38 ms·
On Day Care, Google Makes a Rare Fumble
- ojbyrne 18y agoI note that it was a website banned here that first broke that story.
- alaskamiller 18y agoWhy yes, indeedy: 6/13 http://valleywag.com/5016355/google-daycare-now-a-luxury-for-larry-and-sergeys-inner-circle http://valleywag.com/5016355/google-daycare-now-a-luxury-for... 6/16 http://valleywag.com/5016952/googles-daycare-debacle-the-kinderplex-memos http://valleywag.com/5016952/googles-daycare-debacle-the-kin... A broken clock's at least right twice a day, eh?
- gruseom 18y agoLet's give them twice a year. And by reading here instead of there, I get it all filtered for free. Edit: I went and looked at them. They're very similar to the NYT piece, only shorter. Perhaps HN should ban the NYT? :)
- robg 18y agoI'm saddened, but not shocked, that very smart people think you need to spend $40k/year in daycare for children. Misplaced parental guilt?
- diego 18y agoIf you are a young couple with an infant in the Bay Area you don't have much of a choice. A friend of mine and his wife decided that they would be better off if she quit her job and took care of their two kids for a few years, as her take-home salary wasn't enough to pay for day care.
- robg 18y agoIs the limiting factor good quality observers/teachers? Why don't they open their own daycare? It's a lot of work, but if a parent has quit their job any ways, what's a few more kids?
- sjh 18y ago> what's a few more kids? An insurance liability, for one thing.
- HeyLaughingBoy 18y agoQuite simply: it's insurance and state-mandated minimum child-provider ratios! The least we ever paid for childcare was $820/month and that was a very good preschool that had extremely low staff turnover -- we were lucky. When my son was younger, the costs were higher: infants cost over $1000/month. That said, many people here in MN do in-home daycare which is usually much less expensive. Usually it's a parent who has decided to stay home with her baby and gets the training and insurance to care for other children as well to cover the cost of her leaving her job. However, as you get to the preschool years, the quality varies radically. They may give good childcare, but the learning experiences can be slim to none. My son entered Kindergarten extremely well prepared and immediately outdistanced most of the other kids. Odds are that in-home daycare would not have prepared him for school as well.
- bmj 18y agoThis is the case, I think, in most cities, even where the cost of living is not as high as the Bay area. At best, one salary is enough for day care costs, but very little is left over.
- pmorici 18y ago40k seems excessive. say you paid the teacher very well they would get what like 100k a year? So you are saying that 1 teacher can only watch 3 kids? There are entire families with more kids than that.
- jedberg 18y ago
- comatose_kid 18y agoI spend about 2500/month for two children. I call it the macbook pro a month program :) So, about 30k/year, and about 5k of that is tax deductible (iirc). Misplaced parental guilt? Not really - it's just tough to find good care in the bay area for a low price without enduring a huge waiting list.
- froo 18y agoHangon, so let me get this right... Not only have Google basically doubled the cost of their childcare, but they're also charging people for the priveledge to be on the waiting list for that childcare? They dont think this is a strange move at all?
- gaius 18y agoThe problem with flat organizations like Google is that they aren't really flat at all; all that happens is the org chart is hidden rather than out in the open. This story is nothing to do with daycare per se; it's to do with the crackpot ideological ideas of one individual who is very powerful on the hidden org chart, and is abusing her position to further her own social engineering experiments.
- shimonrura 18y agoI think it also gives a clear example of out how brittle "don't be evil" truly is, when administered by a "management committee" consisting of people who are mostly multimillionaires. Perhaps a more equitable and user-responsive way to provide day care would be to let local offices or workgroups organize their own childcare groups, with some degree of corporate subsidy and other support.
- gaius 18y agoYou know, Marie Antoinette is famous for saying "then let them eat cake" when told that the poor of Paris had no bread. That wasn't her being cruel; she had been raised in such luxury that she simply couldn't comprehend that there was no food at all to be had outside of her cloistered world. The pre-IPO Googlers have all the characteristics of an aristocracy now...
- smanek 18y agoI don't think that's true ... I believe that the original source of that quote was Rousseau, referring to an unnamed princess, some 20 years before Marie Antoinette was even born. There is some speculation that he may have been referring to Maria Theresa of Spain, but even that is doubtful.
- railsjedi 18y agoThere's really not much here. Reads like a political hit piece, with "anonymous sources" relaying embarrassing quotes from Sergey Bin. I usually expect a lot better from NYTimes.
