We cloth diaper too (3 kids, a two and a half year old potty trained for about a year now, and 5 month old twins). Personally, I find disposable diapers to be way more disgusting than cloth. With cloth, you rinse it out and the majority of the gross stuff is down the drain. With disposables, you end up with a garbage can literally full of poop. Its like having a mini pit toilet in your house.

We have also noticed, like you mentioned, that cloth diapers are easier on the babies' skin and makes potty training significantly easier.

For anyone who is reading this and may be interested in cloth diapering: Get some quality covers and then buy a ton of flour sack towels. They make the best inserts. Super absorbent, cheap, and unfolds to a single layer, which means they get cleaner and dry faster.

Props for doing that. We tried with our twins, but eventually decided cloth diapers are for people with single kids that aren't burnt out.

Ugh. Yeah, I regret deeply buying cloth diapers for my twins. The economics looks better for twins, since you only need like 50% more, but the time premium is higher than expected with twins, so it ended up eating into too much prescious downtime. Worse is we couldn't get them to stop drinking the majority of their fluid intake before bed, and the pee at night required us to use absorbant disposables anyways. In the end I'm not sure they were a net positive investment, even ignoring the higher than expected opportunity cost of havings twins.

"cloth diapers are for people with single kids"

Maybe not for twins, but "one kid at-a-time" is more than doable and the second kid is where the real money savings come in.

Yeah, I meant that by single (English is my second language).

And of course cloth diapers are probably a good idea for twins too, but I just couldn't handle it. There comes a point where you'll give almost anything to get five minutes of free time every now and then.

Sister had twins - I totally get it. Their house was crazy for the first couple years. You do what works ;)

> With cloth, you rinse it out and the majority of the gross stuff is down the drain. With disposables, you end up with a garbage can literally full of poop.

Worth pointing out that just because you use disposables doesn't mean you can't rinse it out / dump into a toilet. We used cloth for 8 months and then transitioned to a daycare that wouldn't let us use them. I still dump all solids into the toilet because I don't want my baby's room to smell like poop 24/7.

Also, if you read the box, most diapers will instruct you that you are supposed to do this, as human waste doesn't belong in landfills.

The thing that grosses me out when I attempt to do that is then the polymer filling stuff gets all wet and nasty. That stuff just weirds me out...

Our twins are currently just breastfed, which means their poop is basically yogurt. So nothing to dump in the toilet yet. I remember we would dump the harder poops out before we threw the diapers away if we were out of town and using disposables.

Disposable diapers are actually a burden on society in many places even beyond the obvious problem of essentially putting sewage in the trash; https://www.nearta.com/Papers/GovernmentDiapers.pdf

> you rinse it out and the majority of the gross stuff is down the drain.

How do you rinse it? What drain?

> Get some quality covers and then buy a ton of flour sack towels. They make the best inserts. Super absorbent, cheap, and unfolds to a single layer, which means they get cleaner and dry faster.

Don't understand this whole paragraph.

Many people have a laundry room (or area) with washer, dryer, and utility sink. For example, see http://www.mlexecutiverealty.com/_account/images/listing/122... .

Taking care of a baby requires specific education. You should not expect to know everything about the topic if you have not researched it.

It is rude to express your confusion this way. As written it implies that the author did not express things well, when it appears instead to be that you are ignorant of the topic and don't feel like doing the research. I'm often that way, but since no one else cares, I don't comment about it.

How is it that you did not think to do, say, a DDG search for "diaper insert", or even better, "diaper insert flour sack"? The first hit for the latter is http://mamanloupsden.com/2014/10/29/whats-deal-flour-sack-to... , which seems quite relevant.

I've seen people hook up a hose to their toilet and just spray the diaper "into" the toilet, I guess it could also double as a bidet too if you wanted.

I don’t agree, it was terse but didn’t intend it to be rude, and there is some responsibility to use clear wording without obscure terms or jargon. Raised a child and never heard any of those terms before.

