Thu 24 May 2007
riddle me this
Posted by bon under issue stuff, stuff to be done
the housecleaners came today, thank Jesus. since last November, they’ve been coming every four or five weeks, two women my own age, and scrubbing the floors and the bathroom and the windows, leaving our tidy but grubby little house grime-free for twelve whole minutes and bringing me great joy and a profound sense of freedom. the one hour they spend here every month releases me from a drudgery i particularly hate, and more important, from the fear that my child will die from eating off my floors. the $30 i spend in that one hour is my ticket out from under the burden of housewifely neglect and all the stereotypes of my sex role. both women tease me that if i don’t get a job soon i’ll have to come work for them. and if some month, freelancing fails to net me the $30 luxury of freedom from my own perfectionism, i’ll happily pick up a pail in someone else’s house rather than lose them cleaning my own. $30 is nothing, for what i get out of it.
i got a pedicure last week. it has been almost ten years since i first discovered the Nirvana that is the pedicure, and though i’ve only had perhaps twenty-five of them in the ensuing decade, i can tell you about each one, like rhyming off lovers in a rolling list of memories. the soak. the scrape. the tidy clipping, the smoothing and filing into pretty moons. the massage. the painting and polishing…my one nod to overt societal beauty conventions…me who never wears makeup feels naked without toe polish, usually matte red-brown, sometimes French, usually chipped and months old because i wait so long between visits to the aesthetician. but i go. last week, after months and months of scratchy, neglected feet scraping small holes in my socks, i went, hoping to usher in some sandal weather. the woman i go to talks too much, shares too much, but she has steady hands and i pretend to sleep and sometimes really do slip out of myself, into that suspended space where all i have to do is lie still and get my toes prettied. she is the cheapest in town…$30 for forty-five minutes of relaxation, turning my hooves into proverbial silk purses. and again, $30 is nothing, for what i get out of it.
Oscar goes back to his sitter’s house tomorrow, for the day, so i can get caught up on my freelance editing and my job searching and the housework that the cleaners don’t do and the errands i want to do, and all your blogs.
he has been there three days so far…Tuesdays and Thursdays these past two weeks. he seems happy enough with the arrangement, squeaking with pleasure when we arrive, hugging the dog, greeting the little girls of the house like a mini-Elvis come to swagger for their pleasure. his sitter is kind, and engaging, and if she has the tv on too much for my liking she’s still using his cloth diapers without complaint and feeding him nutritious-ish lunches and setting limits gently but firmly so far as i can see, and it seems like a good home, a caring enough place. for eight hours a day, she is good to my child. my child. my beloved, my baby. for eight hours a day, for watching and wiping and feeding and laughing with him, teaching him, being there for him, she charges $30 total.
and $30 is nothing, for what i/he/freaking society as a whole gets out it…when you consider how many little children are in some form of childcare, how many of ‘tomorrow’s leaders’ are being shaped by someone who gets paid eight times less than the woman who does my feet, and still significantly less than the people cleaning my house. because that’s the market rate, because that’s apparently how we value that work. and i took all the feminist courses years ago, and i knew all this in theory, but still, when it works out this coldly, this cleanly, i’m stunned.
now, O’s sitter can make more. she can take in more babies, more children. right now, she only has her own daughters and himself in her care. but starting in June, there will be two more one-year-olds there, on a full-time basis. and she’s willing to take O full-time. and she mentioned another child who might be coming part-time, too. and i think “my stars, five babies, how will my preshus ever get the attention he deserves?’
but $30 is nothing, friends. and Dave & i can find different options, sure…hire someone we pay reasonably to Nanny for him at our place, instead…though i think he’s really ready for the interaction with other kids, ready to be out of the bubble of this house a few days a week…or i could pay the sitter more! except then i think i’d look like some weird white-liberal-guilt twit who doesn’t have a job but has to feel magnanimous so she won’t have to deal with her class issues. maybe it would offend the sitter’s dignity. maybe she’d be thrilled. maybe both. i dunno. chances are i won’t do it.
and even if i did, it wouldn’t be $30 an hour. i know that childcare is day-in, day-out - hence the reason i’m paying someone to do some of it - and i know that i only get, on average, four pedicures a year, if that. but still. but still. isn’t it weird? my pretty feet and my child being kept safe by someone else…both luxuries i choose to pay for right now, but i pay eight times as much for the former because that’s what my society deems a fair wage. because that’s the going rate.
tell me, friends, what the fuck is right about that? ’cause i cannot figure it out.













