, I can only wonder how many more horribly sad and depressing stories we're going to hear about things adults are doing to kids. If there is any good news out there it's this: courts are finally getting the picture that teen prostitutes need help not criminalization.

Image: American

The Literal Cost of Homophobia

Shannon LC Cate — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:50:00 GMT

Instead of "Tea Parties" citizens of Florida worried about the state budget should perhaps be holding pro-gay adoption rallies. According to a new report out from The Williams Institute, at the UCLA School of Law, Florida's gay adoption ban is costing the state at least $3.4 million a year.

The number is based on estimating the savings to the state when children in the state's care (foster children) are adopted, versus remaining in foster care and having new families recruited for them, because their gay foster parents are ineligible to adopt them under the current state law.

Maybe this new evidence will work where children's best interest has failed so far. Hard, cold financial gain might move the stone-hearted in a way the health and well being of some of the state's least "adoptable" children has not.

For more details and a link to the actual report, check out Proud Parenting.

image: Steve Lofton, Roger Croteau and their five foster children, via poz.com

Save Your Money: Don't Get Mom a Card

JeanneSager — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:27:00 GMT

I was hardly surprised to hear spending for Mother's Day is expected to be way down this year. Hellllo, it's called a recession.

But I've got to tell you, news that eighty-five percent of Americans will still be cashing in on a card leaves me kind of disappointed in humanity. Because if you REALLY want to save money on us this year, you can skip the card.

The folks at Hallmark and Bouton's have done a bang up job of convincing us we need them (hence the derisively-dubbed "Hallmark holidays"), but do any of us NEED an extra piece of cardstock to sit in that growing pile of mail on the corner table?

But it's the sentiment inside, you say? Yup, a card tells someone you cared enough to go out and spend $4.99 on a picture of two polar bears kissing. The polar bears are cute, but the real "sentiment" comes through in the fact that someone sent one, right? So why not just send an old-fashioned letter, on plain white ruled paper? You don't have to say much. Maybe a "Hey ma, I love you," or a "Thanks for being my mommy." If you want to wax poetic, be my guest, but you won't have to loop your letters around a big goofy sparkly heart on plain old notebook paper.

Since I already sound like the grinch who stole Mother's Day, I'm not exactly crying over the news that electronics purchases for Mom are expected to dip by twenty-nine percent this year. Nothing says "I love you" like getting Mom a cell phone . . . which she now has to pay for montly. And clothing purchases are dipping by twelve percent? Goodie, no more freaky appliqued sweaters that little kids insist Mom is going to love.

Sure, it's the thought that counts, but I've got tell you, I'm still a sucker for the little handprints and the hand-picked daisies. I'd rather they save their money for something they want - and that he save it for groceries.

What about you, Moms, think Mother's Day should still be getting top billing this year?

Image: NBC

Economy Fix: Give 'Em All Jobs in Daycare

JeanneSager — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:27:00 GMT

No good could come of this phone call - my babysitter was hacking up a lung, and I knew I couldn't call out sick from work. Who knew I'd find the silver lining in finding an unemployed neighbor?

Yes, I called my neighbor, who is a grandmother and fantastic with kids - mine especially. She was happy to lend a hand and get a little cash; I was happy to have someone I trusted watching my kid.

After doing a little informal poll, I'm finding a lot of parents have started turning to the unemployed for extra childcare options. Let's face it - these are generally responsible folks, and they're home . . . all day. They might be hitting up the work force development office and making the job fair circuit, but otherwise, they have a lot of extra time on their hands. I've had more than one unemployed acquaintance tell me the frustration of the day isn't just money but the lack of productivity. They WANT to be doing something - and babysitting may not be glamorous, but it's a job.

So what can you do? Instead of calling the teenager next door to watch their kids after school so you can go out and run some errands; call the neighbor kid's mom to watch them during the same time period . . . and spot her a fistfull of dollars. When your sister calls out sick, don't call your boss and call out yourself - find a friend who could use the boost.

It isn't the big economy fix we're all hoping for, but for parents who are always searching for the next daycare fix - it could mean a world of difference.

Image: HomeCareWorld

Fourth Grade Class Writes Sympathy Notes to AIG

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:30:00 GMT

A fourth grade teacher from Texas gave her class an unusual economics lesson the other day when she decided to explain the AIG bailout. When she first told her students that AIG employees had received massive bonuses with government funds, the nine-year-old outrage was palbable.

