2021年3月17日 星期三

Living Paycheck to Paycheck, Living Diaper to Diaper

Diaper need causes more anxiety than food or housing insecurity for some mothers.

'Living Paycheck to Paycheck, Living Diaper to Diaper'

Eleanor Davis

If your child is not potty trained, how many diapers do you have on hand right now? That's a question I certainly wouldn't have been able to answer with any specificity when my children were babies. But it's a question that parents who struggle to afford the expense — about $70-$80 per month, per baby — can answer easily, because managing diaper need is among their most significant anxieties.

That's what a new study from Jennifer Randles, an associate professor of sociology at California State University, Fresno, has found. She talked to women who didn't just track the number of diapers they had at any time; they tracked their baby's urine output down to the ounce. As Maria, a mom of four, told Dr. Randles: "Diapers is the no. 1 concern for me right now because I don't want to struggle more, so I have to think about this stuff in this way, and I can't go over my daily limit. It's hard living paycheck to paycheck, living diaper to diaper."

Over half of the 70 women Dr. Randles interviewed said they were more stressed about affording diapers than they were about affording food, housing or electricity. (She attempted to recruit fathers for this study as well, but even after explicitly looking for dads who manage their children's diaper needs, she could find only three willing participants.)

Diaper need is an under-researched topic, Dr. Randles said, but studies have suggested that somewhere between 29 percent and 36 percent of families struggle to afford diapers. The need is so significant, and it causes outsized stress, because diapers are not subsidized by the major anti-poverty programs: WIC (the Women, Infants, and Children program) covers formula and other foods for pregnant women, mothers of young children and children under 5; and SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps) covers other nutrition.

ADVERTISEMENT

Cora, a mom of five, told Dr. Randles: "I worry about diapers more than food because we can portion our food. We get some food stamps, always have at least a can of something. You can't really portion your diapers in the same way and say, 'OK, I'm going to use only three diapers today.' What if your kid goes poop four times?"

Though no governmental organization keeps statistics on how much diaper need has increased since the pandemic started, a representative from the National Diaper Bank Network said that there was an 86 percent increase on average in the number of diapers distributed to children and families during the pandemic as compared to pre-pandemic figures, and they projected that nearly 40 percent more children are being served by their diaper banks.

Holly McDaniel, the executive director of the Austin Diaper Bank in Texas, said that while local need has declined since I last interviewed her in the summer of 2020, "we still are at a 75 percent increase over where we were in February 2020." Ms. McDaniel said that her organization had distributed 1.7 million diapers in 2020, compared with 950,000 diapers in 2019.

The need was especially pronounced in February 2021, when winter storms knocked out electricity and access to clean drinking water across Texas. In one week during that period, the Austin Diaper Bank distributed about 200,000 diapers, 4,000 ready-made containers of formula and 2,000 cans of powder formula, Ms. McDaniel said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Parents who have not experienced diaper need may have trouble understanding how much time, energy and effort goes into the process of accessing diapers, Dr. Randles said. Some blithely suggest that families should just use cloth diapers, which is "completely oblivious to the actual lived circumstances" of these mothers, some of whom are working multiple jobs, may not have in-home washers and dryers, and might even live in shelters, because they do not have housing.

Diaper need is also associated with a stigma that may be even deeper than needing food assistance. "It's still taboo to talk about so many different bodily functions," said Dr. Randles, and that inability to meet their children's most intimate needs felt shameful to some women.

"People just judge you more," Yesenia, a mom of two, told Dr. Randles. "If we needed help with housing or food, people get that, but what does it say about you as a mother if you can't provide diapers, the one simple thing only your child needs?" Perhaps as a result of this stigma, diaper need is linked to greater rates of depressive symptoms in new moms than food insufficiency is. It is also linked to more frequent visits to the pediatrician for diaper rash and urinary tract infections.

Ms. McDaniel is hopeful that the Biden administration's $1.9 trillion stimulus package, which includes monthly checks of up to $300 paid directly to families for children under 5 will help ameliorate at least some diaper need for her clients. The stimulus package is projected to cut child poverty compared with prepandemic levels by 52 percent for Black families, 45 percent for Latino families and 39 percent for white families.

ADVERTISEMENT

There is also some bipartisan legislation in the works to provide support to families in need of diapers during the pandemic. But the moms who need those diapers can't wait; the anxiety of providing for their children's most basic bodily functions is on their mind right now.

To find out more about donating diapers, visit the National Diaper Bank Network site.

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Tiny Victories

Parenting can be a grind. Let's celebrate the tiny victories.

Today my almost-11-year-old son walked up, flung his arms around me, and said, "I just need a hug." This year has been so hard, but it's also helped my family get better at communicating our needs. — Jen Newton, Sandpoint, Idaho

If you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for NYT Parenting from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

2021年3月16日 星期二

On Tech: Maybe Amazon has no master plan

Plus, Facebook's Australia feud ends with a whimper.

Maybe Amazon has no master plan

Timo Lenzen

What if America's most successful companies are sometimes clueless?

Recent articles about Amazon's projects in groceries and robots in the home show that even America's most ambitious company can fumble around. In one, more details emerged about the company's chain of supermarkets — not Whole Foods but another one — that show Amazon still hasn't figured out how to sell us milk and chips. The company also has a team of 800 people working on what so far seems to be something like an Echo speaker on wheels.

