This post may contain affiliate links and CorporetteMoms may earn commissions for purchases made through links in this post. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
While a lot of us are heading back to the office this summer, a lot of us are still at home. My fashion resolution this summer is to go beyond sweats and tees while I work from my couch.
This T-shirt dress from workwear favorite M.M.LaFleur is a step up from my usual work-from-home outfit. It’s made from smooth Peruvian Pima cotton and has a relaxed (but not sloppy) midi silhouette. It comes in two soft colors (“dusky pink” and “pebble,” a light taupe) that would fit into anyone’s wardrobe.
I’d add a denim jacket and sneakers for walking the dog, daycare drop-off/pickup, or running errands.
M.M.LaFleur’s Lou Dress is $95 and available in XS–XXL.
Sales of note for 4.18.24
(See all of the latest workwear sales at Corporette!)
- Ann Taylor – 50% off full-price dresses, jackets & shoes; $30 off pants & skirts; extra 50% off sale styles
- Banana Republic Factory – Up to 50% off everything; extra 20% off purchase
- Eloquii – 50% off select styles; 60% off swim; up to 40% off everything else
- J.Crew – Mid-Season Sale: Extra 60% off sale styles; up to 50% off spring-to-summer styles
- Lands’ End – 30% off full-price styles
- Loft – Spring Mid-Season Sale: Up to 50% off 100s of styles
- Nordstrom: Free 2-day shipping for a limited time (eligible items)
- Talbots – Spring Sale: 40% off + extra 15% off all markdowns; 30% off new T by Talbots
- Zappos – 29,000+ women’s sale items! (check out these reader-favorite workwear brands on sale, and some of our favorite kids’ shoe brands on sale)
Kid/Family Sales
- Carter’s – Up to 70% off baby items; 50% off toddler & kid deals & 40% off everything else
- Hanna Andersson – Up to 50% off spring faves; 25% off new arrivals; up to 30% off spring
- J.Crew Crewcuts – Up to 60% off sale styles; up to 50% off kids’ spring-to-summer styles
- Old Navy – 30% off your purchase; up to 75% off clearance
- Target – Car Seat Trade-In Event (ends 4/27); BOGO 25% off select skincare products; up to 40% off indoor furniture; up to 20% off laptops & printers
See some of our latest articles on CorporetteMoms:
Click here to see our top posts!
And — here are some of our latest threadjacks of interest – working mom questions asked by the commenters!
- If you’re a working parent of an infant with low sleep needs, how do you function at work when you’re in the throes of baby’s sleep regression?
- Should I cut my childcare down to 12 hours a month if I work from home?
- Will my baby have speech delays if we raise her bilingual?
- Has anyone given birth in a teaching hospital?
- My child eats everything, and my friends’ kids do not – how should I handle? In general, what is the best way to handle when your child has some skill/ability and your friend’s child doesn’t have that skill/ability?
- ADHD moms, give me your tips to help with things like behavior in the classroom, attention to detail, etc?
- I think I suffer from mom rage…
- My husband and kids are gone this weekend – how should I enjoy my free time?
- I’m struggling to be compassionate with a SAHM friend who complains she doesn’t have enough hours of childcare.
- If you exclusively formula fed, what tips do you have for in the hospital and coming home?
- Could I take my 4-yo and 8-yo on a 7-8 day trip to Paris, Lyon, and Madrid?
Anonymous says
MMLF has lost its way. I used to count on the brand for sleek, tailored work dresses that were not vanity-sized. All of my favorite styles, including the Shirley, the Nisa, the Annie, and the Lydia, have been discontinued. The brand has pivoted to focus on weird frumpy polyester separates that don’t work as office wear or casual wear. Most of the dresses that are left have odd dolman sleeves, tie belts, etc. This had already begun prior to the pandemic. I haven’t bought anything from MMLF in three years.
Anonanonanon says
Yes! I got a jardigan and a… longer jardigan? in-person right before the pandemic, and even then they were really pushing what they seemed to think was luxury loungewear that could be mixed and worn for work? It was a crazy high price point and, if I remember correctly, DRY CLEAN ONLY!
mmlf says
Good news is that you can find (or sell) some of the OG pieces on the Second Act site now. I don’t mind some of the ‘casualization’ as many work places have drifted in that direction. I do have occasional quality issues but their customer service is responsive and helpful. And yes, sizing is a pain, particularly when most showrooms are closed.
In general, I would rather support independent brands like this vs anonymous conglomerates. I also love Argent for suits (but don’t need to buy more currently) and A Day for casual wear. Always open to new names to follow
Anonymous says
I think how people dress has changed a lot in the last year — even people who still wear workwear at all have shifted towards a more casual look so I can see them really struggling to pivot when their entire collection was targeted to formal or semi-formal offices. I can’t imaging they are selling much of the formal stuff that they were initially known for. Additionally, fashion has shifted to looser silhouettes — I still wear some of the tighter and more tailored clothing I did pre-pandemic, but my new pieces are all looser and flowier.
Anonymous says
But you can’t wear loose, flowy stuff to court!
Anon says
Can you wear anything that’s not a suit to court? My court-going days were all in Big Law but anything less than a suit was unacceptable.
Anonymous says
I wear sheath dresses and coordinating blazers.
anon says
If I’m sitting behind the bar and just observing, I’ll sometimes wear a dark structured dress with a floaty skirt and a blazer. I’ve never gotten a side eye.
PistachioLemon says
Yeah, I love MMLF, but I agree that there was very little that I wanted in the recent summer collection. Hopefully this rebounds as offices reopen later this year…I’m sure COVID has been very tough for them.
anon says
Yeah, it’s interesting. My office isn’t back full-time yet, but most of us are on a hybrid schedule. When I see people in the office, they’re dressing just like they always did. I was hopeful that maybe we’d go more casual, but nope, doesn’t seem to be happening. And retail seems to be sparse on professional clothing right now, so things aren’t going to get interesting. I’m currently wearing all the dresses because most of my pants don’t fit anymore. :/
Anon says
I used to really love another brand – Elizabeth & Clarke – for their structured work blouses, but they have switched their entire line to ‘Business Pajamas.’ I can’t wear those to work and they’re pricey for pajamas. I am in the office and am still wearing my structured pieces, but have switched to mainly flats from heels to up the comfort factor.
Anonymous says
I hadn’t heard of this brand and looked it up. OMG they are literally calling this stuff work pajamas. And I kept reading “unstainable” as “unsustainable.”
Pogo says
I give them credit for pivoting quickly in a changing market! lol.
Anon says
I just checked it out cause I had never heard of this brand. The Atwood dress looks like it just got caught on the model’s bre@st and she didn’t yet pull it all the way down. Who would buy that?
Anon Lawyer says
Not vanity sized usually means “fits fewer women.” (I get that it’s hard for people on the small end of the size spectrum, but come on, it’s not an inherent positive to offer smaller clothes.)
Anonymous says
Not vanity sized means “they make a size that actually fits me.” They also have plus sizes.
Anon Lawyer says
So maybe say that? They do have plus sizes that go up to about a 20, which is great although still leaves out probably more women on the larger end than on the smaller end. This is maybe a personal bugaboo, but I find the vanity sizing terminology kind of offensive. The issue is that fashion designers have left out large swaths of women (and yes, all over the size spectrum), not that women are dumb dumbs who want to pretend they’re a size 2 and not a size 4.
Anonymous says
Vanity sizing isn’t just about not offering smaller sizes. Vanity-sized clothes tend to be really off in the proportions even if they have a small enough size. It’s like they try to apply the proportions of a size 16 to a size 2 or 4 and then call it a 0. It just doesn’t work.
Anonanonanon says
Maybe I’m just feeling cynical today, but does anyone else thing these changes to more casual workwear, teleworking, and fewer in-person meetings is temporary?
I think this is all temporary. In the next couple of years, some young white men somewhere will think they invented the idea that in-person meetings are more productive, and dressing differently for the office than home changes how we are perceived in the workplace, and society will be back to formalwear and in-person in no time. It will go from “young people know how to maximize work and home productivity by teleworking! Those boomers going into the office are lazy and unproductive!” to “young people know you show up and engage in human interaction to make a difference! those boomers want to sit home and do nothing!”
Example: Remember how “open floorplan” offices because a horrible thing because young white men in silicon valley thought it was cool, and then workplaces did it and realized it was not efficient to have a workplace where a supervisor has to book a conference room to have a quick performance conversation with their direct report?
Signed, grumpy elder millenial
Anon says
10000%. I feel mean but I laugh inwardly at anyone who thinks employee-friendly policies will stick around. As soon as it’s more of an employer-friendly market everything will snap back to normal. We’ve seen it before.
Anonanonanon says
Exactly. And it’s just human nature that, for many companies, leadership will continue to be physically located in the city or area where the company is based. And people who are located close enough to meet with them to “hash this project out in person” or “grab a coffee” will likely have an edge when it comes to promotions etc. And other people in companies will notice that trend and start to live closer and show up more in person and the cycle will begin anew.
These trends don’t affect my job so I’m just interested because of curiosity, but I do worry that some people I know relocating based on promises of teleworking forever will regret it in a couple of years.