- fairramone 18y agoFurther evidence that Google is NOT all that it is cracked up to be. The days of Google subsidizing child care would seem to be gone. Not that any other organization is much better at this particular problem, unfortunately.
- noonespecial 18y agoDon't Be Evil seems a bit like a levee system. Its easy when your town is small to keep it surrounded by levees and the flood waters at bay, but there comes a point when the town is just too big, a weak spot inevitably occurs and the flood waters come roaring in.
- fiaz 18y agoFrom the article: "Meanwhile, someone at Google woke up one day and realized that the company was subsidizing each child to the tune of $37,000 a year — which nobody had noticed up until then — compared with the $12,000-a-year average subsidy of other big Silicon Valley companies like Cisco Systems and Oracle." It seems that Google was quite generous over the years and finally realized that given the difficult economic times that they as a company must do something to bring their internal spending in line to a more realistic range. I don't see why Google should be penalized for such a move. Unfortunately for Google, the fact that this is a move that affects children and families such a story becomes even more sensitive. Google is a business like any other business out there. Why are they being treated as though they are something other than a business?
- sjh 18y agoBecause the impression is about that they are different, an impression which they have fostered themselves. The opening words of the Letter from the Founders in the IPO prospectus reads: "Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one." (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312504073639/ds1.htm http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001193125040...)
- condor 18y agoIt seems that google was generous in the way a company is generous by having a policy to pay for traveling employees' hotel stays at the Ritz, and when it learns that they are paying 4x more than competitors who have employees stay at the Marriot, changes its policy by having employees stay at the Ritz but charging them to cover some of the subsidy, instead of changing their policy and paying for employees to stay at a lower priced hotel. Apologies for the looong sentence.
- pmorici 18y agoExactly! The "evil" part about this isn't that Google wants to reduce their subsidy from 37k to 12k it's that Google wants to reduce the subsidy w/o lowering costs. That said no one is forcing the parents to use Google child care and they could presumably band together and go to the company that ran the original lower cost care service and have them open a cost effective center near by, or something to that effect.
- cpr 18y agoI know one shouldn't question orthodoxy, but it seems insane to me to have children and then dump them all day, from a young age, with strangers. What's the point of having them if you're not raising them?
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- davidw 18y agoAs the parent of a 2 month old, it's a difficult question we're facing right now. Who? How? When? Should my wife, with a doctorate in biochemistry, abandon her career completely and stay home? Should I? I'm not enthusiastic about those options. Should we hire someone? Not wild about that either. I think the best would be to kind of try and switch off, but it's going to require a lot of flexibility, and perhaps earning less money. The second is probably ok, depending on wherever it is we settle, the second may not be forthcoming from many employers. Sigh...
- lisper 18y agoWith all due respect, did it never occur to you to get this all figured out BEFORE you had kids?
- gruseom 18y agoRight. And to help you not to make similar mistakes in the future: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model.
- davidw 18y agoWow, I don't think I've ever been so offended by something on this site. Your implication that I haven't thought about the future of my daughter is... something I hope you never say to any other parent. We've done our best to think about the future, but it's unknowable.
- 18y ago
- ivankirigin 18y agoI've always paid for our day care. But this is a bad idea because googlers would be more comfortable and spend more time working if day care were right there at work. Near work or near home are the two most convenient places. I'm told Mountain View is a cluster fuck for day care. Of course they are missing a bigger opportunity in improving education here. Like universities, google should be experimenting with different kinds of education. They could make a big difference.
- gaius 18y agogoogle should be experimenting with different kinds of education Not quite true; Google is legally obligated to act in the best interests of its shareholders, and only that. That's true for any public company, and the board can go to jail if they aren't seen to be doing that. With great riches comes great responsibility...
- ivankirigin 18y agoIt's a huge business opportunity.
- gaius 18y agoIf Google entered the education business its shareholders would (rightly) wonder what its competitive advantage in that market would be, and whether the margins (return on capital) would be more or less than its existing businesses. Seriously, what could Google bring to the table here?
- gojomo 18y agoGiven the Google preferred-voting structure, shareholders should know they're going to be subject to a lot of the owner-manager's whims in trying new projects and markets. Like their for-profit philanthropy subsidiary, Google.org. Or even in-sourced daycare project itself, rather than contracting it out to established providers.
