Connect with us

News

Sleep training: Life preserver for parents or “symptom of capitalism”?

Published

on

Sleep training: Life preserver for parents or “symptom of capitalism”?

Todd Warnock/Getty Images

Please go to sleep

Todd Warnock/Getty Images

Well, I’m back. After a lengthy parental leave, when publication of the Planet Money newsletter decreased in frequency, I’m now working full-time and the newsletter will go back to being published weekly.

Advertisement

As always, I will continue to do my best to provide you with insights from the field of economics and keep you informed about what’s going on in the economy. And, don’t worry, this newsletter is not about to become all about babies. This week, however, it is. Now that I’m a working parent, I want to take just one brief moment to complain on behalf of all of us. Like millions of parents before me, I’ve discovered it’s hard to be productive when you’re sleep deprived.

There’s a ginormous mountain of studies that find that sleep deprivation is a serious drag on productivity. One recent study by economists Joan Costa-i-Font, Sarah Fleche, and Ricardo Pagan estimates that each additional hour of sleep per week increases the probability that a person is employed by 1.6 percentage points and increases a person’s weekly earnings by 3.4%.

Another study by economists Pedro Bessone and colleagues finds that it’s not necessarily just the quantity of sleep hours that matters for productivity, it’s also the quality of sleep. This checks out, personally.

The Modern Dilemma of Juggling Career and Kids

In some ways, the problem of sleep deprivation hurting productivity at work is a contemporary one. More than ever before, families have two parents who work outside the home. Historically, many women stayed at home and bore the brunt of baby-induced sleep deprivation. Today, more often than not, there are two drowsy parents who must go into work the next day and — not speaking from personal experience at all, ahem — may get into small tiffs at around 3 a.m. over whose turn it is to comfort or feed their crying baby.

Plus, thanks to efforts to combat Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) — which, we should note, seem to have been extraordinarily successful — parents are now instructed to avoid co-sleeping and to do things like put their babies to sleep on their backs as opposed to their bellies. While such measures have been found to reduce the risk of SIDS, they also may make it harder for many babies to sleep because many of them naturally want to sleep on their parents or their bellies.

Advertisement

Sleep Training

For today’s parents, there’s a tantalizing solution to the problem of sleepless babies: sleep training. For many, “sleep training” is a mere euphemism for the most infamous and controversial method: Cry It Out. Basically, you put your baby in a crib or bassinet in a separate room and don’t come back until the morning. If they cry, so be it. The idea is they will learn to self-soothe and become good sleepers.

Not all forms of sleep training are so severe, but most do involve some tolerance for crying and, because of this, many categorize most approaches broadly under the umbrella of “cry it out.”

In her bestselling book Cribsheet: A Data-Driven Guide to Better, More Relaxed Parenting, from Birth to Preschool, economist Emily Oster reviews the evidence on sleep training and concludes, “The bottom line is that there is simply a tremendous amount of evidence suggesting that ‘cry it out’ is an effective method of improving sleep.”

That said, sleep training is pretty hard, strategically, physically, and emotionally. That’s why there’s a whole cottage industry of high-paid sleep trainers, books, consultants, podcasts, influencers, and so on, who help parents with all this. Recognizing that sleeplessness is a problem for employees to be the most productive, companies like Meta (aka Facebook) have begun subsidizing the cost of sleep training coaching for their workers.

The Online War Over Sleep Training

Ever since we had a baby — and apparently started googling baby-related stuff — my wife and I have found our social media feeds to be jam-packed with baby-rearing and sleep training content.

Advertisement

For example, my wife was targeted with a post from a baby sleep consultancy called Taking Cara Babies that marketed their services to us (and our employers). “It’s true! Taking Cara Babies has a way your company can give you the gift of sleep (which will help you thrive as an employee). For more information to send to your boss or HR department, head to my stories or comment.”

It seemed pretty innocuous. But the most liked comment was the following: “Wish we had actual parental leave like the rest of the modern world so we weren’t forced to sleep train and get back to work like good little capitalists.”