Never underestimate Amazon. But we also shouldn't assume that the wildly successful tech giants have it all figured out. Sometimes, these companies may just be throwing spaghetti at the wall.

Facebook's efforts to turn WhatsApp into the default method of customer interactions with businesses may be less a grand design than the company's only good option. When Amazon made a big splash a few years ago with promises to reimagine American health care, maybe it didn't really have a clue. When Google, Facebook and SpaceX say they will bring internet access to more people using balloons, drones or satellites, they haven't necessarily cracked a complex challenge.

Many of these are worthwhile efforts. We should all believe in the power of innovation to solve problems. But the public and policymakers should also not put too much faith in what is sometimes expensive, real-world market research by giant companies.

ADVERTISEMENT

Let me go back to one of Amazon's high-profile projects in groceries. To sum up the company's last 15 years: Amazon operated a grocery-delivery service for a decade without much success. Then nearly four years ago it bought the Whole Foods chain of 500 grocery stores for more than $13 billion. That hasn't been a smash. Now Amazon is building a different chain from scratch with stores that Bloomberg News described as somewhere between a Trader Joe's and larger supermarkets.

The optimistic view of Amazon's grocery meandering is this is merely the first step of the company's master plan. Maybe!

There have been news reports that Amazon has dreams of heavily automated stores and plans to eliminate cash registers in lots of places. Maybe Amazon wants to use its grocery outposts as prep centers for deliveries of fresh fish and dish soap.

I am eager to see Amazon's big ideas. But for 15 years there hasn't yet been evidence of Amazon's grand theory of groceries or an ability to translate imagination into reality. Meanwhile, some companies in China cleverly mix the best of in-store shopping with delivery. Britain's Ocado and Market Kurly in South Korea are tackling inefficiencies in getting groceries to people's doors. The best ideas in groceries are not coming from Amazon.

ADVERTISEMENT

This is where I add that it's possible I will look like an idiot for writing this. Groceries, robots for the home, pharmaceutical drugs and health insurance are all areas worthy of innovation. It's just helpful to think of Amazon's efforts as experiments — sometimes bad ones — rather than fully baked marvels of creation.

Mostly, I worry that we'll put too much faith in what may be low-stakes tinkering for tech giants but high-stakes problems for the rest of us. It's not helpful if some policymakers are holding off on transit projects to see if driverless cars might be the answer to transportation nightmares. (They won't.)

I write a lot about the power of big technology companies and the harm that can result. But believing tech superpowers have it all figured out can be harmful, too.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

ADVERTISEMENT

Facebook's Australia feud ends with a whimper

You know what's not awesome? Australians getting stuck in the middle of a business negotiation between Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg.

Do you remember a month ago — I know, these days it feels as if time has no meaning — when Facebook blocked all news from the app in Australia? This came after a new law in the country required Google and Facebook to pay news organizations for links to their articles.

The law may be misguided or it might be clever. I don't know. Certainly, Google and Facebook didn't like it — but they took opposite approaches, at least at first.

Google chose to grit its teeth and sign contracts to pay several news organizations, including News Corp, owned by Murdoch. Facebook's response was to make a ruckus, criticize the law, and stop people and news organizations from sharing or viewing news links on its app in Australia. (Facebook later temporarily lifted the news blackout.)

Then on Monday, Facebook did pretty much what Google did a month ago: It signed a deal to pay for material from Murdoch's company. Maybe this fight that was supposedly over the good of the public was really just a tussle between billionaires?

I don't want to let the rather meh conclusion obscure the important underlying issues. Google and Facebook gobble up a significant portion of advertising sold in the world. That makes life harder for news organizations and other companies that support themselves with advertising.

Lots of people and government officials are trying to figure out what, if anything, should be done about this. U.S. lawmakers are debating a bill that would give smaller news organizations collective bargaining power to cut deals with Facebook and Google — not dissimilar to what happened in Australia. (It's also not unlike a proposal I wrote about in 2009. )

Whether these are wise steps or whether news organizations deserve special help at all is a worthy debate. Unfortunately, in Australia the important questions were muddled by rich companies bickering over power and money.

If you've found this newsletter helpful, please consider subscribing to The New York Times — with this special offer. Your support makes our work possible.

Before we go …

  • A secret labor settlement, relevant again: After a contentious effort to unionize Amazon warehouse workers in east-central Virginia, the company issued a 22-point promise that it wouldn't retaliate against people for supporting a union in the future. My colleague David Streitfeld recounts that formerly secret agreement with federal regulators and how it's relevant to the company's current labor unrest.
  • Hacking all your text messages for $16: A Vice News reporter found multiple hackers-for-hire who were able to reroute all his text messages and use the access to break into his online accounts. It's a scary tale that shows a lack of accountability in the sprawling mess of our text messaging system.
  • Streaming has helped change the sound of music: For the Times Opinion section, Nate Sloan and Charlie Harding explain how the pop music structure of verse and chorus started to change because of multiple factors, including the desire to make songs that grab people on Spotify or TikTok.

Hugs to this

The comedian and actress Tiffany Haddish found out she won a Grammy Award while recording a children's TV show. Watch as she and the kids are absolutely delighted by this news.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you'd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you don't already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/