May 24th, 2007 at 1:37 am
I think I need to get me a housecleaner!
I also might need to move to where you are - we certainly can’t get childcare around here for anything like $30/8 hours!
It is astonishing that it’s the same price for 8 hours as for just an hour of cleaning or less than an hour of a pedi.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Hey bon,
I don’t know if you saw my reply to your comment about this over at my place. We pay our Nanny $10 an hour b/c she is a university student trying to pay her way through school and, shit, she deserves the same wage she would get if she landed a work-study position on campus. This means that we pay her $1,000 a month for 25 hours a week. She comes to our house where we supply the heat, food and toys.
In the fall Miss M will go to day care. It will cost us $450 a month. If I wanted to, I could drop her off at 7:30 am and pick her up at 5:30 pm. I won’t do this, but the centre still has to staff the place that long each day. The centre provides space, toys, 1 meal and two snacks, and keeps my child in regulated space where she will be cared for in a room with 10 kids and 2 teachers both of whom have gone to school to get a diploma in early child care and who participate in ongoing professional development. $450 a month.
Both my sisters work in day care. 1 runs a pre-school and the other has been a cook at a day care for going on 20 years. What they earn is insulting. Their level of expertise and professionalism is unparalleled. Yes, like you, I am at a loss.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:00 am
I recently learned that the women that work in my kid’s daycare - and it is a great daycare center that we love - make 16K a year. A YEAR!! Jeebus marscaponing riboflavin. How can that be right?
May 24th, 2007 at 2:03 am
At Jack’s preschool, I have had the privilege of getting to know some of the most intelligent, caring, bright, and generous teachers I have ever met.
And the most qualified among them makes maybe $30,000 a year. No health insurance, either.
It is shocking, I agree.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:06 am
what the f(*&^ indeed. we pay a reasonable amount for 4 days a week and M is with 11 other kidlets. and we non profit wonks aren’t rich, almost all of one paycheck of goes to the daycare.
and then i meet countless women who have to put their children in less desireable situations for less, and they get less, TVs blaring and bad food. and they do this because they must go earn minimum wage somewhere else. and more than one paycheck goes to daycare.
it’s the price we put on child rearing combined with a liveable wage that really gets me fried.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:06 am
Mad…i did see your response, and almost feel like this post is a fraternal twin of your own, and would have linked if i could have teased out the exact connection. they would make a good start to a collection on service and class and wage issues, mayhap?
O’s sitter has ECE qualifications as well. she makes more taking kids into her own home, because she doesn’t have to put her own two daughters (1 and 4) in care, and because she can claim tax writeoffs for a lot of household expenses. and because daycares in PEI pay about three cents an hour to their staff…
i have ECE qualifications myself thanks to the special ed certificate i did along with my B.Ed back in the day. i worked in daycare out in Vancouver my first year out of school, because i couldn’t afford the $250 it cost to become provincially certified to substitute teach there. i grossed $14,000 that year, working two jobs. with two degrees. absurd.
but i still never really thought about it in terms of wage value comparisons with other careers until i happened to notice the number 30 rolling around a lot in my week this week…it really blows my mind.
and Nico, yeh, things are fairly cheap here. though i could certainly pay $60 for a pedi at a fancier salon, and if i had a house more than three apples tall, the cleaners would be more too. but $30 is the going rate for childcare…oh yeh. hell, they’re only kids, it’s not like they’re, you know, FEET or anything precious.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:46 am
It’s certainly the same here (in the U.S.) and I find it horribly depressing. Caregivers are so terribly undervalued. And yet, as Jen notes, the good ones (and probably most of the bad ones too) are still out of reach for many people. Kids and parents and especially the caregivers themselves are footing the bill, when business and government are the ones truly obligated to do it.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:29 am
Just reading this made me think, ‘Hell, yeah, you can come over for coffee sometime. In fact, you’d better, if you’re ever in the ‘hood.’