But apparently Rebecca Chapman is a teacher who is full of surprises. She decided to “turn the tables:”

"What if you were an AIG employee?" she asked. Imagine if you had not been involved in the deals that ruined the company but were left to clean up the mess. What if you had to pay back money you felt you had earned? What if your family had received death threats?

Not surprisingly, this barrage of questions succeeded in making the fourth-graders—who clearly do not have mortgages or 401(k)s—feel sorry for the poor AIG employees, who have to take all this flak simply because they got the $165 million-bonuses that were rightfully theirs. One boy suggested that the class write to AIG to express their sympathy.

“Empathy is fleeting in fourth-graders, so the teacher embraced it," notes the Washington Post. I’m all for nurturing empathy in children, but isn’t the point of empathy to encourage you to help those in need? Ms. Chapman would have been doing a much greater service if she had told these kids about the parents who have lost their jobs or homes—you know, the people whose tax money paid for the AIG bonuses.

What would you do if your kid came home from school feeling sorry for AIG?

Image: Gawker

Abercrombie and Fitch (Finally!) Losing Its Cachet

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:28:00 GMT

Even recessions have a silver lining. Overpriced and oversexed teen clothier Abercrombie and Fitch is feeling the pinch in a big way as teenagers (or their parents) wise up to the fact that it’s just not worth it to pay $58 for a scarf—even if an impossibly dreamy, half-naked hunk is plastered over the cash register.

According to MSNBC, “The company is fiercely protecting its image as a ‘premium’ brand, and, as a result, it's getting snubbed big time by its once cultlike, ever-loyal fan base.” It’s ironic that “premium” means ripped jeans and flannel shirts, but, as Abercrombie sadly found out, if you put enough naked teenagers next to any product, it’ll sell.

That is, until hardly anyone can afford to buy it anymore. Abercrombie was the biggest retail loser in March, posting a 34 percent drop in sales. I wonder how those numbers compare to the drop in teenagers’ self-esteem after looking at an Abercrombie catalogue.

In case you haven’t recently had the joy of getting assaulted by club music and cheap cologne in your local Abercrombie lately, Jezebel has an anecdote to remind you just how abominable the king of preppy is. Writer Hortense remembers sharing in a hospital with a young woman who was being treated for anorexia. She had to be tube-fed around the clock. “The week before she was hospitalized,” Hortense writes, “she told me, she went to buy clothes at Abercrombie & Fitch, and the manager pestered her the entire time, begging her to apply for a job there, because she had ‘the look they wanted.’”

Perhaps the manager was so pushy because of the high employee turnover.

Photo: abercrombieandfitch.com

What They're Babbling About: David's Back at the Dentist and We Rant

JeanneSager — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:26:00 GMT

It's a random round-up in this week's edition of What They're Babbling About - nothing ties them together - other than parenting of course. So let's dig in.

Thought David Goes to the Dentist was hilarious? It gets better - someone's mashed up David with the Christian Bale rant. Warning - kick the kids out of the room, and do not play this one at work! - YouTube

We've all been there - pissed beyond belief, pissed beyond compare . . . sound kind of like Christian Bale. So how do you rein in the rant when your kids are around? Stamp down the steaming streaming with these tricks. - Parent Dish

Just don't use the brake pedal for discipline - or you'll end up in the slammer with this bus driver. - Parent Dish

Think the ranting over Madonna adopting out-of-country is over the top? This mom thinks that's just another road that will lead the reduction in reproductive choice. Weigh in here. - Proud Parenting

Since we're talking taboos, is money no object these days. . . conversation-wise? Everyone's moaning about the economy, so is this mom right in finding more room to talk about family finances out and about? - Work It, Mom

Ready to get this kid out of you but not willing to try something crazy? Find out what doctors say is a no-fail way to get the baby moving, and what one moms says it did to her. - LilSugar

And since that will generally lead to breastfeeding, my favorite pick of the day - what to do when a mother is breastfeeding next to you on an airplane. A primer for all you lucky ducks on your way home from spring break. Hint: it's not looking around uncomfortably. - Sustainable Mothering

Is Pay to Play At Public Schools Fair?

JeanneSager — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:29:00 GMT

There's a storm a brewin' in one Pennsylvania school where administrators have suggested parents pay for their kids to take part in extra-curricular activities. With the economy oh so sunny, I can't help but wonder if this isn't a national trend.

Are more public schools going to call for a pay to play system?