Anonymous says
Oh I’m cynically thinking that companies are going to realize the cost savings of making workers pay for their own offices, floor space, desks, chairs, computers and printers. They’ll shove all the costs they can onto workers and then claim the workers are just contractors and white collar workers are about to find out the difference between working for a taxi company and being an Uber driver.
Lawyers and other white collar workers could have done something about it and been in solidarity with blue collar workers, but that ship has sailed. We’re all about to learn that “management” starts at the C-suite and we’re as disposable to them as paper napkins.
Anonymous says
Agreed. I think full-time teleworking will stick around. But it’s because employers want to cut costs and transfer them to employees, not because they care about their employees’ work-life balance. My employer has already announced savings in the hundreds of thousands from getting rid of my office building and others. Meanwhile, my utility bills have gone way up.
Anonymous says
I mean, my boss is still firmly butt in seat. We are in NYC, and he is ensconced in his second home in CT, so our office hasn’t reopened yet, but when we do in August the expectation is that we will all be there FT.
Somewhat related, my teacher husband cannot stop ranting about how the insanity of the City’s decision that we no longer need snow days because we can “seamlessly transition to remote learning” overnight whenever we need to. 18 months into the pandemic, some kids still don’t have internet access or computers or tablets, and a sizeable percentage are in unstable housing situations, but sure, we can do it overnight as needed.
Anonymous says
And on a much less serious note, if, as a parent, I am stuck taking a day off work because of a snow day, I want to be taking my kid out to sled and roll around in the snow, not supervising remote learning!
Anon says
Plus snow days are one of the best parts of childhood! (And I bet teachers love them too.) Makes me so sad for the kids who won’t get to experience them.
Anonymous says
I think in about two years, all the companies that significantly changed positions for remote workers will be deeply regretting it. I know people whose companies discontinued leases or downsized space-wise to keep folks at home. I don’t think they’ll be pleased in a few years.
anon says
Grumpy Xennial here, and I agree with you. I work in higher ed and we’ve been told that we all should have butts in seats the majority of the time by the time fall semester starts. Even those of us who never see students. Oh, but keep providing hybrid and remote options, as if it’s simple and easy to do everything simultaneously. I personally think this will be a bigger sh!tshow than choosing one way or another.
Anon says
Counterpoint, I’m also in higher ed and they’re making over half our staff (including me) permanently remote and getting rid of office space. I do think they’ll eventually regret it, and I’m terrified that in three years when I’m actually taking advantage of the remote work status (because my kid is in elementary school with summers off) they’ll revoke it. But for the 21-22 academic year, the majority of our non-faculty staff are going to be remote.
Anonymous says
I think telework is here to stay. My organization has been doing a lot of hiring during the pandemic, and every single candidate has just assumed that of course they would be a full-time teleworker. Not one has been willing to relocate. Perhaps because of the assumption of remote work, we’ve gotten higher-quality candidates than usual. The downside of this is that we are competing with even more employers for the best candidates.
My husband’s company is considering selling some of its buildings and forcing certain categories of employees to WFH as a cost-saving measure.
Anonanonanon says
Do you think this will eventually affect salaries? Several people I know in the DC area are relocating to Raleigh or Charleston because they were told they’re permanently teleworking, which makes me wonder if companies are going to continue to pay DC (or NYC) salaries to people when they aren’t required to live in expensive areas to do their job
Anon says
Yeah I’m really curious too! I used to work at a Big Law firm that paid different amounts of money in different cities because of cost of living, and I’m really curious what’s happening now with telework. Someone living in rural Kansas on a Palo Alto or NYC salary is going to be wealthy AF.
SC says
I know someone who works in San Francisco and moved to a smaller city for the duration of the pandemic. She sublet her SF apartment, rented a furnished place in the small city, and saved $3500/month on rent. She’s supposed to go back this fall, but she’ll end up saving over $60K on housing, while collecting the same salary. That’s not “wealthy AF” in one year, but it’s a nice nest egg for someone in her mid-20s. (At her age, I was graduating from law school with no savings and $80K of student debt.)
anon says
Open floorplans become prevalent because they were cheap. You don’t need to build interior walls and you can reconfigure the landscape at any time. I sincerely hope that that no misguided individual, at any time, thought they were cool
Anonanonanon says
I heard a lot of “it fosters collaboration!” at the peak of the trend. Like “no walls” was a metaphor
Pogo says
Oh I definitely heard a lot of arguments about “culture”.
Anonymous says
Yeah, but I think the “culture” they were trying to foster was “do everything as cheaply as possible and make it so that workers can’t take a minute to check their personal e-mail.”
anne-on says
I sincerely hope that SOME degree of WFH being accepted (even a 3/2 split) becomes much, much more common. What I’ve heard from a shocking amount of dads in their late 40s/50s is how much they’ve enjoyed being able to be home with their kids for the mundane stuff – conversations during breaks in the day, sitting together for meals, not ‘just’ coaching the sports, and how little they are willing to go back to full time, out of the house at 6:45 for the 7:15 train anymore. If the senior men are ok with it I think it’s something that sticks for longer.
I DO think it will not be the ‘everyone home 24/7 in sweats’ lifestyle that a lot of people want, but hopefully this is a reset for worker expectations. Plus, even for my coworkers who DON’T have kids I’ve heard them all say how much nicer it is to have more time at home to eat healthier/take walks/manage normal life stuff!
Pogo says
I agree with this and I think this is where my org is headed. I actually just took a role where my entire team is in another city. That’s the case for 2/3 of the managers on my team, but because one of the teams is from an acquisition – there’s a whole office in another state that they kept and kept those people. That was from years ago and no one blinked an eye. So I think that, plus the fact that clearly we were able to do our jobs this past year, helped me get this role and not be forced to move.
I do want to be in the office, and I do plan to travel to be with my team 1x a month hopefully. But management has seen that we do not all need to be in the same set of cubicles 40 hours a week to get our work done, and I appreciate that.
Cb says
Yes, definitely. My childless co-workers want 2-3 days in the office and WFH the rest of the time. It’s amazing how much energy a commute saps from you. And it means you can do some of those household things during breaks (where if you were in the office, you’d check twitter) leaving weekends a bit freer.
Anon says
I think it’s permanent where I am. I’ve worked from home though for more than a decade, so it’s not really new for us – just the scale of who is doing it here is new. Most people also switched to a 4 day work week.
Pogo says
grumpy elder millennial is the perfect encapsulation of my vibe.
Anon says
Me too.
EDAnon says
A true GEM
already there says
This has already happened at my primarily male firm.
GCA says
I am a grumpy elder millennial as well and I’ve worked freelance/ remotely for the last six years. Honestly, employers should just acknowledge that in-person work is not where you get *work* done, it’s where you go to build the social ties that help you get the work done. What we should actually be looking for is better/ alternative ways to build those social ties. (Why reinvent the wheel – er, office space – when you can redesign it?) Personally I would be happy with 9 days remote and one in-person once a fortnight with that one day being a mix of meetings, 1:1 coffee catch-ups with direct reports or bosses, lunch with a small group of work friends, etc.
Anonymous says
+++ to all of this, well said
Pogo says
This is close to my plan – I think it’ll actually be more like 15 days remote, 1 day travel/remote, and 4 days in person. Those four days I’ll have all my 1:1’s with direct reports, bosses, key stakeholders, senior leadership, etc – plus all the social stuff and any big project meetings.
Anonymous says
Also a grumpy elder millennial.
The future of how we work is something I have been thinking about a lot. I think some work from home is here to stay – and I think it provides some much needed work life balance, in particular for families. Our office is fully opening in September with the expectation that everyone will be back full time. I am slowing launching my campaign to have my team at home at least 1 day per week. That said – I personally have mixed feelings about WFH, because IME people who aren’t there are left out of the loop. It can’t be only women who take this option. Obviously it depends on the role, but I really believe that some facetime and in person interactions are going to remain key for years to come, especially where you have a relatively concentrated workforce (think regional company with large headquarters in 1 location vs global entity like HSBC).
Wise ladies of the blog – please use your increasing influence to advocate for solutions that help moms and help dads play an equal role (by forcing everyone to take some time at home). While we have talked about this at length – most dads are capable and interested in helping their families, but i do think more harshly judged for frequently stepping out early for kid stuff. (Does it one time and he is a hero…. does it every Thursday he is committed).
What i do see changing a lot is professional services – i don’t need the leveraged finance banker to get on a 5 hour flight “just to see me” for an hour. Esp for bankers. Historically (medium sized centre) we see our NYC based bankers infinitely more than NYC based lawyers – because lawyers actually value their time!! (literally with hourly rates).
Anon says
Yes I think there will be a lot less work travel in many industries. My husband’s in academia and I’m surprised how quickly conferences have coming roaring back (we know multiple people traveling internationally for work this summer), but most people in that industry have external funding. I think when the employer is paying for the travel they will scrutinize it a lot more closely going forward.
Boston Legal Eagle says
I already know that my company’s various departments will approach WFH flexibility wildly differently. I.e. legal and HR (which generally have more female employees) will use WFH a lot more than the finance teams (which, shocker, have mostly male workers). I will definitely encourage my employees (and my boss will do the same for his whole team) to work more flexibly, but I have limited influence on the other departments, unfortunately.