Well, out here we were paying nearly double what you’re paying per day. And once/if we have another, there would be no point in Joe working because of the cost of daycare. But I understand all of what you’re saying here.
I’ve always thought of the people who work at the daycare as being co-parents with us to some degree - most of this coming out of the realisation that at a year, in terms of waking hours, they would be spending more time with her than we would - and I know that most places don’t compensate them as such. It really shows you how undervalued the work of raising a child is.
As an aside: I’ve never had a pedicure, but this post made me want one.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:05 am
I just can’t believe sage has never had a pedicure. I have had two. They rock.
We worship at your feet.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:44 am
We pay £650 per month, or about $1400 canadian for full-time nursery for our son. Part of that is the higher minimum wages here in Scotland, along with increased costs of living, and when you break it down and look at the nursery’s overheads, they barely make enough to stay afloat. We don’t get the tax writeoffs that Canadians get either.
When they talk about women deciding to stay home with the kids, I think a lot of it is financial. To have women working there has to be government subsidies, and sometimes I think that the conservative (small -c) elements to our society just don’t want women with young families to work.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Sage, you should seriously try the pedicure…and report back.
and Trish, i’m thinking that in a sense the costs in Scotland and here work out fairly similarly, barring the real purchase value of the money involved. if O does go into care full time, $30 a day will work out to between $600 and $690 every month, depending on how many days in the month involved…and my full time salary would likely be on par in Cdn dollars to what it would be in pounds there. i did a little work-hunting when we were in England last month and was amazed at the fact that the salaries for my qualifications were essentially the same, in numbers - and more than double, in value - there…makes me wish i were earning on the pound with a view to eventually coming back here with what i saved, given the huge availability of work there by comparison. i agree that there doesn’t seem to be the political will to make childcare subsidies reasonable…and certainly no general corporate interest in funding well-paid childcare, at least around here.
and yeh, even if childcare is cheap, it’s still not cheap enough for many, hence the need for subsidies, IMO. my mother was left alone with me when i was six months old, and she took in other children for three years to avoid going out to work, because she simply couldn’t afford daycare for me on what she was qualified to make. flat out, not possible.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
We pay our sitter $10 an hour - which is what I made as a nanny in 1992. Seems like I should be paying twice that.
But I don’t. Because $10 stretches us.
It is sad, isn’t it? Think of this, though. My husband made $45K after NINE years as a teacher in the inner city.
After one year in a Big Company, I made $69K to push paper from one pile to another.
The whole world is skewed.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
We can’t afford day care, so we work less. We spend our taxed “beer and popcorn” money in other ways.
Governments need to subsidize childcare. It shouldn’t take another war similar to WW2 to convince governments of this. It CAN be done, IF the will is there.
Sadly, in Canada, the will ISN’T. Anymore, I wonder what my taxes actually get me…
and I’ll be right across from where your husband is staying when I get groceries tonight-let me know the room number and I’ll leave something at his door.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
It is sad that society places so little value on the people who are raising and teaching our children. My husband, who never went to college, made twice as much as I did teaching. Even though I had a college degree. Even though my job was fifty times more difficult. Even though my job was 1,000 times more important.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Thank you for all of this. I have worked childcare and now have kids of my own, and I can’t believe I don’t throw extra money at the childminders. But I’m happy to give them their little bit–less than I’d pay for a shirt.