You're darn tootin'. In fact, many do. And in states like Minnesota and Arizona, it's written right into state law that they CAN. Ditto Pennyslvania, where a 2002 law stipulated it's OK for schools to charge fees for activities that are not "essential to core education."

But parents at the Dallastown Area School District in Southern Pennsylvania say this will put an undue burden on them - especially for families with more than one child. They point out that the economy is making parents pinch the same pennies as the school district; and they need free activities for their children now more than ever.

There's long been an argument that fees for extra-curricular activites in a public school system do more harm than good. The lower income families struggle to pay the fees while kids from more affluent families are treated to more opportunities. It perpetuates the separation between the classes. It's a valid argument. Except, when I look at my property tax bill (schools are funded via property taxes in New York State), I am more liable to celebrate if I knew my daughter learned to read and write then I am if I know she just got a free t-shirt for playing free soccer.

The crux of the argument lies in the notion of a free education as guaranteed by our Constitution. But is football education? What about yearbook? Or art club? In Dallastown, the school spends $1.3 million a year on extra-curricular activities for their kids. This in a state where ninety-five percent of school districts were found in 2007 to be spending well below what was recommended per student on academics.

Sports and other extra-curriculars are good for kids. They're social activities, for one, educating children on the nuances of a working with others, often adding discipline and rounding out their core education. But think of how many parents can't send their kids to extra-curriculars because they won't make it home in time to pick them up from practice, and you'll see how limited the offerings already are to the general population. That was me - I didn't play one single school-associated sport during my twelve years of public school. The school wasn't expected to step up and help my parents arrange for me to get home from practice. Nor did they supplement my parents' payments for me to play AYSO soccer in elementary school. It was expected to keep me in line from 7:30 to 3:55 and produce a college-ready senior.

I'd prefer to think that every kid - rich or poor - got a good start on reading, writing and arithmetic before I start worrying about whether little Johnny gets to stay after school for extras. Once we have that down, then I'll think about.

So what do you think, parents? Is it fair to force parents to pay for extra-curriculars, even in this economy?

Image: Wikimedia

Parents Forego Circumcision to Save Money

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:00:00 GMT

Foreskin may be making a comeback. In these dire economic times, more and more parents are choosing to opt out of the costly and medically unnecessary procedure.

According to a UCLA report, circumcisions are down by 24 percent in the 16 states where foreskin removal is not covered by Medicaid. The average cost of circumcision is 300 bucks, more than enough money to dissuade parents who are having trouble scraping up the rent.

Although studies have linked circumcision to a lower risk of contracting certain STDs, no medical professional would argue that foreskin absolutely must go. According to Dr. Andrew Freedman, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, “The $300 is a luxury.”

For some, like those who recently marched on Washington in honor of Genital Integrity Awareness Week, that $300 is less of a luxury and more of an abomination. Perhaps anti-circumcision activists will not have to yell quite so loudly so long as the economy continues to plummet.

They Say: Circumcision May Lower STD Risk

Marching on Washington for the Rights of His "Junk"

Family Awarded Millions for Circumcision Mistake

Family Evicted for Having Twins

JeanneSager — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:57:00 GMT

Ever heard of someone too big to fit inside a house? What if that person were two people - two teeny, weeny newborn people?

A Michigan couple learned their newborn twins put them over the limit for space allotted to people in their housing community this week when they received an eviction notice - just after the babies were born.

Mike Morris, Shawnee Crider, and their three kids, moved into Mike's mom's double-wide at the housing complex in Kentwood, Michigan shortly after Mike lost his job . . . and the family lost their house. Shawnee was pregnant with twins when they moved in, and she gave birth shortly after they moved in.

That's when Mike's mom's landlord sent a letter - three adults and five kids was too much for one doublewide, it said. Park regulations require at least two hundred fifty square feet of living space per person. Mike and Shawnee - and their five kids - had to get out.

Mike is still looking for a job, and this is his mom's house - his family who had offered to help them when times got rough. Where are they supposed to go? Although we don't want to send people back to tenement living, when families of ten slept in one bed in one room, there's a reason tenements were popular in the thirties - because everyone was broke.

I'm also not convinced a newborn baby needs two hundred fifty square feet of living space. For what? To stare at while they lie like a lump in Mom's arms? They're not crawling yet, not running around, and they don't spend a whole lot of time not connected to a person (even sleeping they need only the size of a bassinet - and that's if you're not co-sleeping).

Should the landlord update its rules or should they stick by them, regardless of the economy?

Image: WoodTV