I think we will eventually get there. My company introduced casual dress a few years ago and a lot of people thought it would just be a trial run. We’re still casual. And I think way more companies had their employees in full suits at the office every day back in the 80s/90s, which you will not find too many people eager to do now!
Grumpy elder millennial, ha, that’s me too sometimes – unfortunately I think we got the shaft on both ends with no safety net thanks to Reaganism and will likely end up with higher taxes in the future to help the next generation.
anon says
I stumbled upon the Quebec daycare study today and the results make me feel guilty about sending our kids to daycare: https://www.vox.com/2015/9/24/9391625/quebec-daycare-study
Please tell me I am missing something and they have overblown the effects in the study.
PistachioLemon says
My read was that low quality child care is not great for your kid. The study also pointed out that there were a ton more high quality spots as well. So my takeaway was that quality matters!
Anonanonanon says
We have actual researchers on this board who will do a much better job of debunking this than I could, but my initial impressions are:
This correction at the bottom says it all for me: “An earlier version of this article reported poor results among teens who grew up participating in the program. In fact, the study design looked at outcomes for all teens who were eligible for the program.”
Also, to put in perspective, this was a program run by a provincial-level party whose whole aim was to encourage quebecois women to breed more because they want a strong french population to meet their goal of having Quebec become independent so… dicey motivation. As stated, the program relied increasingly on poorly-regulated home-based care and underqualified childcare staff to meet demand.
All that to say, this study is basically in no way analogous to private daycare in the states. It’s an article about the failure of a Quebec program, not about the evils of daycare.
Anonymous says
Actual researcher here. I am having trouble finding the full text of the actual study in a quick search.
Based on the Vox article it looks as if yes, this was a program evaluation that concluded that the single program under study was successful in increasing labor force participation among mothers of young children but had a deleterious impact on the long-term well-being of eligible children. The bottom-line conclusion, as Vox explains, should not be that day care is inherently harmful but that quality matters.
Looking at all eligible children rather than for children who actually participated in the program is an analytic strategy called intention-to-treat, which looks at a program’s effects on all potential or intended participants rather than on those who actually participated. It is used when the data aren’t amenable to an unbiased direct comparison of participants and nonparticipants. I have used this strategy in experiments where randomization failed (e.g., program staff did not adhere to randomization protocol when referring participants to the intervention, or participants randomized to the intervention did not participate). It can also be used in a quasi-experimental setting, as was apparently the case here. Without seeing the paper I can’t tell exactly why or how it was implemented, although I have some guesses. I would expect that an intention-to-treat strategy would bias estimates of the program’s effect towards zero. In other words, the harm to children who actually got the low-quality care is probably greater than the average harm spread out across a population of kids who didn’t all go to the low-quality centers.
Cb says
Yes, I could see a massive expansion of subsidized daycare in quick succession could lead to underqualified centres/providers being accredited. We’ve had an increase in subsidised hours for 3-4 year olds here, and to meet demand, they’ve had to increase hours and capacity. Are all these new centres great? Probably not.
Anon says
I don’t know anything about Canada, but in the US daycare varies a lot in quality. Given that “cheap daycare” is in the headline, I’m not sure you can extrapolate to the high quality daycares most of us here pay for. We toured daycares where I would have felt very guilty sending my kid, but the daycare we ended up using is fantastic and like night and day from the depressing places. And I assume the moms who took advantage of this cheap daycare were under-privileged so their kid are presumably more likely to have the behavioral issues mentioned in the article regardless of what childcare they use (although I’m pretty sure that in the US there are studies that daycare benefits the disadvantaged kids more than the upper middle class ones).
Regardless, I don’t really care what any studies say. I know *my child* and I know that she is much happier going to school and being with her friends. We lived our own mini-sociological experiment thanks to the pandemic and the six months without school were awful. And I don’t just mean awful in the sense that my husband and I were stressed out working full-time and sharing full-time childcare duties; I mean my kid clearly really suffered without her peers. The change in her personality (for the better) was immediate and very noticeable as soon as she went back to school. She’s home with her grandparents one day a week when they’re in town and she’s always incredibly happy to go back to school the next day – and this is a kid that thinks the sun shines out her grandma’s a$$ – so I know that if she’s happy to go to school even when she thinks grandma might be an option, she must be having a really wonderful. Her being in daycare is honestly not something I ever worry about or feel guilty about. I question like 98% of the parenting decisions I make, but this is not one of them.
anon says
+1 million to all of this. High-quality daycare is a Godsend.
Anonymous says
Agree. Why do people keep posting about this? I think it’s a fair question to ask if daycare or nanny or stay at home parent or family care is right for YOUR family, and carefully weigh the pros and cons of each option, but if there’s anything research has shown, it’s that sweeping statements about any of those options being good or bad for every family under the sun are just not accurate.
Anonymous says
Yeah I’m a little disappointed how much pearl-clutching there’s been lately about daycare. One of the things I love most about this place is that there are so many moms who are unabashedly pro-daycare. Most of my friends use daycare too, but a lot of them feel guilty about it, so I really like that I can come here and connect with people who use daycare and don’t feel any guilt.
Anon for this says
I was the poster earlier in the week and I think it’s unfair to suggest that this kind of discussion is “pearl clutchy” or that this board is not the right forum for it. I was very grateful for the responses that talked me off a ledge on this issue as it’s been in the media a lot lately and is a huge concern of mine. (Not the Op today so I’m not the only one who has heard this apparently.)
I looked elsewhere online for resources or even counter-arguments and honestly come up pretty short. Most of the articles present the counterpoint as “many families don’t have any choice but to use daycare,” which is 100% true and important but also not my personal situation.
I came here specifically because I knew that a lot of people here are pro-daycare, and also because I knew some (or even many) of the women here do have the resources to make a different decision if they wanted to. So I thought it would be the right place to ask the question.
Anon says
You must not have searched very hard. If you g00gle “benefits of daycare” you find literally thousands of news articles referencing studies that describe all kinds of positive outcomes from behavioral to academic to daycare kids being less likely to get leukemia (because of the early priming of the immune system).
Anonymous says
The Vox article itself cites an analysis of the Perry Preschool Project that demonstrates non-academic gains for low-income children exposed to high-quality child care.
Anon Lawyer says
I just wish folks hadn’t chosen this week since my 18-month-old started part-time daycare! (She’s with the grandparents the rest of the time – I’ve been really lucky, but I also think she’s ready for more socialization and am really excited about the place she’ll be going.)
Anonymous says
It will be great! I don’t think a high quality daycare is harmful for kids of any age, but it’s especially beneficial for toddlers and older. An 18 month old will really benefit from playing with other kids and bonding with caregivers outside her family.
buffybot says
Yes, I definitely don’t read this as an indictment of childcare. First of all, wasn’t there JUST a study that established the opposite? I wish I could recall the circumstances — maybe Massachusetts? Head Start? But they found that while participants didn’t show noticeable long term increases in test scores, participation in the daycare program had an appreciable impact on emotional health/soft skills.
Second of all, the article clearly delineates the difference between high quality childcare and low quality childcare, and observes the difficulties of getting high quality childcare to scale. So, not a reason to take your kid out of daycare, but simply to wonder: do you like your childcare? Do you think the teachers are well-trained and professional?
Also, finally, they say that the study didn’t even look at participants versus non-participants — just who was eligible. So maybe there is something else in Quebec making kids miserable, if they’re not even actually measuring participation in daycare programs.
Anonymous says
I can’t find the actual paper, but the authors should have explained how they accounted for the possibility of exogenous factors (“something else in Quebec making kids miserable”) contributing to the poor outcomes.
Anonymous says
Read the whole article.
Anonymous says
Omg can we stop sharing shaming ridiculous nonsense about day care? The vast majority of us use it because being homeless or leaving the wolves to raise the babies are bad options.
Anon says
How is this shaming? OP is specifically asking for reasons why the study may be wrong or not similar to her personal situation. If you don’t want to discuss this, you can keep scrolling, but you aren’t helping women feel better about their decision by treating them like they aren’t entitled to ask the question.
Anonymous says
She needs to work on her critical reading skills. The article says that cheap low-quality day care may be a problem, not that all day care is a problem. Unless OP is paying $7 a day, I don’t think the findings are applicable to her.
Anon says
She asked if she was missing something, not asking to be told that she was a poor reader and or asking for you to insinuate that she’s stupid. Geez, let’s be kind here.
Anonymous says
The original post was just deliberate pot-stirring and mom-shaming based on a sensational headline. The actual article provides no support for the assertion that all day care is harmful.
Nan says
I didn’t read the original post as deliberate pot stirring at all. The study was concerning to me, as someone whose kids are in daycare. I think (and hope) there are reasons why it is distinguishable from my personal situation, but it took some reflection for me to get to this point – and my original reaction was similar to OPs, honestly.
There’s nothing wrong with OP wanting to think through and talk about recent studies on an issue that impacts most of us here. It you don’t want to engage on this topic, you don’t have to, but there’s no need to attack someone for expressing concern about something that has been in the news a lot recently.