Reminds me of many tech articles here where obscure acronyms are never explained.

Also putting feces down the sink doesn’t sound like a great idea, though maybe it’s fine. No explanation given either way.

You don't put it down the sink, you rinse off the diaper into the toilet.

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Baby-Cloth-Diaper-Spraye...

The sink and the toilet connect to a drain pipe within probably 5 feet, so its really not as gross as people tend to think. Also, no matter what you are going to get poop on your hands and wash that off in the sink, so poop is going down the sink either way.

Obviously when the baby is old enough to have well-formed poops, you dump that in the toilet. Otherwise we just rinse them in the sink, put them in a 5 gallon pail, and then wash them in the washing machine every day or two. (More often because of twins)

Diaper covers are basically the water-proof outer part of the diaper. Then you put cloth inside to handle the absorbing liquid.

For example: https://www.amazon.com/Thirsties-Wrap-Cloth-Diaper-Cover/dp/...

Flour sack towels are thin kitchen towels, I assume named how they are because they are the same material that people used to buy bulk flour in.

The picture is bad, but these are what we bought: https://www.theisens.com/products/flour-sack-kitchen-towel/8...

Basically its a towel a little less than 3 feet on each side. I fold it in half the long way, in half the other way, and then in thirds the original direction. You put that inside of the diaper cover, and then put it on the baby just like a disposable diaper.

When the baby pees, you replace only the cloth part. When they poop and it gets on the cover, you get a new cover as well.

A lot of people don't live in places with an in-home washer/dryer. They have to go elsewhere in the building for pay laundry or to the laundromat. This makes it logistically and financially nearly impossible to use cloth diapers. Not to mention the substantial up front cost for cloth diapers, which makes them inaccessible for people living paycheck to paycheck. This is an example of how having money allows you to save money.

When I think about UBI I worry about responsible spending and wonder if just subsidizing common items food, clothing (diapers) and household goods wouldn't be a smarter solution overall.

In relation to the case in the article, I wonder if we couldn't subsidize certain items and allow parents to receive a one month supply at low to no cost? Why should we give disadvantaged people $180 a month just to let several middlemen take a cut via the corner drugstore?

The main idea behind UBI is that the government doesn't know exactly what each individual needs at any given time, but does know that those things can probably be bought for money. One person might need diapers, another socks, and yet another a car payment to take their child to school. Given money increases flexibility, as opposed to a fixed list of items that may or may not be needed.

How is the package distributed? If the parents are homeless, where is it sent? If the package is stolen or damaged, how do they get a new one?

What is the basis if your concern? Over and over again studies show that poor people are no worse at managing money than non-poor people. Probably better, since they have so little to waste.

In this weird present where Gawker now has decent journalism, I'll quote from http://gawker.com/poor-people-do-not-just-blow-any-money-the... :

> The popular image of the "Welfare Queen" is one that is seared in the mind of many Americans. No big surprise, since countless millions of political advertising dollars were used to put it there. Nevertheless, evidence shows that the welfare state in the US, to the extent that we have one, works—that giving poor people tax breaks, and social welfare, and, yes, cash aid helps to bring people out of poverty and allows them to lead more bearable lives. ...

> I will politely refrain from addressing the racist overtones of the "poor people are lazy and stupid" position because they should not need lengthy explanations to debunk.

> Poor people are not perfect. Nor are middle class people, or rich people. Wasting money is a possibility, among humans.

This has been done in the past, e.g. government cheese.

It turns out that letting the market deliver necessities based off of demand is far more efficient than the alternative. That would be a government anticipates how much a community will use, what styles of diapers they'll want, etc.

Really? Do tell me more about the benefits of water system privatization in the US.

Story upon story like https://heavy.com/news/2018/02/risks-costs-private-water-lea... doesn't make me conclude that letting the market deliver water is "far more efficient than" a public water system.

Calm down. Assuming bad faith is for Reddit, not here.