This is great perspective.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
So well said. I was amazed that you could get childcare, house-cleaning and a pedicure all for the same amount! I thought it was a typo at first. I think that we should pay more for looking after our children all day, but like Sage, I would have trouble paying for two. But, our daycares cost about double what you pay out here in the Big Smoke.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
My daycare provider also charges $30 a day. She sometimes has as much as five kids besides her own four-year-old daughter, sometimes only three.
But I have discovered that it’s so much more than keeping Swee’pea safe. He is learning values there, and appropriate behaviour and boundaries, as well as eating and sleeping and playing. That’s what really gets me. How lucky I am to have somebody that shares our values to some extent… that is priceless really.
And Pedicures. I need one. I love a nice, bright deep metallic brownish red for my toes. I also totally feel naked with them unpainted even though I almost never wear makeup. But they’re closer to $50 here. Wah!
May 24th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I thought the $30 was a typo at first, when it kept coming up. The comparison of wages is pretty shocking.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
While I empathize to a great extent, I have some questions:
1) If all feel childcare workers are being underpaid (which they surely are, it is one of the most difficult jobs in the world, bringing up the next generation) why don’t we each pay our daycare provider more instead of just accepting the situation and paying the going rate?
2) If it costs more, or almost as much, as we earn to pay for day care, why don’t we stay home with our little ones until they are of school age?
3) I think there is guilt in paying for all the above services because we don’t really want to do any of these things ourselves, i.e., give ourselves a pedicure, clean our house, and, if truth be known, stay home full-time with our children.
4) We’re all looking for a day care situation that provides what we give our little ones.
5) If we’re only using daycare to socialize our children, we can provide a playtime in our own homes to do that.
6)Why should day care be subsidized by the government when we have control when and if we will have children? Surely we should plan for these things? Government money is needed for so many other things, like taking care of sweet salty’s beautiful little preemie boys in NICU and good teachers for our children when they are old enough to benefit from our free education system, or the free vaccinations they get to protect them from so many horrible diseases, or the lovely parks we take them to on a long weekend.
I’m just saying.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Hmmm…I’m not sure that it’s so much a question of the value society puts on childcare as a matter of arithmetic.
If both parents work at jobs with conventional hours, they need childcare from, say, 8:30 to 5:30 — the equivalent of a full time job. To pay a childcare provider a reasonable amount, say $50,000/year, you’re looking at just a little less than $1000/week. And that’s not including all the other costs (social security, unemployment, health care*), which would, at a minimum, add $5,000 and probably considerably more.
Most families just can’t afford to pay $55,000 out of their after-tax income. Obviously, the price could be reduced if the provider takes in more kids, but most states have limits on the number of kids per provider (3:1 for babies), which still would take a huge chunk out of most families’ budgets, especially if the family has more than one child.
Sure, the government could subsidize it through taxes, but I certainly wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. And, of course, if it did, the childcare providers would have an incentive to raise their prices, so as to get the full benefit of any subsidy (in much the same way that universities continually raise tuition to capture any increases in federal aid), meaning that the parents wouldn’t get much real benefit.
*I’m thinking of the situation in the US.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Never had a pedicure. I can’t stand the thought of a stranger touching my hairy monkey toes.
But the insult of childcare workers wages boils deep within me. It is a travesty.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
lol, Niobe, you’re quite right…our family doesn’t even MAKE $55,000 a year in before-tax income.
so, no, much as many people here make it clear that they pay above and beyond the “going rate,” i don’t think individual families can afford to be the ones to make childcare a wellpaying job. the post is about the fact that i know damn well i’m not going to be paying $30 an hour for childcare, even if i do pay “more”. and if i did, even if it was only occasional babysitting, an hour every three months, people would think i was mad. yet i say i paid that for a pedicure, and everyone agrees i’m getting a good deal. that’s what’s crazy…both aestheticians and ECEs train in a college-type certification program, usually, but the ones who deal with feet have their skills inherently valued at a far higher level than those who deal with kids. the market serves my aesthetician well, i suppose, and i don’t begrudge her, but the market isn’t going to ever step up and pay childcare well because of exactly what Niobe pointed out, so i DO think it’s government’s role. if it isn’t, then it falls again back primarily on women and our unvalued contributions, and makes for a society that isn’t really what it claims to be.