Anon says
Now that’s just silly. Obviously the price itself is not the problem with the Quebec program. I wish it were as simple as “if you pay a lot for daycare, your kids will get great care and be fine,”. But obviously that’s not the case. Quality is important. But a high price does not always mean high quality child care.
Anon says
Saying “Unless OP is paying $7 a day, I don’t think the findings are applicable to her” is an oversimplfication, but so is “Obviously the price itself is not the problem with the Quebec program.” Price alone does not determine quality, but it’s a very important factor.
Anon says
I don’t think it’s pot-stirring and mom-shaming. I would imagine everyone at some point has reservations when sending their kid to daycare. If you didn’t, why are you so sensitive about this topic being discussed?
Anon says
I’m not the person who called it mom-shaming and I don’t think that was the intent, but I do feel her frustration and it’s not because I’m defensive about my choice to use daycare. This community is literally the one place I have that’s completely free of judgment around working moms and daycare. Even my closest friends in real life and my own mom are not immune to making comments that are critical of daycare, so having this pro-daycare space is really sacred to me.
To me there’s a really big difference between someone saying “Here’s XYZ about my situation, do you think daycare is right for my family?” or “I’ve observed XYZ at my daycare, do you think that’s appropriate?” and what the OP did here. These are questions that are highly dependent on the specifics of the situation and can lead to nuanced, interesting discussions. Just sharing an article called “Quebec gave all parents cheap day care — and their kids were worse off as a result” (by an author who is kind of famous for sexist and problematic takes, no less) and making a comment that amounts to “yiiiikes is daycare bad, guys!?” is not nuanced at all and seems at best pointless and at worst deliberately inflammatory.
Anonymous says
The problem is not daycare, the problem is bad daycares.
My bestie is a speech language pathologist and the team she works on often recommends kids who have speech delay who are not in daycare, be put in daycare to help advance their speech. Daycare exposes kids to much more speech in both amount and content than being home with a nanny. BUT, there are also a few daycare in town they do not recommend because they do not provide quality programming.
Anon says
This. My daughter wasn’t really talking at 15 months and our pediatrician was *very* happy to hear she was starting daycare soon, because she would be forced to communicate to get what she wanted (unlike with family/nanny, where we could understand and respond to all of her pointing and grunting). Sure enough she had a language explosion within a month of starting.
anon says
I am curious as to what makes something a “good” vs. “bad” daycare? I know there are things I looked for but what objective things differentiate that. I guess maybe ratios, educations of caregivers? E.g., in what ways were the quebec daycares objectively “bad”?
Anon says
This
Anon says
Ratios are part of it. To me it’s less about formal education (I don’t think people need a master’s degree to be wonderful and loving to babies or to teach 3 year olds the alphabet), but more just that daycares that charge parents more money can pay their staff more and will attract better quality teachers and have less turnover, which makes the whole environment more stable and less chaotic. Just like some lawyers and doctors aren’t great at their jobs, some teachers aren’t great at their jobs either (regardless of qualifications on paper), and it makes sense to me that an excellent teacher would seek out an opportunity that will pay her or him more.
Cb says
I think ratios and continuity make a huge difference. The average tenure of a daycare worker in the UK is 18 months and at my son’s centre, there are people who have been there for 10 years. They can really invest in staff training and development, people can take on projects (recent projects include forest school certification, a garden revamp, work around racial justice and equalities), and the children really benefit from that continuity. Staff is properly paid (and furloughed and paid throughout the pandemic). It’s not a “fancy” nursery, but is owned by the local authority so no profit motivation on behalf of the owner.
Pogo says
The continuity is huge. The “bad” daycares around here are still objectively fine (and very expensive!) but have high turnover and not great employee satisfaction. I want the people looking after my kids to be well-paid and to enjoy their jobs, not be one foot out the door looking for something else that’s less miserable.
FVNC says
I don’t know about the Quebec daycares discussed in the article (I didn’t read it), but my family has probably more experience with daycares than average because we’ve relocated to different cities four times with children in daycare. My husband’s job offers a daycare subsidy for certain accredited daycares, so we typically research and tour all of those centers. We’ve encountered plenty of objectively bad daycares — those that have multiple serious safety violations (outside gates unlatched, cleaning supplies unsecured, ratio noncompliance, infants placed on stomachs to nap), high ratios, higher than usual staff turnover. The safety violations are usually easily found on state licensing s i tes. (And then there are the subjectively bad daycares — those that give you an icky feeling when you tour even if they’re fine on paper.)
Anon Lawyer says
I toured a bunch of places in short succession when I was pregnant and I didn’t get an actively “bad” feeling about any of them. But it was also interesting how clear the delineation is. I’m pretty sure everyone who visited would have ranked them into the same basic tiers. I was focusing on infant care obviously but it was pretty clear which places were giving the babies tons of attention and love and which they were kind of just safe and fed and hanging out but not a ton else.
Anonymous says
Teachers with early childhood education education (community colleges), low staff turnover (some teachers at my kid’s daycare had been there over ten years), limited use of screens, lots of outdoor time (Walks, great playground), creative play (art opportunities, dress up – teachers engaged in these).
Anon says
All of this. I would also add paid time for planning and professional development. At our center only the “aides” are actually with the kids all day; a teacher’s 8 hour workday includes paid time for lesson planning and office hours so the teachers are only in the classroom maybe 5-6 hours each day. Our daycare is also run by a university so in normal times there were lots of great field trips and guest speakers for the kids. We used to joke that it was college for kids more than daycare. Unfortunately Covid has eliminated all that.
Anonymous says
Yes! the best regarded centers in my small city are the one at the university for staff and students and the one at the community college that teaches the early childhood education program. The daycares that take the workplace students from that college program are also generally quite good because the college professors encourage the students to seek placements at well run centres.
anon says
Has anyone had this happen? My 17mo old keeps having a runny nose. It’s now June (we’re in the midwest) — so allergy season but we should be past cold season! She just had more teeth break through, and we’ve tried allergy meds, but this is day 7 of the runny nose and daycare is sending her (and brother, per policy) home. This has been happening monthly. Taking a week off work every month for a runny nose is simply not sustainable. When we took her to the ped last time, they wouldn’t definitively rule out a cold, just that it may be teething, may be allergies, send home if she gets a fever. (Never has a fever with this.) Will any peds write a note that its allergies? Do we do a blood test? I find it hard to believe she’s getting weeklong colds every few weeks. We love this daycare EXCEPT for this part. (So frustrating — there is no working for me with a 1.5 and 3.5 yo home! We have some backup care but it’s hard for last-minute things like sick days.). Do I just find a nanny?? (Hard to find, expensive, and I WFH permanently now, so it’d be more distracting for me, etc.) Any solutions I haven’t considered?
Anonymous says
She’s awfully young for allergies. Kids in day care do get constant colds year-round, and teething can cause a runny nose. In non-COVID times, this would be no big deal.
Anonymous says
+1. The problem is, runny noses from a cold can last 2 weeks in young kids, and more than 8 colds a year is normal for babies in daycare. It will likely get better over time, but the issue is COVID. Honestly with two kids that young, you might be happier with a nanny, and the cost difference might be minimal.
Anon says
Yeah, my ped told us seasonal allergies don’t appear before 3 (food allergies can show up earlier, but they don’t cause a runny nose). I think it’s unfortunately probably just a cold. You could ask your daycare to change the policy and either 1) not exclude for runny noses (mine doesn’t) or 2) allow symptomatic kids to come back with a negative covid test. If they wont’ change their policies, I think your options are unfortunately deal with it or leave.
Anonanonanon says
Everyone but me in my household has a cold right now. (tested, not COVID) so they’re still going around.
I have had success in the past with appealing to my pediatrician for a note in these circumstances.
Anon says
Ugh, sympathies. My husband and I were just talking about how we’re so glad our toddler was past the teething stage when COVID hit, because every new tooth meant a month of runny nose plus a few nights’ fever (only overnight, never during the day). I literally could not have worked during COVID times under most daycares’ rules because he could have only gone maybe a week a month, if that. Which is to say: this super sucks and its not your fault, but there may not be an end until all the teeth come in.
Anon says
Our ped said seasonal allergies don’t develop until later (like 4? i may be remembering age wrong – definitely not a thing before age 2). I’d look elsewhere for your culprit.
Anon says
I think it’s probably a cold, unfortunately, given the age and group setting (we had a full year of colds starting preschool). My now 3.5YO has had allergies hit for the first time (as mine are currently the worst I’ve had in years) so we’ve been dosing her 2x a day with Zyrtec and that seems to at least have slowed her runny nose and thankfully preschool hasn’t said a word.
Pogo says
Is it constant or does it ever improve? My kiddo had a constant, and I mean constant, snot faucet situation for like a month. Ped swore up and down it couldn’t possibly be a sinus infection. We had to put him on antibiotics for something else, and it went away overnight. I wish in retrospect I had pushed harder because poor little dude must have been miserable. It was 100% a sinus infection.
Anon says
+1 – I’m surprised to say people saying runny noses with colds last 2 weeks or more. They have never lasted more than a couple of days for my kid, except in the presence of a secondary infection (ear infections in our case). A runny nose lasting more than about four days was always a sign we needed antibiotics for an ear infection and it always cleared right up after starting antibiotics.