Your argument is making a straw man. You are the first commenter to bring up public utilities. Everybody needs water. Systems that are accountable to local government are the most effective way to get it. Usually that is with a publicly-owned water corporation.

A basket of goods is far different. Back to the subject actually at hand: some people will need cloth diapers. Others disposable. A government employee would need to administer the program in that town or district.

The inflexibility of the program would mean that some parents would not use all their diapers and would dispose of them. Other unfortunate parents would need way more. Also, what size diapers? Benchmark this against weight? A physical bottom measurement? Not all children use diapers at the same rate.

Hopefully this example gives you an idea of the complexities involved in centralized management. Empirically, baskets of goods are less efficient and more costly when centrally administered.

And tone policing is its own uncharitable rhetorical style.

You said "letting the market deliver necessities". Water is a necessity.

I'm also for single-payer government run state-wide/national health systems. Somehow those work and are more cost-effective for overall public health, despite a variability of need which is far higher than that of diapers.

Now, I agree that akira2501's proposal isn't tenable, and in a parallel thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16763183 ) you see I list some of my objections.

What I disagree with is your broad and non-nuanced statement regarding the supposed efficiency of letting the market deliver necessities.

I disagree you have parsed my response correctly. I do not know why you or the previous poster choose to mischaracterize a narrow statement as a broad and universal one.

If you re-read my comment, you will see that I provide a counterexample to the "all markets for everything" narrative.

Your response indicates that you think I'm a member of the opposing intellectual "team" and you need to defend yours. Not only do I acknowledge that single-payer is effective in several countries, I believe that it is one of many possible solutions to the U.S. healthcare problem.

My comment was narrowly disputing the effectiveness of a centralized planning system for market commodities. Even the NHS has considerable decentralized aspects.

[[citation needed]]

And I mean a comparison between governments of equally developed nations. That means that you compare the USSR to Brazil and not the USA. Since the difference in HDI between the USSR and Brazil was smaller than that of the USSR to the USA.

Because those same middlemen are the ones who would benefit the most from UBI.

Of course subsidizing goods and services means we will have to stop pretending that all choices are equally good and start acting like adults again, where just because you really, really want to do drugs and have 8 kids doesn't mean you will get to do that regardless of how much money you have.

How exactly does subsidizing goods mean someone won't do drugs or have 8 kids? Do you think the folks addicted to drugs want to be?

Most folks don't do drugs excessively. But if it is OK for a middle class person to drink once a month, I'm OK with poor folks drinking once every few months. Or other drugs infrequently (i'm pro-legalization of many things). If you don't want folks to do drugs all that often, the only tool available with subsidies is to subsidize rehab and/or medical care and the family care that might come with inpatient rehab programs.

8 kids? How the heck do you expect to combat that with subsidies except though making sure birth control is nearly free (including the doctor's visit for women to get it, and actually offering low-cost sterilization). This completely glosses over the need for fact-based sex education (rather than the abstinence-only sort popular in some areas), for instance, and does nothing to deter folks that want 8 children.

>Most folks don't do drugs excessively. But if it is OK for a middle class person to drink once a month, I'm OK with poor folks drinking once every few months. Or other drugs infrequently (i'm pro-legalization of many things). If you don't want folks to do drugs all that often, the only tool available with subsidies is to subsidize rehab and/or medical care and the family care that might come with inpatient rehab programs.

You don't subsidize alcohol, you tax it. Then you borrow a leaf from the Australian playbook and add a puke green coloring to it and force it to be sold in brown cartons with pictures of dissected livers.

>8 kids? How the heck do you expect to combat that with subsidies except though making sure birth control is nearly free (including the doctor's visit for women to get it, and actually offering low-cost sterilization). This completely glosses over the need for fact-based sex education (rather than the abstinence-only sort popular in some areas), for instance, and does nothing to deter folks that want 8 children.

You force sterilize people after the second child. And pay people to get sterilized with one or no children.