and Island Journalist, nah, i don’t really feel guilty about the fact that i don’t want to do all my housecleaning or footcare or even be a full-time stay at home parent right now. i hear what you’re saying, but the assumptions that underlie your words still kinda suggest that a woman’s place is in the home, that if you want kids, you should be prepared to give up the bulk of your professional life until they’re in school…which is actually as arbitrary an institution as day care is…and wasn’t always a free government service until society started to value it. i’m suggesting that childcare should perhaps be seen the same way. i actually am quite willing to set career growth aside while my kids are small, and if we have two, i’ll likely work mostly from home, with perhaps a day or two of having them in care. and i’ll try to pay well. but my point here was mostly just…wow. $30 an hour vs $30 a day. i think it’s telling.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
I agree with your take on what Island Journalist had to say in that there was certainly an underlying tone that suggested the woman’s place is in the home. For those women who want it that way, great. I’m not one of them. I bow and kiss the feet of every stay-at-home mom out there. There’s no way I could stay at home and maintain my sanity. Selfish? Probably. But I’m here to tell you - and my friends and family would agree - that my son is better off because of my choice. I’m happy, so I’m a much better mom.
The daycare dilema … tough one. I pay a premium for child care, but I also live in California, so it’s all relative I guess.
I sure would like to find myself a house cleaner that would charge me $30, though! I can’t find anyone that will charge me a dime less than $150!!!!!!
May 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I’ve never had a pedicure, either, mainly because I’m too embarrassed to show my feet and think I need a pedicure to GET a pedicure…KWIM?
We pay our sitter a whopping $15/hour for two kids, which I think is ok since our son is almost 7 and she doesn’t really “babysit” him. My brother and his wife pay over $1,000 a month for daycare in the DC area–staggering.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:56 am
I’m sorry if what you have taken from my e-mail is that I believe a woman’s place is in the home.
That is certainly not my belief.
I am struggling, as we all are, I believe, to come to terms with these issues of what society values and whether pay is an accurate measure of that value.
Perhaps caregivers get a certain amount of satisfaction in being able to stay home and look after their own children along with the others that they care for that is priceless, so they are willing to accept what seems like a paltry amount for the work they do.
I don’t know if caring full time for your child, if that’s what your desire is, for 5 — 10 years is giving up the bulk of your professional life. There are a lot of years to work. As someone once said, “No one says on his or her deathbed, “I wish I’d spent more time in the office.” And there are paternity as well as maternity leaves. Women do bear the children and feed the babies, so it does make sense that most of at least the first few months of the baby’s life that mom stays home. There are a lot of people on the mommy and daddy tracks in their careers that find a little balance leads to a more holistic life.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:54 am
I never figured out why teachers and those who care for young children make so little money. It doesn’t make any sense at all. One of the most important jobs in the world…next to being parents.
Granted, I’ve seen some teachers/daycare workers who barely earned their minimum wage….but for the most part those who would do the best job can’t afford too. That’s sad.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:12 am
bon, I’m sure not making the same number of £s as I would in Canada in $$ - it’s pretty close to 1/2 so my childcare is a lot more expensive here than it would be back home. But I’m not complaining, I chose this. Minimum wage here is also higher and that could be why.
island_journalist, there’s a couple things I think you’re overlooking. First, even if I wanted to stay home for a few years, the nature of my career (research scientist) means that if I did this, I’d have a very hard time getting back into the workforce. As you said, there’s a lot of years left to work once my kid(s) are in school. It’d suck if I had to spend them all in a job that wasn’t as good as the job I have now (and that’d be the likely outcome of a career break). I’m sure I’m not alone with this issue.