Anonymous says
I wouldn’t say the runny nose from a cold lasts 2 weeks, but day care kids usually catch a cold every other week.
Anon says
That was not our experience, even the first winter in daycare in normal times with no masks, etc. It was more like once a month or so, although they almost all turned into ear infections so we spent a lot of time at the doctor. This year we had essentially zero illness although I don’t know how much of that is Covid protocols vs. just a more mature immune system.
anon OP says
OP here. Thanks for the suggestion on sinus infection. This confirms it is worthwhile that we set a doctor’s appointment this time, because it’s been so frequent and lasting at least 7 days that maybe it is something lingering.
Ugh. I get not sending kids on day 1-3 of a cold/runny nose, but it is very hard to take a full 7-10 days off work every two weeks. Going to brainstorm with the DH this weekend on what we can do, based on what ped says today. Hopefully, it relents a bit over the summer. I appreciate the commiseration too.
Pogo says
That’s why I asked if it ever let up – if you see a decrease in between 5-7 day bouts of snot, that could be back to back colds. If there is never a time when the snot lets up, it could be sinus infection.
Anon says
How does everyone find time to work out on the weekdays? I feel like I’m constantly crunched for time even though I’m not *that* busy. I wake up, get dressed, pack lunch, get kid ready, drop off at daycare, work until maybe 5, then either start dinner or watch the kid while my husband cooks. Then we have 1-2 hours of quality time before bedtime, after which I may tidy up and crash. I guess the answer is that I exercise after dinner (but who wants to exercise on a full stomach?) or after bed (kinda late?). Or maybe I skip dinner one night a week?
AnonATL says
Um I don’t usually unless I go for a run right before eating lunch during my workday. Post-work/daycare to dinner and bedtime is crazy, and I definitely don’t want to exercise after dinner.
Anon says
I walk for an hour right after daycare dropoff (or right before pickup, depending on the weather). I used to take a normal lunch hour and now I don’t, so I view that as my rescheduled lunch hour. I can’t exercise in the evenings because it keeps me awake and I’ve never been able to wake up early for exercise.
Cb says
I don’t do the daycare run right now, but I get my husband and son out the door and go for a walk or cycle ride. It doesn’t need to be a full hour or particularly sweaty or intense, any form of movement is a good thing.
Anonymous says
This is one of the big benefits of WFH for me. I can sneak in a 20-minute Peloton ride and a shower in 30-35 minutes. I’ll do it midday when I have an empty spot on my calendar.
NYCer says
In our current WFH situation, I usually exercise as soon as my younger daughter gets settled with our nanny or at lunch time (or during another lull in my work day). My workout options consist of a 30-45 minute video of some sort at home, or going for a run or walk. I don’t go to a gym or any in person classes, so it is fairly quick.
When we were at the office, I used to exercise (45 min barre class, I didn’t get that sweaty) during lunch twice per week.
Before kids, I used to exercise early in the morning (6 or 630am), but find that too hard now. My husband will occasionally go running super early, but he can get ready faster than I can.
Anonymous says
I did not exercise consistently until my son was 2.5; I was just too sleep deprived. Once I started, I began getting up about 30-45 minutes earlier and exercising in my living room before breakfast. Usually my son was awake too; I just had to work around him.
Anonymous says
Also, my “getting ready” routine is extremely minimal – I don’t dry my hair and rarely wear makeup, even when I was working in an office.
Anonymous says
Now that I’m working from home I use lunchtime a few days a week. When I went into the office, I did 6AM workouts at my nearby gym and then came home and joined the rush to get ready to go. Hard to get going that early, but I do kind of miss having the workout over before the day starts.
Mary Moo Cow says
Pre-pandemic, I did it over my lunch break at work 2x a week; now, 2-3 days a week, I squeeze in a weights workout at home from about 4-4:45. (I just check my email one last time when I’m done.) I also work out on in our garage weight room on Sunday mornings, and make my kids come outside and play or give them TV time in bad weather while I work out. It’s tough; I didn’t have a consistent routine until my kids were a bit older.
AnotherAnon says
I have 3 month old twins so I don’t work out ATM, but before they arrived I was able to lift in my garage once my son turned 2.5 – I’d set him up with a 30 minute tv show and check on him every few minutes. Now he’s four and can play independently outside while I lift. If I were going to run I’d ask DH to watch the kids for 30 minutes. Gently, I would not encourage skipping dinner to work out. Try different times and see what works for you: some people get up early. Working out after work but before dinner worked best for me. Of course you have to have dinner prepped or just do a quick meal, which is what we usually did. Wfh allowed me to do a lot more dinner prep and I realize you might not have that option.
Anonymous says
Similar schedule. My workday has expanded from previous 8:15-4:45 plus commute to 7:30-5:30 many days, but if I’m able to stop between 5-5:15, I exercise for 20-30 min then while my spouse is in charge of kids snd dinner prep — HIIT or weights (weight bench in garage so no travel time), or running. Otherwise, I exercise between 8-10 pm. I can’t run at that time digestively but can do other exercise. I really appreciate the spousal support in the 5:15-5:45 exercise time because I’m more likely to actually exercise then than at 9:30 pm.
Anon. says
I either get up and hour before the kids (6:00 AM) or wait until after bedtime. Kid bedtime is 7:30, so it’s long enough after dinner that I don’t feel gross but early enough that I’m not impacting my sleep. I really hate morning workout because physically I can tell I don’t perform as well. But especially if I know we have evening activities or something I want to get done, I try to make the morning work. I’ve also started signing off around 4:00 on Fridays and ending my week with a 30 minute yoga class. I’m basically a Peloton commercial at this point, but I will never go back to the gym because of the logistics while we have kids.
fallen says
I involve my kids! We usually go on bike/scooter rides with my three and eight year old for an hour after dinner now that it is nice outside. My oldest whines about it sometimes but I bribe her with playing computer games after if she behaves herself (a treat on a weekday), and my youngest thinks it’s the best thing ever. Other things that have worked is doing it at lunch-time or a peloton ride after kids go to bed. It is a non-negotiable to me to work out daily, in either of these days, which helps too.
Anon says
Aww I love that! My 3 year old loves doing yoga (“yoga”) and I really wish we could find a parent-kid yoga class, but I don’t know of any in our town and the studio I found in the nearby city with them has paused it because of Covid.
Anonanonanon says
If it helps, I don’t.
Pre-COVID, I had a membership to a gym right by my office that also had a Starbucks. The promise of a leisurely shower/getting ready process with no kids around and a coffee on my way in was enough to get me to wake up obscenely early to go. I do not have the same motivation to go down to my basement and work out in front of a TV.
I’ve had a bit of luck with Obe, since they have live classes and I’m more likely to go if I feel like it’s an “appointment” (I had to do classes when I had a gym membership, too). I try to fit it in on telework days. Sometimes after my youngest is in bed and then I eat late. But I have not been at all consistent.
SC says
If I want to work out, I either have to get up early, like 5:30-6 am, or work out right after work. My husband cooks dinner, and our kid is 6, so old enough that he doesn’t need close supervision while DH makes dinner. Honestly, though, I don’t work out as often as I should–I tend to read in bed or in my sunroom in the mornings instead of working out (I’m really not a morning person), and I spend time with my husband and kid when I get home from work.
Anonymous says
I get up early and work from about 5-7 before kiddo gets up. Then when kiddo leaves for the day, I run and shower. The early work time gives me the cushion to work out and shower during the work day. Ideally, it is first thing after she leaves for the day. But it depends on my schedule.
Pogo says
Lunch break, which is harder now that a bunch of my coworkers are on Central time so they schedule over my lunch . I used to block it, which is probably what I will start doing again to preserve my workout time.
Anon says
I wake up between 4:30-5:00am, 5-6 days a week, to make sure I get in a workout. I’m a better person when I exercise and always have been. Granted, I only have one child right now (7 months) so we’ll see what happens when the second joins the party.
GCA says
For me it’s immediately before daycare pickup. DH handles dropoff in the morning, and I start early so I can work across time zones. I (try to) wrap up around 4.30pm and go for a quick run before picking the kids up from aftercare and daycare. If not, my other weekday workout window is 9pm after kid bedtime (Pilates/ strength at home – though I might venture back to the gym now that we are fully vaccinated).
Boston Legal Eagle says
Like a lot of people, now that I WFH, I usually do a walk on go on the treadmill after having lunch. And a long run on Sundays. Pre-pandemic, I didn’t work out much because I had two even smaller kids and didn’t want to wake up any earlier, nor did I make time during the day. I think I will try to do something over lunch now, even when I’m back in the office.
DLC says
I try to fit in something after the kids are in bed. And honestly it’s only a twenty minute something- either a cardio, HIIT or yoga session. (Like I literally google “twenty minute Hiit” and pick one of the results. Some nights it’s only fifteen minutes. I figure at this point something is better than nothing.
Anonymous says
I use the time I used to use to commute. I actually started after I weaned my youngest, and used the time I used to breastfeed him. My husband is a SAHD which helps. I wake up, feed the kids breakfast, and eat breakfast. My husband showers during this time. My husband takes over the kids, and I workout. I use workout videos, a mix of weights and cardio, I am trying to work towards HIIT. After I workout I shower and start work. Working out on a full stomach rarely bothers me. A lot of days I work until right before dinner, my husband does all of the cooking. I work out in a similar timeframe on weekends if I don’t have any early morning plans.