Unpleasant but when we are hitting the limits of what the planet can sustain and the best hope is 'we will go to Mars', doing unpleasant things so we survive is the better alternative to the cannibal holocaust we are setting ourselves up with.

Sterilization in first world countries isn’t useful to solve world population as a whole because most/all first world counties actually have negative birth rates and are only bolstered by immigration. Furthermore, birth rates globally are slowing down as it is. There’s no need to go down to forced sterilization or other barbaric methods.

> When I think about UBI I worry about responsible spending and wonder if just subsidizing common items food, clothing (diapers) and household goods wouldn't be a smarter solution overall.

Irresponsible spending is precisely what will happen with UBI. When you cut a check not earmarked for a specific purpose (food, rent, clothing, etc.) you will inevitably end up with people mismanaging their money and coming back for more ("but I'm broke through absolutely no fault of my own, how will I afford to eat?"). This will lead to backstops beyond UBI for people facing emergencies, which will lead to a small but significant portion of people gaming the system by, well, having "emergencies" every month that leave them unable to afford necessities.

The fatal flaw of UBI is assuming that there will be no abuse.

There is abuse of earmarked assistance. UBI isn't unique in that regard.

Trading food stamps (or food purchased with them) for drugs. Etc. The drug addict is going to get drugs one way or another; we may as well reduce the friction (and use the savings to pay for rehab).

Regardless, most of the poor are just trying to get by and not prone to abusing whatever assistance is available.

Right but each step required to convert a food stamp dollar to something you arne't supposed to buy with foods stamps adds friction and inefficacy.

By handing out food stamps that can be used for X you make X the default for that thing and require user to go out of their way to use the food stamp money for something else.

If people are using food stamps to buy food to sell to a bodega at 50% value and then using that to buy beer you've effectively doubles the price of beer (or diapers) for people buying it with food stamps.

It's mind-boggling that a bunch of tech people who are well versed in the various tricks employed to get users to do things don't understand this.

It's not like anyone who's on welfare/ebt/food stamps doesn't know exactly how to convert those dollars to cash if they want to. It's just not an efficient use of those dollars compared to buying what you're expected.

Replacing all those with UBI just removed the extra steps and cost penalty for using welfare/ebt/food stamps on things you're not supposed to.

I think we're making the same point, but I see removing that friction as a good thing, while you don't.

In your example, the bodega is getting a 50% cut of the aid that it shouldn't. Instead, we can give the recipient 50% of the current amount in cash, and let them buy the drugs directly. The extra 50% can be used in several ways... pumped into rehab or education, reducing tax burden on others, whatever we decide.

In both cases, the drug addict uses all their aid for the same amount of drugs. In my scenario, society spends less for that outcome.

In the current scenario there's an incentive to not spend your welfare money (taxpayer money) on drugs. I think that's worth letting the middle man take a cut of.

You seem to be under the assumption that welfare is supposed to be income. It's not. It's aid, financial assistance for near-necessities. If you want drug money without hurting your eligibility it's not that hard to work under the table.

In the case of the drug abuser, I'm not sure that incentive to spend appropriately applies. They're a drug addict after all - they really don't have a choice (other than rehab, but that also costs money).

Regardless, I'm much more concerned about the average recipient, who may need more gas than bread some weeks, or some other completely reasonable situation. As noted in a sibling, it's been proven that the poor aren't any worse at budgeting/spending than the not-poor.

I imagine for those, you could use a washboard in a shower/tub. It's not a huge volume and the "dirt" is not caked in, for the most part, so it should be a fairly easy wash.

You don't need a washer / dryer. You wash them in a bucket with soap. Only takes a few minutes.

You can hand wash them in a bucket with washboard (though we didn't) and line dry them. We actually line dried ours about once a month to air them out and sun-bleach the cloth. About 30 $5-15 cloth diapers lasts you 3-4 days between washes.

where are you line drying them? In your bathroom, most people are lucky if they have an outside space to do this when living paycheck to paycheck

Correct. In your bathroom.