It turns out this sentiment can be found across the internet, in comments, on sites like Reddit and X (formerly Twitter), and by influencers. There’s a large community of parents who disparage sleep training — and, in particular, any form of cry it out — as basically a cruel practice that sacrifices our babies’ well-being on the altar of capitalism.

Whole Mother Therapy, which provides online therapy to parents, for example, argues on their blog that “Sleep training is a symptom of capitalism—it cuts parents off from the natural attachment and nurturance that is essential for infant and baby development.”

“Sleep training is breaking your child’s mind and nervous system to fit into the productivity model capitalism requires,” tweeted an X user named ℍℝ.

Advertisement

But is not wanting to be really sleep deprived only driven by economic concerns? If I had the luxury of not working, I probably would still want to be well-slept. And aren’t there a whole bunch of countries that have capitalist economies — but, at the same time, robust safety nets — that give parents greater opportunity to stay home and be sleep-deprived without having to go into work? I’ll let you be the judge.

One of the biggest schools that opposes sleep training, or at least strategies that tolerate baby crying, is known as attachment parenting. This approach advises parents against letting babies cry on the grounds that crying is an expression of distress and that it’s unnatural and cruel to not do everything in our power to prevent it. I have friends who pursued attachment parenting. They not only refused to let their babies cry at night without intervention, but they also let their babies sleep in their beds (which, by the way, is not recommended by health experts for at least the first six months of your baby’s life). And let me tell you, years later, their kids are still interrupting their sleep. Not for us.

Emily Oster points out that sleep training has sizable benefits for parents. She cites a randomized controlled trial that found that mothers “were less likely to be depressed and more likely to have better physical health” months after sleep training their babies. “This finding is consistent across studies,” Oster continues. “Sleep-training methods consistently improve parental mental health; this includes less depression, higher marital satisfaction, and lower parenting stress.”

But what about the baby’s mental and physical health? In reviewing the literature, Oster finds no credible evidence that babies’ long-term well-being is impaired by sleep training. “Fundamentally, the argument against sleep training is theoretical,” Oster argues. She admits that it’d be better if we had more studies on this. “And yes, it is possible that if we had more data, we would find some small negative effects,” she admits. But, at the same time, she says, it’s also possible that, by promoting good sleep hygiene, sleep training could actually be a benefit to babies. She concludes that “You’ll have to make a choice about this without perfect data.”

As for us, we’ve pursued a strategy that you might call sleep training lite. Basically, when our baby cries in the night, we either feed him if it’s been a while since he’s eaten or we hold his hand and sing Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star to him while he stays in his crib. Honestly, it worked really well between months 4 and 7. But recently, he started teething, and… well, we’re both really tired. Take that, capitalism.

Advertisement

News

What the Supreme Court did on the final day of its term

Published

on

What the Supreme Court did on the final day of its term

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court Tuesday upheld the long-established right of children born on U.S. soil to automatic American citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. In so doing, the court rejected President Trump’s most aggressive attempt to limit immigration in the United States.

Writing for the court majority, Chief Justice John Roberts traced birthright citizenship back to the founding of the nation. Just as the colonists demanded “the rights of Englishmen” more than 250 years ago, he said, Congress, after the Civil War, amended the Constitution to specify automatic citizenship for any child born on U.S. soil.

“Citizenship then and now was the right to have rights”—and the framers of the 14th amendment extended that promise to every free born person in this land. He concluded: “We keep that promise today.”

Advertisement

The vote was 6-to-3, depending on how you count it. Altogether, five justices signed on to the Roberts’ majority opinion. A sixth, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, agreed only that federal legislation enacted in the 1950s grants automatic citizenship for children born in the U.S.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the lead dissent, a 91-page opus that agreed with Trump’s assertion that the 14th amendment only applied to former slaves and their descendants. The Thomas dissent added ominously that he “was not sure that “today’s opinion will stand the test of time.” The dissent was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, with Justice Samuel Alito writing a separate dissent.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who, like Thomas is African American, responded to some of the themes in the Thomas dissent.

“Despite his longstanding endorsement of a colorblind society,” she wrote, “Justice Thomas now surprisingly suggests that the citizenship clause was a race-conscious remedial measure relating only to freed slaves.”