When I had an easy job before kids I would work out after work, but I am attached to morning showers, and it feels like a waste of time to take two showers.
Anonymous says
I wake up an hour before my kids a few days a week and do some sort of peloton workout. I also go for a quick walk after drop-off, and a longer one during my “lunch break” (which is whatever my break in meetings is, and often not during actual lunchtime).
Anon says
How much do you pay for family photos? Our photographer is very talented and personable, but recently announced a change to her pricing structure so you can only buy packages that include albums and prints (which we don’t want – I enjoy making albums that combine her photos with ours, and we don’t want prints at all) and OMG it’s staggeringly expensive. She now charges a $300 sitting fee and the cheapest package with digital images is $1500 for only 20 edited digital images (plus an album and prints). We live in a low cost of living area, and I’m pretty sure we paid less than $1800 for our wedding photography! Last year it was only $400 for the session, which included ~50 edited digital images. We’ll probably do it because we love her work and we only do photos once a year so it’s within our budget, but I am kind of taken aback by how steeply she raised prices in just one year.
Anonymous says
Photos cannot be that good. I’d tell her you’re not interested and find someone else
Mary Moo Cow says
Whew! I pay about $150 for a quick session with a dozen edited images and $300 for a half hour session with 20-25 edited images.
If you have a relationship with her, I think it’s fine to ask for a grace period of the old rate for one session or negotiate. I’m friendly with our family photographer, and I know she really struggled in 2020 (in part because her side gig was taking baby photos in the hospital.) Your photographer probably did, too, and raised prices in response but should be open to talking to you about it, a loyal client.
Anon says
It’s the opposite situation actually. She was overwhelmed with session requests in 2020, and has a growing family herself. She told me she wants to take fewer clients and deliver a more personalized experience to each client (and make more money from each client, so her overall bottom line doesn’t suffer, I imagine).
Unfortunately finding someone else isn’t that simple. There aren’t many decent photographers in my area that shoot families (one we used to go to has converted her business to boudoir only) and the other ones I know of also only offer expensive collections – one won’t give you the digital images at all and another one only includes the digital images in packages that start at $3k! I guess some people are happy to just get a nice album and be done with it, but having the digital files is really important to me because all the grandparents, etc. want them. We could probably find a decent student or upstart photographer for cheaper, but that doesn’t solve the problem long term…just a couple years ago our current photographer was the cheaper upstart option herself. And I really hate the idea of switching photographers every couple years. I like having someone who can do them year after year, both so our photos maintain a consistent style and also because I think it helps to have a rapport with the person.
Anonymous says
Then you have to make a decision. Are you willing to pay the inflated price for consistency, or not?
Anon says
Yeah like I said in my OP we’ll probably do it, since we only do photos once a year. I was mostly just curious how out of the norm this is.
Anon says
Join your local FB moms group and search for family photos. I guarantee there are several posts where people recommend their favorites, usually with a price range. If not, post your own question.
For reference, Chicago suburbs: I only want 10 digital photos for a family holiday card and to document all of us looking at the camera and looking good. I just need a “mini session” where a photographer sets up a background and shuttles people through every 15-30 minutes. Rapport doesn’t matter because we’re in and out so fast. That’s around $200 all in, for my area.
anon says
That is STEEP for family photos, IMO.
AnotherAnon says
I have an extremely talented friend who is a photographer. She charges $200 for a “mini” 10 minute session (that’s all we ever need for family photos), which includes digital copies of all your photos – usually more than 50 images. She does not give me a discount: $200 is standard price. I think a full session with her is $400-$500, including images. She lives in Dallas and tbh I think she’s a bit underpriced but all that to say: a sitting fee PLUS $1500 is bananas. I’ve noticed some photographers are going to this model and I simply won’t use them.
Anon says
I have my mom do them because she’s a decent photographer and late afternoon light in our backyard is magical (plus I am decent at retouching), so free plus the cost of my photoshop subscription. But in our area (DC burbs), a mini session is usually a couple hundred bucks and I believe that includes around 10-15 digital images (likely unedited or only lightly edited). Those prices seem crazy to me.
Anonymous says
This is the same in our area pricewise.
Anonymous says
Yeh I’m in DC too and can get family photos for $400.
Anon says
The most popular family photographer in my city (houston) is in that range. It’s also impossible to get a reservation with her, so someone must be willing to pay! I’ve honestly switched to someone else.
anon says
I agree this is insanely expensive and definitely you could find someone much cheaper, but I’ve shopped around for this too and have found that many of the popular photographers in my area charge a similar amount.
SC says
I had a photographer I really liked, and she changed her pricing similarly one year. I went ahead and booked her, and the photos were really bad. We didn’t get a single photo of the 3 of us that I was happy with. The next year, she stopped doing family portraits altogether. Now I suspect if she raised her fees so much because she really didn’t want to do those photos anymore. So my advice is to go ahead and find someone else.
We’ve used our “new” photographer twice now, her fees are reasonable, and she’s been great! I’m in a MCOL city. She charges $175 for a 30-minute session and 10 edited digital images, or $350 for a 60 minute session and 20 edited digital images. We can buy printed images a la carte, and they’re about $3-5 for a high-quality 5 x 7.
Anonymous says
We spent more than that on family photos last year. It included multiple albums and wall art though, which I really like. If you don’t want albums or art, I agree it makes sense to find someone who isn’t going to force you to buy that stuff. The sitting fee also seems really steep to me if she’s expecting people to spend thousands on images and art. Our photographer only charges $100 for the sitting.
Pogo says
I get that photography is an art and people need to be compensated for their time, but that is too steep for me. You can find something cheaper if you don’t want to pay that. My newborn photos were like $150 and they’re gorgeous.
Boston Legal Eagle says
I’m in a HCOL and we paid about 1/5 of that for our photos (I think it was 20-25 digitals). No prints as we just print through shutterfly if needed.
DLC says
MD Suburbs of DC – for our favorite photographer, we pay $450 for a two hour session and get about 60-70 digital images (both high res and low res photos ). Prints are extra, but we often get a print credit. Personally I find this is not something that is in my budget (or rather budget priority) to do every year, so I only book with him every two or three years. From asking around, though, I think this is on the high end for our area. There are a lot of photographers in our area that will do a 30 minute session with 5-10 images for $150-200, though most of them are not as experienced as the one we usually use.
Anonymous says
DC area here. We pay $650 for a 60-90 min session every year with the same photog. That gets digital images only (which is what I want— don’t want an album; I’ll get a few prints but not usually right after the session). I am super picky about family photos, dislike most that I see elsewhere, and like the consistency of having the same “look” every year (and supporting our photog, who I love!
anon says
My kid has been back to in-person school for about a month and came home with a cold last week. Now, everyone in our family is sick for the first time in 18 months. I’m curious, if you have kids going to in person school, are they coming home with colds and sniffles? (We got a covid test, thankfully negative) I am a little surprised because the school is painstakingly taking every precaution: masks at all times, handwashing, no sharing materials, and keeping distance, so I didn’t think that kids would be getting sick with covid or colds.
Anonymous says
Yes, my child has caught a few colds this year at daycare, including one almost immediately after going back. Remember that not all viruses are spread the same way. Noroviruses are famously spread via surfaces and food, other viruses like colds and flu and Covid seem to be more airborne. Also it varies based on the individual, some individuals are just more infectious than others for whatever reason. Kids are generally really good at spreading colds and flu but seem not to be major spreaders when it comes to Covid. So yeah I think occasional colds and routine bugs are to be expected and are not evidence of the Covid protocols failing. I would be worried if you were getting sick constantly, but wouldn’t worry at all based on one cold. I’m actually happy when we all get the sniffles – it’s not good for our immune systems long term to have no exposure to germs. My daycare doesn’t even exclude kids for sneezing and runny noses (in the absence of fever and cough) which makes sense to me since those are atypical Covid symptoms and very typical cold symptoms.
Anonymous says
What is the etiquette for non-LGBTQ people wearing Pride t-shirts? Is it allyship or appropriation? I found the sweetest Sesame Street Pride t-shirt that I’d like to wear to in support of several family members. Family members would appreciate the gesture, but I don’t know whether I’d get side-eye from others.
Pogo says
I think the fact that you’re thinking of it means you’re on the side of allyship not appropriation. There are definitely some people (and companies!) who go overboard on it…. like where are you on this the other 11 months of the year.
Anon says
How would you get side eye from people for appropriation? They don’t know if you’re LGBTQ or not. People might assume you are, but I don’t think that’s a big deal.
Anonymous says
Because most people I know are aware that I am not LGBTQ? I run in some rather woke circles and have seen the consequences of inadvertent slipups.
Anonymous says
This lesbian mom gives you permission to wear the Sesame Street pride shirt. But please tell me where to buy one?
Also, for pride the only things that strikes me a appropriating pride are 1) all the corporations who market for pride but don’t have the inclusive policies to actually benefit queer people, and 2) anyone who is offended if I assume you are LGBTQ if you are wearing rainbow/ pride items. Otherwise I am personally very stoked when I see the pride clothing/ flags etc.