Second, it’s easy to suggest that women stay home for a few years, but I’d argue that women like me are needed in the workforce. The midwives who looked after me in the hospital often told me about their toddlers at home, the women working as teachers, doctors, public servants, etc. are all necessary to society’s well-being. We can’t put the lid back on the box and the truth is that women in their early 30s (which so many of us are) often work in front-line public services. (Because lower salaries in public services tend not to attract men? Because women like the increased benefits? I’m not sure why). I think society would miss us working mothers way more than it realizes.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Trish…wow. i didn’t realize the discrepancy was that high…half is a hugely significant difference, and it would definitely make your childcare a far greater proportion of income. i apologize for my presumptuousness…i’d been looking in the UK at work in my own field, which is “soft” and thus notoriously underpaid where i am, so i was slathering at the idea of 35K in pounds rather than 40K in Cdn dollars…but you have now wakened me to the realization that not all fields are operating on the same equation.
and Island Journalist, i’m sorry if i misunderstood the gist of what you were saying. i do see pay as at least a significant measure of what society values, and how it chooses to invest in and reward certain paths and choices. i find it odd that, given the lip service we give to the importance of children to society, we pay people approximately 40K in their first year teaching six year olds, but about 18K in their first year teaching four year olds. pay is what i’m on about here, basically. and though i definitely recognize that no one dies wishing they’d spent more time at the office, i agree with Trish that 5-10 years completely out of a career (that for many women in their thirties is really just getting started thanks to demographic issues and the fact that boomers are pushing back retirement from 55 to 65) is unrealistic for many people and families, and potentially for society as well. but i also think that’s a whole other post, and one i’ll try to take up soon.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I know, Bon, what you are saying about the skewed relationship between pay and value of work to society.
I have friends in social work, one in particular I am thinking of, who works with young offenders in a half-way house. He is paid 1/3 of the salary of another friend who works in marketing for a professional football team.
Now, the social worker is, in my opinion, contributing a whole lot more to society.
However, someone pointed out to me that the businessman keeps the economy going; i.e. the professional football team attracts a whole bunch of people to spend their money in a big city, which means the taxes paid on the goods and services these people buy increases the size of the provincial and federal coffers, which means there is more money (in a perfect world!)to spend on social workers.
I guess my point is with parents (not just moms, I hasten to clarify) staying at home is that on many levels, we are the best caregivers to our children. Who better to transmit the values we believe to them?
But that doesn’t mean moms or dads have to stay home full-time. As Trish says, we can’t put the lid back on the box, nor would I want to. And believe me, I know how much is sacrificed by staying home. I dream that if I had stayed in the work force, I’d now be on the staff of the Globe and Mail, instead of selling the odd freelance article to them.
What I would like to see is no less than a redefinition of our society. Where the time you spend at home with little ones is not counted against you when you return to the work force. Where raising children is seen as a massive contribution to the well-being of a country, not just a choice of people who are well-off or haven’t got what the world considers an “important” career so they can easily leave it behind when they have a baby. Where there are generous parental leave provisions so if your child is sick you don’t have to muscle her into a snowsuit and drop her off at the caregiver’s just because you might get fired if you stay home another day.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
On my deathbed, I’m pretty sure that I’m going to wish I’d spent more time in the office. But, you know, that’s just me, and probably doesn’t have any broader application.
May 26th, 2007 at 3:15 am
Bossy pays less for her pedicures - and it comes with free toenail infections!
May 28th, 2007 at 1:33 am
My theory is this: if you were to take every woman out of the workforce in Canada with a child under the age of 5 (just so she could stay home to mother her children), the economy would collapse. Period. All the childcare workers would be unemployed. There would be a shortage of labour across the job/career spectrum. Without a doubt, Canada would slide instantly into recession.
Now when a major corp is facing huge lay-offs, the gov’t jumps in with subisidies. It’s what gov’ts do, especially conservative gov’ts. And yet, the thought of subsidizing child care seems ananthema to the very people who would do anything to keep the economy vibrant. Funny that.