- ivankirigin 18y ago
- nickb 18y agoThe big issue that Google has (incidentally the same issue that MS went through) is the two classes of employees that they now have and the resentment and disconnect between the two groups. The two groups, of course, are those who are millionaires and are 'fully vested' and those new googlers who are not millionaires (and probably never will become millionaires). The latter group relies on a salary to live in a very expensive area and they count on every perk as a way to reduce their bills so they can make the ends meet each month. One site recently showed that average salary at Google is around $110K. In the valley, that's not a lot when you factor in the cost of living. So this increase in daycare is not a big deal to all those millionaires and yet it is a huge increase to those that can't afford it. As Google matures and they start cutting even more of these perks, the two groups will start growing even further apart. It's a serious organizational issue and Google will need to tackle it quickly.
- zach 18y agoI agree. And really, this is supposed to be how Google tackles that issue: to maintain a high-perk atmosphere. Google's atmosphere is similar to America's regulated airline era, where fares were set by a government body. Being unable to compete on price, they competed in other dimensions -- who had the newest planes, the best food, the friendliest flying atmosphere, the most trusted brand and the best service to their customers. The best engineers are not more motivated by a somewhat higher salary, since they are passionate about their work, right? Indeed, all the perks in the world can't keep some of their employees from heading for the exits in the, er, face of more exciting opportunities. So why offer lavish perks at all? The always-implied reasons are for its signaling effect and ability to increase the all-important worker productivity. But I would contend that the best reason for them to do so at this point is to reduce effects of the company's relative wealth disparity, which, should they rear their heads, clearly have the potential to be very corrosive. Highly democratic perks are a tonic for a de-facto aristocracy. But the two risks of establishing a millionaire atmosphere are clear from this example. Firstly, of course, they're way expensive to the company, and that's hard to sustain. Secondly, workers, who may not have even cared about these things before arriving, have been conditioned to expect them. So that sets up a bind, since the company needs to maintain the illusion that these benefits create. If you try to shunt some of the expense onto your workers, say to the 20% of employees that use 80% of some benefit, you run the risk of breaking the spell. Because the antediluvian class will take it in stride while the post-IPO gleaners will scream. So, Google: buck up and pay up.
- jawngee 18y agoDidn't anyone learn anything from Bubble 1?
- Tichy 18y agoWhy is daycare so expensive? Seems to me you need a room and two to three people to watch over the children. If you have 10 children in the room, and everyone costs 40000$, that would mean it costs 400000$ per year to rent a room and pay the salary for three people? It seems child nurses earn a LOT more than the average IT person?
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- gaius 18y agoConsider any school. They have teachers, sure. And they have caterers, and cleaners, and contractors to maintain the infrastructure... There are a lot more people involved than just the direct service providers.
- hugh 18y agoCaterers: preparing food for ten children isn't a big job, all they need is sandwiches and drink boxes which can be prepared in advance and taken out of the fridge. Cleaners: It's only a room, it only needs to be cleaned once a day. Shouldn't be that expensive either. Contractors to maintain the infrastructure: again, it's only a room, maintenance really shouldn't be that difficult. It's obvious that there's a lot of money flowing into childcare, and it's not obvious where it's all going. It's certainly not going to the people who are doing the caring -- they make almost no money at all. Is it all going to into insurance and compliance with various regulations?
- davidw 18y ago> Caterers: preparing food for ten children isn't a big job, all they need is sandwiches and drink boxes which can be prepared in advance and taken out of the fridge. You would horrify many parents in Italy with that statement:-) Truth be told, I don't think I can blame them, even if they do get a bit fixated at times. Their kids are healthier and don't have obesity problems because they start off eating right.
- 18y ago
- mynameishere 18y agoParents who had been paying $1,425 a month for infant care would see their costs rise to nearly $2,500 "$1,425" was the subsidized price? If someone told me day care cost that much, I'd fall on the floor, but that's the good price. A woman where I work pays 30 dollars a day, and that's far, far too much. Unbelievable waste. Absolutely unbelievable. $1,425 is more than my total monthly expenses. I could theoretically make my living by watching one child. Clearly, this is an industry just waiting for its Sam Walton.
- ph0rque 18y agoUnfortunately, this industry isn't very scaleable: how many children should one overseer watch, and still provide quality childcare? 2-7, IMHO, depending on the age of the children...
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- rw 18y ago"employer-provided day care, at affordable prices, ought to be like health insurance, a benefit that every company provides as a matter of course." If only this were true in more companies nowadays.