Honestly, there is an epidemic of self defeatist in our day and age.

I've lived with people who did that. You put a used diaper in the toilet, and do a couple stir and flush cycles. Then you put them in a bucket with detergent. Once a day, you hand wash those, and hang to dry. With about 20-30 diapers total, you can manage.

But damn, finding used diapers in the toilet is annoying. Plus wet diapers hanging all over to dry. If it's your kid, though, it's not a big deal.

In my area, where relative humidity is often 60-90%, this form of drying would result in moldy cloth, not dry diapers. My guess is Tampa's microclimate is probably similar and line drying isn't an option.

People line dry everything in south-east Asia, in >90% RH. Though I suppose that’s usually out a window or on a balcony.

How do you think people washed and dried clothes there 100 years ago? How do you think they do it in more humid and poorer places today? Do you leave your towel on the towel rack and let it dry there or do you throw it in the dryer every time?

Mold thrives in moist, dark places, not most sunny ones.

A 100 years ago housekeeping was a full-time job, and quality of life was generally pretty bad.

Also the society functioned differently; one middle-class salary could sustain a middle-class family, for one.

We no longer live in that reality, nor would anyone want to.

It's like saying that homeless people are OK because there were no buildings in prehistoric times.

Neither societal structure or quality of life affect the drying time of cloth diapers in humid places.

Edit - and having lived in both, you're much better off drying things in a hot humid place than in colder ones.

We used cloth diapers in a place that's hot and humid but seasonally cold (the US Deep South). Outside on the line, diapers dried a lot faster in the summer than the winter. We ended up having to buy a used dryer for winter use, because they simply didn't dry fast enough to be ready by the time we needed them.

Even if you go with a diaper service instead of washing them yourself, cloth can be cheaper than disposable. It depends on your local rates and the number of diapers you need per week; typically the more you need the cheaper a diaper service is per-diaper.

Well, I mean, I personally know people who are living paycheck to paycheck who cloth diaper, it's not basically impossible like you suggest. It's really, really not.

Serious question(s) from a father of 2 under 2...

How do you get the cloth diapers clean? Like, really clean so they don't still smell after they've been cleaned?

My wife and I were planning on cloth diapering. We bought some high-end cloth diaper and liners and started on our merry way. We found that no matter what we did, our little guy smelled like piss all the time. My wife was washing diapers 2 or 3 times in between wearings, "stripping" them to remove remaining smells, etc., etc.

Our water bill went up by literally $50 a month, we were buying all kinds of detergents to try and get the smells to go away, and we had already invested a ton of money actually buying diapers in the first place. Not to mention that my wife was spending all her time washing, re-washing, and folding diapers _and_ our kid still smelled like piss.

In our case, disposables were a god-send. The little dude is happy, he doesn't smell, my wife doesn't spend half her day cleaning diapers, and (especially since we buy diapers in bulk on good sales), we've found disposable diapers to actually be far _cheaper_ than what we were paying for water, detergent, startup costs, etc. on cloth.

I would never go back, just because of the time savings alone.

We used cloth diapers on my son (who is now almost 4). Our technique was as follows:

-One wash cycle in warm water using no soap.

-One wash cycle in hot water using soap.

-Dry

Every couple weeks we would put white vinegar in the no-soap cycle. This helps cut the smell down.

Every couple months we would put a small amount of bleach in the no-soap cycle. Any more frequent than this and we found the diapers then irritated our son's skin.

If I had to do it all over again, not sure how I would choose. As you call out, there are additional costs to the cloth diaper approach (water, detergent, etc) that add up, plus it takes quite a bit of time.

One advantage that we found is that our son, and other folks we know who used cloth diapers, all had kids who ended up potty training sooner (anywhere from a couple months to 6+ months earlier) than kids wearing disposables.

Why do cloth diapers result in faster potty training? Is the urine/feces felt by the child (ie, all that fancy absorbent material in disposables is harmful to training)?