Anonymous says
It’s at Target, in the kids’ department. The kids’ sizes are really more like adult sizes. There is also a toddler version. It is the cutest thing ever.
Anonymous says
Adding–the product title is “Pride Gender Inclusive Kids’ Sesame Street Short Sleeve T-Shirt – Light Blue.” It says “L is for love” with a rainbow and characters holding hands.
momanon says
Would you go to an amusement park this summer with kids (5 and 7) who are really good about masks? DH is pushing it hard, but I’m pretty wary still, even though I think we would probably be able to minimize our risks. Our county has very low covid rates but the park is in a neighboring state with higher rates.
And if you would go to an amusement park, would you go to a water park? This is a pretty hard no for me but I’m curious if anyone disagrees, and why.
Anonymous says
I would not go to an amusement park this summer with unvaccinated kids. It’s not essential, there are plenty of other fun things to do, and it will still be there next year. For me the worry would cancel out any fun, and I could see it setting up spousal conflict. It’s just not worth it this year.
AwayEmily says
Yeah, I wouldn’t do it. Not because i think it’s hugely risky but because there are so many other fun things to do in the summer, so why not wait. Lakes, hikes, playgrounds, picnics, camping. I am super excited to take my kids to the amusement park I went to growing up as a kid, but it can wait until next summer.
Anon says
Yeah I would do a local pool no problem, even our local zoo and indoor museums (masked), but a full waterpark or amusement park feels too much for me because of the long lines in close proximity.
For my unvaxxed kids, we’re saying woohoo to anything outdoors and reasonably separated, sometimes to indoor masked activities, and hard no to closely packed events whether indoors or outdoors. They’ll be going to a summer day camp that will be masked indoors but unmasked outside (and they try to spend most of the time outside) and we want to preserve our ability to stay there as much as possible, so we won’t be as risky elsewhere to try to decrease our risk of being sent home.
Anon says
I have no plans to go to an amusement park, but it’s because I don’t really like amusement parks, not because of Covid.
We plan to live at our local waterpark this summer. I’m curious why you think that’s such a big Covid risk. Anything outdoors seems pretty low risk, and a waterpark seems even safer than an amusement park because you don’t share rides with other people. We’re still avoiding most indoor activities, including indoor pools, fwiw.
Anonymous says
For me the concern at a water park would be standing in long lines next to the same people without a mask. At our local water park, it takes at least half an hour to get on a lot of the slides. You can’t exactly wear a mask waiting in line for a water slide.
Anon says
Ah ok. I have a young kid so we don’t do the big slides and I use the term “waterpark” loosely, it’s more of a community aquatic center with a few slides, so the lines are never anywhere near half an hour long. If you’re thinking of one of the mega waterparks that people travel from all over the US to, then I can see how it’s different. Ours is not a destination for anyone who’s not local to our city, and it has our town’s only zero entry pool so it would be a real nuisance to avoid it all summer. With flex work hours, we do plan to go on weekday afternoons as much as possible to avoid crowds.
12:35 says
Ah, see to me that’s not a water park, that’s the local pool. I’m super COVID-cautious and would be fine with that.
Anon says
Eh, it calls itself a waterpark, and we have local pools too that don’t have slides or lazy rivers, so it is a little different than just a pool. But yeah, it’s not Oceans of Fun or Dorney Park or some place like that that’s a tourist destination.
anon says
Honestly, I was planning on taking my kids to the water park, as we really missed that last year. I understand it’s not risk-free, but it is outdoors and our closest interactions would be among our family members. Community spread is very low in our area, or I wouldn’t be considering it.
Anonymous says
We’re planning to go to LegoLand in the Hudson Valley and Coney Island here in Brooklyn, both of which are mostly to entirely outside (I think re: LegoLand). I don’t see how a water park is much different than a public pool or beach and would be okay with that too; at this point I’m pretty comfortable with outdoor activities. I am in an area with relatively high vaccination rates and low covid rates.
Anonymous says
PS – my son is 9 and OVER other outdoor activities at this point, at least the ones I can think of that are convenient to us in the city. So that is a big part of my calculus. He DNGAF about going to the playground anymore and has had his fill of the parks near us.
anon says
My issue with amusement parks is standing in line for prolonged time over and over again next to questionably vaccinated people.
I also feel like there are lots of other things to do this summer. Outdoor concerts on a lawn, ziplining/ropes course, paddleboarding, kayaking, sailing, waterskiing, tubing, fishing, hiking, rock climbing, geocashing, visting outdoor historic sites, etc. It’s impossible to be bored of everything except amusement parks.
Anonymous says
We’ve gone to the little amusement park at Coney Island already this summer. It’s basically the same as going to the playground. Everyone was good about masks and the rate here is very low.
So, would you go to a playground with people from this neighboring state? What is their mask compliance? Their vaccination rate? Their transmission rate? How long are the lines? Do you think this park takes safety seriously?
But realistically it’s as dangerous as letting your kid play on the same playground equipment as other kids.
Anon says
I think it’s quite a bit different than a playground. Standing in line next to the same people is much more sustained contact than you normally have at a playground. Kids also generally only mix with other kids at playgrounds and (variants possibly not withstanding) kids really don’t spread this as well as adults. At an amusement park, your kids will be in much closer contact with adults outside your family. I would also think that even in a very pro-mask area, plenty of people would take masks off outdoors if the amusement park doesn’t require them. Even Disney has dropped their mask requirements outdoors, I think. And I can’t imagine anyone wearing masks at a waterpark – wet masks are just gross.
Anonymous says
Wet masks aren’t just gross. They are also ineffective.
NYCer says
I would feel fine taking my kids to an amusement park (or a water park) this summer. FWIW, many of my “real life” friends feel the same way, as I know of several families who have gone to Disneyland in CA since it reopened a couple months ago.
Boston Legal Eagle says
Good question. We’re going to the Cape this summer and there is a water park that we were going to go to last year but didn’t, and may go this year instead. I’m pretty comfortable with outdoors things in general – aren’t the transmission rates pretty low outdoors (i.e. not the “less than 10%” the CDC said, more like 1%?) I’m less worried about my kids getting it now that all the adults in our family are vaccinated.
Anonymous says
I’d do both unless the amount of Covid in the park area is super high. I’m not sure what “higher” means. But I take a weekday off work (probably a Monday) to go instead of going on the weekend.
Anon says
I don’t think there’s any state in the US where rates are super high right now, especially if you’re comparing to the past year. Pretty much every state in the US is at a post-March 2020 low right now, although of course some are lower than others.
Anonymous says
I went to an amusement park last fall and felt fine about it. Everyone was still wearing masks then, though… I’d probably go this summer if there were still line distancing in effect, but avoid shows or other places you’re just packed in with a bunch of strangers.
Back to office says
For those of you who are going back to the office (or always have been going), with unvaccinated kids at home, are you masking up? N95? My work is pushing a return, mask and vaccine optional. Workspace is a bench space and/or cube farm. I think I’m masking, husband wants me to n95.
Anon says
I would not want to wear an N95 all day but I would be super annoyed at my employer. Masks should at a minimum be required indoors for any unvaccinated employee.
Anonymous says
I have been eyeing the Breathe99 masks. An N95 would be terrible to wear all day.
Boston Legal Eagle says
I don’t know whether my company will require masks at work (if they did, I would certainly want to just continue WFH more) but I don’t plan to mask everywhere where there is a potential for an unvaccinated person to be, just for the remote possibility of me (fully vaxxed) catching it and giving it to my kids. That risk seems pretty low to me – isn’t that the whole point of why masks are no longer required indoors for vaccinated people?
Sigh says
I’m in the same boat as you and have not been wearing a mask.
NYCer says
My firm is no longer requiring masks for vaccinated employees (still required for unvaccinated people). I do not plan to wear a mask.
We are not going back until at least September though, so things could change.
Anon says
N95 seem like overkill if you’re vaccinated. I’ve worn them and they are unpleasant to wear all day.
Anon says
No. I am vaccinated, DH is vaccinated and kiddo is not high risk. Our office just went mask free for vaccinated folks this week (unvaccinated or partially vaccinated are still required to mask, and it is an honor system) and TBH it is really lovely (almost everyone who is coming in right now (official return date is September) is vaccinated or will hit their two weeks in another week, so it feels very safe). People who I know are vaccinated are about 50-50 on continued mask wearing in our office (personal preference). My view is this is why we all got vaccinated! So we could approach normality! And case rates are super low in our area! But it is quite the mindset shift as someone who has been extraordinarily cautious the last 18 months.
Anon says
I think this is pretty different than OP’s situation though, because in your case only those who are fully vaccinated are allowed to go maskless. I agree that being around other vaccinated individuals without masks is very low risk. I wouldn’t wear a mask at work if my employer was still requiring masks for unvaccinated employees, but I definitely would wear one if everyone had permission to go maskless (unless I was sure everyone was vaccinated).
Anonymous says
DH is a scientist who wears N95s to the grocery store even though he’s had his first dose. I work in a similar environment as you and we settled on blue disposable mask with the tight ear tie method (this makes them close to n95 efficacy but still way more comfortable than an actual n95- will dig out the study link for you if needed). I eat lunch outside the office and use a fresh mask for the afternoon. Sanitize hands when I get in the car and wash as soon as I get home. We’ll probably relax a bit once we’ve both had second doses.
Anonymous says
Why? All the research says this is completely unnecessary
Anonymous says
There’s a lot of factors at play. Like one dose of Pfizer is only about 30% effective against the Indian (Delta) variant which is highly transmissible.
Anon says
I just bought Happy Masks for a longhaul flight with an unvaxxed kid (on the recommendation of a different mom’s group) and they are super thick and well-fitting but still very comfortable to wear. The only thing is they’re not machine washable. So I’m not sure I would want to wear them daily. Ain’t nobody got time for all that hand-washing.
Anonymous says
My teacher friend swears by Stark’s masks.
New Here says
Something I never anticipated I’d deal with when having a daughter: shopping for her and thinking “I wish this came in my size.”.
I think it is the bright colors and happy patterns. I’m so tired of my basic solid color tanks (even though I have them in fun colors) and neutrals. I’m in the mood for some fun, happy clothes this summer. I’m specifically looking for tops that I could through on with chino shorts or a jean skirt and they’re a step up from my normal Madewell whisper tee but still casual enough to be wearing for a patio happy hour or something like that.
I like the look of Boden, but can’t justify the price right now (working from home, casual office in normal times). I feel like my normal go-to places are just blah. Everything seems muted or dull. Any suggestions? What’s the Tea Collection (my fave for her) for moms?
Anon says
Yes! Just bought my daughter the most gorgeous Athleta swimsuit and really wish I could get a matching one. I did a bunch of summer shopping at Talbot’s and am happy with it, but price point is probably not much different than Boden and it definitely has more of a middle-aged mom vibe.
AnotherAnon says
I just saw a friend who had the cutest dress and said it was from Rylee & Cru. I’m a boy mom, but I frequently walk by the girls’ section in Target to ogle all the cute stuff. I guess I’m just a little bit twee at heart.
anon says
Oh yeah, I get this. If you want happy colors, J Crew Factory can be a good source for this.
Mary Moo Cow says
Oh, I’ve had that thought many times! I’m wearing a Boden t-shirt right now, matter of fact. I shop Boden clearance, with a coupon code (sign up for their mailing list and there’s a code on every mailer), and on ThredUp and also at J. Crew Factory. I am trying to shift my spending from buying a bunch of cheaper stuff to buying fewer pieces of quality stuff that I love, if that mental shift helps you.
Anonymous says
We are starting to think about a family reunion vacation for around 20 people ranging in age from toddlers to 80+. A Disney cruise would be perfect–everyone has their own space and can go off and do their own thing in smaller groups during the day, then the whole group gathers for dinner. Due to varying budgetary and vacation style preferences, however, a cruise is off the table. Is there a less expensive, land-based alternative that incorporates the desirable aspects of a cruise? My husband has suggested renting a big lake house, but I am opposed because we will end up spending the whole time cooking and cleaning, there won’t be enough space or hot water, and we will end up spending the entire time debating what to do instead of actually doing anything. His other idea is a ski trip, but not everyone likes to ski and half the family won’t want to spend that kind of money.
Anon says
All-inclusive beach resort is a good bet for people like the convenience of a cruise but don’t want to be stuck on a boat. Disney cruises are fairly pricey and you can probably find a decent resort at a cheaper price point. It will be easy to do different activities during the day and meet for meals. Bonus – drinks are included, which they’re not normally on a cruise. I despise “rent a lake house” vacations for the reasons you mentioned.
Anonanonanon says
Great Wolf Lodge or something similar? Any resort with a good pool/water slide setup? Aren’t cruises pretty cheap, though? I’m not sure if people can’t afford a cruise they can afford a resort. I agree that renting a giant lake house with that many people sounds like a nightmare, but it sounds like there are some very tight budgetary restrictions at play….
Anon says
Disney cruises are actually pretty spendy. You could also consider a cheaper cruise line if the real sticking point is price. I haven’t been on Disney and maybe it really is magical for kids, but pretty much all cruise lines have complimentary kids’ clubs and good entertainment for kids, especially during typical school breaks.
Anon says
It depends on your perspective. If you stay in Four Seasons or Ritz when you travel, cruises on all but the most luxury lines are cheap. If you stay in Best Westerns or Holiday Inns, most cruiselines are reasonably expensive. My family was solidly upper middle class and did a lot of international travel when I was growing up (although we mostly stayed in budget hotels) and I still remember my parents getting really excited about our first cruise and acting like it was a pretty significant splurge. It wasn’t on Carnival, which is or at least was the cheapest cruise line, but it wasn’t on anything especially fancy. Cruises also normally charge full price or close to it for kids – even babies! – which can make the cost compare unfavorably to hotels and all-inclusive resorts if you have a larger family.
Anonymous says
Yeh I’d say a cheaper cruise line, or actually just going to Disney as a family and then meeting up for dinner each night? And yes, all inclusive resorts as well. I wouldn’t stay in a house with everyone.
Anon says
What if you picked a beach area and everyone got hotel rooms or condos in the same complex or area? Ideally it would have a mix of houses, hotels and condos so people can be at different price points and vacation styles, preferably within walking or golf carting distance. I’m thinking something like Isle of Palms (either town or Wild Dunes resort), Charleston or Myrtle Beach in South Carolina, but I’m sure there are others.
That being said, we are renting a house with my sisters, parents, aunt and family friends for a week this summer and I cannot wait. It is my favorite vacation by far but we are all very good about doing our own thing during the day (my thing is to sit on the beach all day and literally do nothing, other people like more activities) and taking turns with the cooking and the cleaning and the child chasing (the whole “many hands make light work” or something to that effect). I could see it going horribly awry with a different mix of people.
AnotherAnon says
IME what makes this successful is having one person coordinate everything beforehand. We rent a house (or houses). Each family unit is responsible for planning and cooking one dinner. Men are responsible for cooking breakfast. We also eat out a lot, now that kids are older, and usually order pizza one night. We’ve done the same location for six decades so the agenda is pretty set, but everyone can opt in or out of the day’s activities. We usually miss at least one day because someone is hungover or needs a nap.
Anon says
This is definitely personality dependent, because even an organized system like this sounds terrible to me. I don’t want to eat a bunch of random people’s amateur cooking on vacation, nor would I want to be responsible for feeding a huge group of people even once. And even a minimal amount of cooking and cleaning takes a trip from “vacation” to “living in a different place” for me. I feel like most people have a strong preference between hotel or Airbnb and I’m team hotel all the way. If I’m on vacation I want a housekeeping service and to be doing zero cooking and cleaning.
OP says
Yeah, that was one reason I loved the cruise so much. That was with the other side of the family. Grandma got everyone on board by paying for it herself (thank you, Grandma!), but that is not happening with this side of the family.
Anon says
Not sure what your budget is, but unless it was the boat part of the cruise specifically that you loved, an all-inclusive resort should be as good or better than the cruise, and it can be a lot cheaper, especially if you look in Mexico and the Dominican Republic.
OP says
It’s a quirky bunch, some of whom don’t choose to spend on hotels ever even though they could afford to if they wished. Different priorities. For that reason it needs to be in the continental US and driveable from all points on the east coast. All-inclusive is best to avoid quibbling over restaurant choices. I don’t think this trip is realistic at all, but my husband really wants to make it happen.
AnotherAnon says
I’ll grant you it definitely can get annoying when the organizer is constantly…organizing, but we mostly ignore her and people get fed. We eat off paper plates. Run the dishwasher twice a day. IME vacation with kids IS just doing life in a different place. Different priorities for sure but I wouldn’t like the idea of not being able to do my own thing on vacation with twenty other people. But OP it sounds like an all inclusive resort might be your best option for what you’re wanting.
Anon says
My sister doesn’t cook and usually doesn’t get up until 11, so we stopped sharing a rental house because we got tired of feeding and managing her three kids for hours each morning. (They are also an ‘unlimited screen time’ family, which was always tough for us to navigate.) Now, we rent houses side by side in our preferred vacation area. It’s the right balance of close but not too close. Some shared activities, some shared meals … and far less resentment.
Anonymous says
Grand Pallidum resort on the Mayan Riveria worked well for us in a similar situation. We had also looked at club meds. Not sure where you are located but pre-pandemic Club Med had some great deals flying out of Montreal direct to their Bahamas property.
anon says
You could do a family resort like the Greenbrier in VA or Mohonk Mountain House in NY.
Anon says
Mohonk is $$$$, there’s no way that’s in the budget if a Disney cruise isn’t. But I REALLY want to go there after watching the show Upload. It doesn’t look like they have much outdoor dining and I don’t want to waste money by going off-site for meals, but it’s top of my list once the kids are vaccinated.
Blueberries says
An all-inclusive resort or family camp sounds like it could work.
Anon says
This is probably what you’ll have to do if some people are on a very tight budget. I would also add coastal Maine as a location suggestion, assuming this trip is in the summer or early fall.
Anon says
Meant to be a reply to the Anon at 2:42 above.