- wumi 18y agoas a side note why do I have to click through two pages of ads to see the 2nd page of the article? (I didn't hit 'print article' because I figured it was another click to see the whole page anyways) These msm companies online (forbes, NYT, et. al) really have not figured it out yet.
- schoudha 18y agoI work at Google and this article has a few statements that make it clear the author's sources aren't credible (At least on this issue). I wouldn't take this too seriously and I'm surprised that the Times: 1. Thought Google's daycare policy was worthy of the front page 2. Couldn't find a credible source who actual understands how and why the decision was made.
- erdos2 18y agoThe Times is usually scrupulous about fact checking--except when it comes to supporting Imperial adventures and warmongering.
- dzorz 18y agoSomeone mentioned 2-7 kids per "overseer". Where I went to kindergarden, ratio was 20-30:1. Even later in elementary/high school, the ratio was 25-35 kids per teacher.
- dgabriel 18y agoThere are guidelines and laws about child/caretaker ratios. Infants need a lot more one-on-one time than older children.
- vlad 18y agoToday Google Preschool, tomorrow Google K through 12. :)
- time_management 18y agoI'm going to comment on a micropoint, since the main issues seem pretty well covered at this point. <i>Having discovered that Google is not, in fact, the promised land, a number of Googlers have left recently to join start-ups, hotter companies like Facebook — and even Microsoft.</i> Wait a second... Facebook is "hotter"? That seems unreal. It's not that Facebook is a bad company, per se, but I'd much rather work at Google. I can't imagine top-talent wanting to have Mark Zuckerberg, an arrogant 24-year-old, as a boss. I can't speak for tip-top talent, but even still I'd rather gargle a fistful of nuts and bolts.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- erdos2 18y agoIt's expensive to raise a family in the United States. The economics and the culture are against it. Add to that the cost of raising a family with someone who turns out to be the wrong person: your expected income after marriage must be reduced by the probability of divorce times the cost of divorce. Children necessarily complicate matters. The problem would be alleviated somewhat if more and more people owned their own businesses, instead of the situation we currently have, of numerous workers employed by a wealthy class. At some point, these workers should simply refuse to work for anyone substantially more wealthy than they are. The value to an employer of having a large pool of interchangeable labor is calculable. Who created that value? Not the employer: the people. And it is the people who should and who must demand that value they created for themselves.
- far33d 18y agoI have a 7-month-old, and I believe that my wife has found the ideal care situation. She works, from home, part time. Hours are flexible, she can stay home with our daughter, and get most of her work done during naps or after I get home. I believe as time goes on, this is going to become more and more common as there are more women in the workforce who are uninterested in waiting until their late 30s to have children and telecommuting gets to be more common. It's constant hard work for her, but she would never trade her time with our daughter for the extra money from being full-time, even if that extra pay covered the child-care (which it wouldn't).
- josh 18y agoThere are two elephants in the room here: 1. The exorbitant cost of the Bay Area (and other places like NYC, Boston, D.C., etc.) - there's a reason the Bay Area has the lowest ratio of children to overall population in the country. It's just not an affordable place to raise a family. It's essentially a giant suburbs without the traditional cost advantage of a suburb. You can live in Mountain View, Palo Alto, etc. for the price of living in a world class city like Chicago. You make that choice. Good for you. 2. Where are the grandparents? As someone from a more traditional culture, I don't quite understand the desire for couples to go it alone. Why not live near your parents or have them move to live near you? Grandparent-grandchild interaction is extremely valuable. It helps transmit your family values to your children while allowing your parents to stay mentally active and it also keeps them happy. It also significantly reduces childcare costs. I'm not married yet and probably won't have kids for a few years but I really think this is the correct AND affordable approach: *Evaluate where you are in life. There's no point waiting for the perfect time. Adversity is good for kids - it prevents them from growing up to be spoiled brats. I grew up in a Third World country and the only things my parents weren't cheap on were my health/nutrition, safety, and education. That's all that really matters. Have kids before you're too old. A) If you have a lot of capital or high salary, stay where you are, and have one spouse work part time (can alternate), and suck it up till the kids are in school. Mix in a few days of daycare per week to allow for part-time. B) If you don't have a lot of capital or a high salary, move somewhere cheap. Your spouse and you can both work full-time and afford daycare a few days a week. In both situations, have the grandparents around! If you're an only child, it's easy - your parents will be there in a heartbeat. If you and your spouse are one of 2 kids, then your parents can alternate. If you and your spouse are one of 3 or more kids, live near your siblings. Raise your kids around your family.