My wife is a member of a diaper science community on facebook group called fluff love. They have extensive information about how to get your diapers really clean, with targeted information for specific situations like water hardness, washing machine type, materials, etc. The folks there are very helpful and responsive to issues.

What we ended up doing was 1 "power wash" cycle, followed by a regular wash cycle each time, and just regular ol Tide detergent. Sorry for the tide ad.

Short answer: it's hard to say specifically, because it depends on a ton of factors.

Have you tried putting them in the sun? Sunlight does a lot of good on diapers. If you have the option I'd put them on a line outside.

As for the other stuff, we used a double-rinse with powdered detergent and things seemed to work pretty well.

The time factor was _super_ annoying. Maintenance for cloth diapers is a full-time job sometimes, but it felt good not to add a billion pounds of waste to the landfill.

Full disclosure: Now that we travel a lot more, we're pretty much only in disposables.

Yep, we had a similar experience trying to do it ourselves with our first two (also under two at the time!) - see my other comment for some of the reasons why this is a thing - but got back on the cloth diaper train when a relative exposed us to the magic that is cloth diaper service. Best of luck with two under two!

Our routine: Warm wash with Oxi-clean, Hot wash with detergent, air dry the covers, tumble dry high the inserts. Baby is 8 months and so far no smell and very little stains on the inserts.

Yes, that's exactly what we did.

You need to soak them in something stronger before washing - something bleach based. Napisan is great for this (and also for any white shirts etc).

Same, at first I wasn't sold on the concept but my wife wanted to try. It's way cheaper and better for environment. Now I don't regret it and find the idea of using 100% disposables silly. We still use one disposable each night because they absorb better or one here and there when we're out.

The upfront cost was $150 so that might be an issue for some.

If you didn't have in home access to a washer and dryer (that is, assuming you do) would your opinion change?

It depends. If I can afford it then I'm likely to exclude any residence that doesn't have a washer and dryer. And if I can't afford it then I'm more like to use cloth diapers because then the savings is significant.

I found with liners it was even better than diapers. No smell because everything goes down the toilet. Mind you, my kids were eating solids before we put them in cloth.

We did the same. Putting this thing into cloth removed ‘ick’ factor: https://www.amazon.de/gp/aw/d/B00E5NN4KQ/ref=mh_s9_acsd_top_...

It can be washed 2-3 times if nothing serious happened.

Its a whole lot more environmentally friendly as well. And that's something that will probably affect your kids more than you.

how does this not contaminate your washer with feces?

Do you think your washer is somehow not already contaminated with feces, from washing underwear?

I read an article a while ago that tested and found substantial fecal residue in typical washing machines, without cloth diapers going through them. Can't find it now among all the cloth diaper related search hits.

My grandma always used to wash undies by hand separately and then pour boiling water over them. I found it to be very weird when I was a kid, but she might have been onto something. I would do this if I was living with an immunocompromised person but its probably overkill for a healthy family.

It's also suggested you clean the washer every once in a while too.

Fecal bacteria is found everywhere it seems, so that's why frequent hand washing (especially before food prep) is important.

Good point.

Detergent and water gets just about anything clean..

However, you presoak them, and scrape a majority of the feces off into the toilet at change time.

You rinse diapers in the toilet before washing them.

We're also using cloth diapers, except when travelling (which is pretty rare), but it has had no impact on the childs exzema.

(As expected really, half of the rashes are on his arms/torso and completely away from the diaper-end!)

Where did you get cheap cloth diapers? I haven't looked too much into it but some women in my family recommended against it because they said cloth diapers are expensive.

We travel a lot with our son. No way we were gonna do that with cloth diapers.

Diaper services can also be better for the environment and the wallet.

That depends on your location; my experience in NYC was that diaper services were just a little more expensive than buying small bags of disposable at CVS, and vastly more expensive than ordering bigger bags of disposable at Amazon.