rjs (01/27/83)
One method of raising children so that they get the benefit of constant attention (or at least supervision), and you get the benefit of two incomes is to try what I shall loosely term communal living. If three couples got together, they could afford to buy or rent a very large house (much more common on the east coast, but I believe available just about anywhere close to a large city in the U.S.). Now all they have to do is arrange so that each is off work a different day of the week, and the left over day (most likely Sunday), everyone should be off. Thus each parent has one day a week when he or she is responsible for the entire population of children in the house, and there is one day each week available for group outings, family get togethers, or whatever. This type of arrangement has a lot of financial advantages, you have one household (admittedly large) with 6 incomes, there's probably a ready made car pool, and its easy to find a babysitter for those evening outings with your spouse. If each couple has the average 2.2 to 2.4 children, that's 6.6 to 7.2 children each person has to deal with one day a week, and share one day a week. This is probably less difficult than taking care of 2 children 7 days a week. Its also probably good for the children (at least it prepares them for dealing with a variety of people when they go out into the wide world, and when they start up a commune to raise their children). This type of arrangement requires an ability to get along well with people on a day to day basis, but many couples who are just starting out have just recently finished college (or are still in school) and have their "living-in-a-dorm" experience fresh in their minds. The interpersonal skills learned in a dorm setting are probably useful here, and the house provides a much nicer environment than a dorm. Each person must be able to work a strange (by today's standards) schedule, but if this becomes popular, more and more employers will start accepting it. Obviously, this doesn't help travelling sales representatives (but I'll bet someone else on the net can come up with something), but it's certainly a viable alternative for many couples who want children, but also want the luxury (necessity?) of two jobs. Although currently out of vogue in America, this style of living has considerable precedent, although the couples involved were usually somehow related. Sure it means giving up a lot of privacy, but so does having children in the first place. I suspect that people who would make good parents, in general, would not have too much difficulty making the adjustment. So there you have it, another vaguely thought out (and probably not very original) idea from yours truely, Robert Snyder floyd!rjs
wakeup (01/31/83)
The method suggested is VERY unique but very impractical. One would be giving
up more than general privacy. Sharing incomes, housing, raising of children,
etc. leaves extreemely little privacy. I also question the legal problems
of such a situation. Two examples:
1. One couple for employment reasons must move to another city.
What is their obligation to the "group" and how is a replacement
found and decided upon? How is the value of house they "sell"
determined and paid for?
2. Suppose after a while one of the "partners" of the group loose
their job and decides not to work? How do you force them to
do their share?
One last problem I see. Sharing everything communally does breed problems.
If I have an interest in doing X will I be stopped because no one else
wants me to do it? What if everyone else wants to do Y and I do not, must
I still contribute? I see a great loss of freedom in addition to privacy.