Cecillia Wang, legal director of the ACLU, who successfully argued the case at the Supreme Court, said President’s Trump failed attempt to limit birthright citizenship was transparent.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Rep. Tom Kean returns to Congress, says depression is why he went missing for months

Published

on

Rep. Tom Kean returns to Congress, says depression is why he went missing for months

Rep. Thomas Kean Jr., R-N.J., arrives at the U.S. Capitol with his wife Rhonda Kean on June 30.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

New Jersey Republican Thomas Kean Jr. said it was struggles with depression that kept him away from Congress for nearly four months with no explanation to his constituents.

Kean last voted on March 5th, missing numerous votes and other appearances on Capitol Hill since. In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters he had spoken to Kean and that he was dealing with an undisclosed medical issue. Kean was not spotted until recently at his New Jersey home.

Speaking from the House floor on Tuesday, the second term lawmaker said he had checked into a hospital for testing several months ago after health concerns, and was subsequently diagnosed with depression.

Advertisement

“Talking about myself has never come naturally,” Kean said. “But I believe that I owe an explanation to the people of New Jersey’s seventh district, to my colleagues in this chamber and to the American people for my absence.”

Kean said he originally did not think his diagnosis would result in a long-term absence. Doctors recommended he remain in the hospital to address the illness, and it was his fastest route to recovery, he said.

“It is physical. It is emotional,” he said. “And until you experience it yourself, it is difficult to fully understand how powerful this illness could be.”

Kean said he miscalculated how long he would be away, estimating it would be a matter of weeks. However, he said like the roughly 48 million Americans who have battled the illness, he learned there is no timeline for recovery.

“I am grateful that I accepted help,” Kean said. “Today I stand before you healthier, stronger and excited to return to the work that I love.”

Advertisement

Kean’s absence proved a struggle for House Republicans, who contend with a razor thin majority to pass party priorities. For weeks, Kean and his office declined to share additional details on why he was away, feeding rumors and speculation and raising interest in a member known for his privacy.

Continue Reading

News

Michigan governor threatens to pull troops from D.C. if used for Trump task force

Published

on

Michigan governor threatens to pull troops from D.C. if used for Trump task force

Members of the National Guard stand in front of a large image of U.S. President Donald Trump that hangs from the the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building on May 18, 2026 in Washington, D.C.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images North America


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images North America

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a strongly worded letter to the head of Michigan’s National Guard, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer reiterated troops from her state are only to be used for operations surrounding America 250 celebrations in Washington, D.C., and not for President Trump’s long-running — and controversial — joint task force to fight crime. She said that she would pull her troops from the city if that is not the case, in the letter obtained by NPR.

“Please take all necessary measures to ensure the Michigan National Guard is only supporting the narrow and limited America 250 Mission and is in no way supporting the D.C. Safe and Beautiful Mission,” wrote Gov. Whitmer, referencing the official name for the federal task force.

Trump deployed hundreds of troops to Washington, D.C., in August of 2025, in what experts said was a stunning departure from governing norms. He said he did so to address rampant crime, despite declining crime rates at the time. The number of troops in the city has increased over time to more than 4,800 from Washington, D.C. and almost two dozen states, which until recently were exclusively Republican-led.

Advertisement

Michigan — which has 161 guard members currently in the city — is one of four Democratic-led states that sent members of their National Guard to D.C. in recent weeks, ahead of an influx of tourists for America 250 celebrations. North Carolina and Kentucky each sent one member of their guard, while Minnesota sent more than a hundred last week.

Kentucky confirmed to NPR Monday that it had recalled its one guard member over the weekend, after that member was “diverted to the task force by the federal government without the knowledge or consent of Gov. Beshear of the Kentucky Guard,” Scottie Ellis, a spokesperson for Gov. Beshear, wrote to NPR in an email.

When contacted by NPR, spokespeople for each respective Democratic governor’s office made it clear that their guard members were sent to help specifically with America 250, not for law enforcement purposes as part of the larger ongoing federal joint task force operation. All four states have been clear about their opposition to the Trump administration’s ongoing deployment of National Guard troops to D.C., filing an amicus brief in support of litigation challenging it as recently as May.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending