# So much for the Conservative Childcare plans



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/10/daycare-spaces.html

To all of you guys (you know who you are) who thought you knew about Economics and somehow $1200 a year would magically create a "childcare market"... eat it. I am disgusted with all of you.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

blame the Liberals


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Colour me surprised. Maybe he meant that more churches would be able to collect unsuspecting children for indoctrination under the Harper government?

Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

If any of you forget your positions here is a reminder...

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=42318&highlight=Childcare

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=39946&highlight=Childcare

Sigh... Edited. Sometimes you just need to take a breath.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The Conservatives had a childcare plan? They had a tax credit labelled as a plan. Good spinning. Still, I'd like to see the data the advocacy groups used. Should be out today.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The best post containing the most truth in the thread you provided the link for was this one:



adagio said:


> I have to shake my head at this thread.
> 
> Talk about the generation that feels they are "owed" something or "deserves" something.....
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Are you really surprised? 
The only ones cheering this on seemed brainwashed by the money figure without really knowing the mechanics and reality of the situation.

It’s a little like the Sports program refund for kids – good on paper but the reality is somewhat different.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> The Conservatives had a childcare plan? They *had a tax credit labelled as a plan. Good spinning. * Still, I'd like to see the data the advocacy groups used. Should be out today.


The spin is from the Cons right?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> The best post containing the most truth in the thread you provided the link for was this one:


Sadly waxing poetic about "the good ol days" does not address modern issues of dual and single income families all trying to work (support the economy) and raise a family in the face of rising costs of living.

This was an issue where the Conservative were flat out wrong... and not just a little wrong but so far off the mark that they didn't miss the boat, they sunk it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The spin is from the Cons right?


Yep.

http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=422346&postcount=61


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC society has evolved from the idyllic time that you are so nostalgic about.
I understand that you maybe stuck in that time but days of single income family, relative long term employment and apple pie is long gone.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

"Conservative childcare."

Another oxymoron.

With the emphasis on the latter two syllables.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> To all of you guys (you know who you are) who thought you knew about Economics and somehow $1200 a year would magically create a "childcare market"... eat it. I am disgusted with all of you.


You actually consider this evidence? This group ( Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada) doesn't sound political to you?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/10/daycare-spaces.html
> 
> To all of you guys (you know who you are) who thought you knew about Economics and somehow $1200 a year would magically create a "childcare market"... eat it. I am disgusted with all of you.


You know, I knew someone with the same attitude just before the Conservatives won. The kept ripping into the Conservatives about their plan...blah blah blah.

So I shot back. Where is the Liberals plan? They had 13 years to implement something, and they did NOTHING!

The Liberals tried to use the whole child care thing as an election issue. They had their chance. They didn't do anything. Put up or shut up.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

This group is lobbying the wrong level of government. Childcare is provincial jurisdiction, not federal.

This is why Paul Martin's national daycare plan didn't work. The federal government can't legislate into what the constitution lays out as provincial jurisdiction. All the feds can do is offer cash to bribe the provinces into implementing their plan.

The problem, as was demonstrated when Martin attempted this, is that many of the provinces have very different ideas on childcare and there is no real consensus. For example, Quebec's plan is drastically different from the way Alberta handles it. When Martin came to Alberta, the government told him "give us the cash and get out of here, we will decide how to spend it".

I think many provincial governments are also wary of taking federal dollars for such programs because of what has happened with the healthcare system. This is another area where the feds offered cash to the provinces if they followed the Canada Health Act. When the feds scaled back provincial transfers in the mid-90's, the provinces were left scrambling to keep things up because their voters demanded the universal system.

When the feds, Paul Martin no less, came around offering cash for a new federal childcare program the question became: How long will funding be a priority and what happens if the government changes?

If a province is lacking in childcare spaces the best course of action is to lobby the provincial government to develop a program or increase funding to already existing programs.

This is why we need federal tax relief, not so we can take home more money at the end of the day, but so that the provinces can increase their taxes so that they can properly fund the programs that they are constitutionally responsible for in a way that the people of that province want.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

zoziw said:


> This is why Paul Martin's national daycare plan didn't work. The federal government can't legislate into what the constitution lays out as provincial jurisdiction. All the feds can do is offer cash to bribe the provinces into implementing their plan.


Where in the Constitution or the Charter does it refer to "Childcare"? The Federal Government is well within its rights to use Federal funds to create childcare spaces. in any province.



zoziw said:


> This is why we need federal tax relief, not so we can take home more money at the end of the day, but so that the provinces can increase their taxes so that they can properly fund the programs that they are constitutionally responsible for in a way that the people of that province want.


Tax relief does not work for low income or single income households.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Where in the Constitution or the Charter does it refer to "Childcare"? The Federal Government is well within its rights to use Federal funds to create childcare spaces. in any province.
> 
> 
> 
> Tax relief does not work for low income or single income households.



i doubt low income people vote conservative


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Wahhhhhhhhh! I had more children than I could afford and now I'm inconvenienced. It isn't like the old days because now I need to buy a Wii and a plasma TV to feel good about myself. How else can I enjoy my premium cable channels?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Wahhhhhhhhh! I had more children than I could afford and now I'm inconvenienced.


Great Sound Bite... You should sell that to the Conservative's PR agency.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> The best post containing the most truth in the thread you provided the link for was this one:


Hey, we pay more taxes than you guys did "back in the day" so what's _your_ beef?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Hey, we pay more taxes than you guys did "back in the day" so what's _your_ beef?


Macfury is right. Today's parents "wants" far outstrip their real needs. The parents of this century make far more money that we ever did in the 60s. Most as a matter of fact have two incomes. And then they want the rest of us to subsidize their lifestyle of overgrown houses, fancy cars, club memberships, plasma TVs, iPods, Wiis, two computers in every home, and every consumer gadget know to man. Poor me they cry, I need support for child care.

Well surprise, many taxpayers are wising up and it is time parents took responsibility like Adagio says.

Between 1965 and 1975 we raised three children and both of us worked albeit only part time in my wife's case. We arranged and paid for our own babysitters and it cost us dearly. We lived in an apartment for 11 long years, saving what little we could to put a down payment on a home. That home came along in 1976 at a cost of $30,000 when I was earning $9,600 a year at that time. My wife did not work those first two years of home ownership, instead choosing to remain home with our youngest until he was of school age.

And I paid plenty in taxes even then. In 1976 my take home pay was $600 a month and the mortgage payment was $200. The car payment, which I had to own to make a living in sales was $100 a month. Toss in utilities and groceries and there was not much left. Our kids were enrolled in soccer, the only sport we could afford since the only requirement was a pair of runners. The rest we did without until such time as climbing the corporate ladder resulted in a higher salary and better times. The offset of that was 60 hour weeks and 200+ nights in hotel rooms annually while on the road, leaving little quality family time.

Our only entertainment was a 19" colour TV, the one thing we purchased to offset what today's parents commonly do, ie: dining out, renting movies, enrolling their kids in hockey, soccer, baseball and providing them with all the expensive equipment related to those activities, golf memberships, gym and spa memberships and on and on and on.

No, I don't support public daycare and I never will. Earn your way yourself to pay for your needs. And don't ask me to dig in my pocket for your "wants".


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Macfury is right. Today's parents "wants" far outstrip their real needs. The parents of this century make far more money that we ever did in the 60s. Most as a matter of fact have two incomes.


Would you like to compare the purchasing power of the dollar from the 70s to today. There is a reason why so many have two parents working. 

And I won't get into aging baby boomers that I have to support with my taxes....


Poverty is a problem in Canada, the middle class is shrinking and I'd love to have half of what you describe as "normal have/wants"...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> hat home came along in 1976 at a cost of $30,000 when I was earning $9,600 a year at that time.


so the cost of your home was roughly 3x your yearly salary
i wonder what that ratio is now, especially in major cities
probably 5x if not higher


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> No, I don't support public daycare and I never will. Earn your way yourself to pay for your needs. And don't ask me to dig in my pocket for your "wants".


Sinc... How do you think our economy works? OK... Let's consider a page from the Book of Sinc.

Sally and Fred have a baby. Sally stays home to raise the kids. Sally and Fred don't have a lot of money... they make a middle class wage. They can't afford a big new house because only Fred works... so how many construction and material related jobs are lost because they can't afford a new house? They can't buy a new TV or furniture or clothes(often)... so how many retail jobs are lost because they can't afford it? I can go on, but I think you get the drift... 

We DON'T live in the 60's there is such a thing as inflation and it has an impact. Society HAS changed.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> No, I don't support public daycare and I never will.


I think what you may be failing to realize is that the benefit to society (economically, and probably otherwise) of high quality, publicly funded day care is quite significant. So it's not a case of you paying for other people's day-care so that they can kick-back and take it easy, it's Canadian society making an investment in early childhood development, so that the next generation of kids will have a better foundation to build on, while allowing parents with marketable skills to contribute to Canada's economic growth.

My son is now in grade school, so this is of no benefit to me, but I'll gladly support a Nationalized Day-Care system, because it's likely to make Canada a better place to live for all of us.

Cheers


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC, you talk like people from my generation are given everything--including our jobs. Not at all. We don't have to pay through the nose for the insane housing market, the highest taxes Canada's ever had not to mention energy costs. No, not at all. And I haven't touched the issue of the insane commutes.

I paid for my education and I've never had to go on unemployment--ever. I've never asked for anything for free, and I certainly don't act like I'm entitled to everything. All I have is because I work for it. The value of the house I own is 400-500% more expensive than just 8 years ago. Could you say the same about your house back you the good ol' days? So maybe you and your ilk can refrain from painting an entire generation with a broad brush because a small few act a certain way... you wouldn't want me to do the same about yours, would you?

How fortunate it is for you to have all your medical procedures covered for you and still carry on they way you do. Tsk, tsk.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I think what you may be failing to realize is that the benefit to society (economically, and probably otherwise) of high quality, publicly funded day care is quite significant. So it's not a case of you paying for other people's day-care so that they can kick-back and take it easy, it's Canadian society making an investment in early childhood development, so that the next generation of kids will have a better foundation to build on, while allowing parents with marketable skills to contribute to Canada's economic growth.
> 
> My son is now in grade school, so this is of no benefit to me, but I'll gladly support a Nationalized Day-Care system, because it's likely to make Canada a better place to live for all of us.
> 
> Cheers


I am in the same boat... both my kids are in school full day now. I also support a National Childcare Program. It is a fair and equitable means by which MORE people can participate in the economy through employment (both those employed by such a system and those allowed to work in the general economy). Everyone should be given the chance to work and contribute to the economy.

I think what we see here are how some people view the economy as something that they get money out of and some of view the economy as a functional part of our social fabric.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Sally and Fred have a baby. Sally stays home to raise the kids. Sally and Fred don't have a lot of money... they make a middle class wage. They can't afford a big new house because only Fred works... so how many construction and material related jobs are lost because they can't afford a new house? They can't buy a new TV or furniture or clothes(often)... so how many retail jobs are lost because they can't afford it? I can go on, but I think you get the drift...


So, lemme get this straight...

We need a federally subsidized daycare program because it causes people to spend more money and therefore fuels the economy?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Where in the Constitution or the Charter does it refer to "Childcare"? The Federal Government is well within its rights to use Federal funds to create childcare spaces. in any province.


It isn't that simple.

According to the Constitution Act property and civil rights (not liberties) are the juridiction of the provinces and child welfare falls under civil rights.



> As it has been interpreted, the term property would include anything subject to ownership, among others: real property, animals, liquor, vehicles, merchandise, stocks, bonds, trademark, etc. Civil rights would encompass local contracts, labour-management disputes, marketing, employment, sports, hoarding, prices, credit, adoption, collective bargaining, certification of locals, strikes, social assistance, child welfare, pensions, health care, unemployment relief, etc. Most of these things are important to the social makeup of a society and are clear expressions of the culture of a people.
> 
> There is ample evidence in the Constitution Act that these are just the sort of things that the Fathers of Confederation wanted to leave with the provinces. To have done otherwise would have led to endless quarrels at the central level and the purpose of the union had been to create a central government entrusted with powers over which Canadians were in agreement with.


Link

The case study for the practical application of this would be the Martin government's attempt to implement a national daycare strategy. If they had jurisdictional power they could simply pass legislation in parliament and be done with it.

Instead, they had to go province to province trying to get them to buy into their plan. All the provinces were happy to take the cash, but Alberta and Quebec both told Martin that they would not be held accountable for how the money would be used because it was their jurisdiction, not Martin's.



> Tax relief does not work for low income or single income households


Please re-read my comment. I am not advocating tax relief but rather the transferring of tax from the federal government to the provinces.

Basically, the federal government should reduce taxes like the GST and income tax so that the provinces can increase their own taxes. This would give the provinces more money in order to properly implement the programs that the people in their province want, in this case, childcare.

That isn't tax relief.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> So, lemme get this straight...
> 
> We need a federally subsidized daycare program because it causes people to spend more money and therefore fuels the economy?


Yep, you got it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

zoziw said:


> Basically, the federal government should reduce taxes like the GST and income tax so that the provinces can increase their own taxes. This would give the provinces more money in order to properly implement the programs that the people in their province want, in this case, childcare.


I'm sure that works fine for Alberta and Ontario... but I find it difficult to think that kind of approach would be fair for the maritime provinces or MB and Sask.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> I'm sure that works fine for Alberta and Ontario... but I find it difficult to think that kind of approach would be fair for the maritime provinces or MB and Sask.


That is why we have the equalization program.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MannyP Design said:


> SINC, you talk like people from my generation are given everything--including our jobs.


Just to build on MPD's point, I think most of the people in my generation have had a much tougher ride than most other generations, because of the demographic swath cut by the baby-boomers. The boomers created quite a wave that created a lot of opportunities for the generation ahead of them (that'd be you and you're cohort, SINC) and themselves, but it left pretty slim pickings for the generation following them (that'd be me and my cohort).

Obviously my career choice, and other decisions have played a much bigger role in my economic status, but demographics have certainly constrained my options. At the age of 41, I haven't yet been able to earn enough to buy a house, or save anything for retirement, or do much of the other things that people of previous generations would have considered 'normal' for someone of my age, and I'm certainly not unusual in this situation among my cohort.

So, I don't think it's fair to characterize my generation as 'expecting' society to pay our way. Not that a Nationalized Child Care program would be paying anyone's way.

cheers


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

bryanc said:


> The boomers created quite a wave that created a lot of opportunities for the generation ahead of them (that'd be you and you're cohort, SINC) and themselves, but it left pretty slim pickings for the generation following them (that'd be me and my cohort).


What age would you consider to be the break between SINC's generation and yours?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

For the record, I am not a boomer. I was born in 1944, before the definition of the terminology.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> For the record, I am not a boomer. I was born in 1944, before the definition of the terminology.


Baby Boomers 1940s-1960s
source wiki....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Baby Boomers 1940s-1960s
> source wiki....


“In Canada, the baby boom is usually defined as the generation born from 1947 to 1966—Canadian soldiers were repatriated later than American servicemen, and Canada's birthrate did not start to rise until 1947, and most Canadian demographers prefer to use the later date of 1966 as the boom's end in that country.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_baby_boom

In the US:

“In 2006, the oldest of the baby boomers, the generation born between 1946 and 1964, will turn 60 years old.”

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release...cts_for_features_special_editions/006105.html


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> Sinc... How do you think our economy works? OK... Let's consider a page from the Book of Sinc.
> 
> Sally and Fred have a baby.


This is where the problem starts. Sally and Fred didn't plan carefully when they had a baby, depsite the availability of the best forms of birth control readily available to all without any attached stigma.


re: Baby Boomers

SINC is right. Baby Boomers are post-WWII. There's no other definition that's meaningful because the terms refers to a pent-up desire by returning soldiers to raise families.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> This is where the problem starts. Sally and Fred didn't plan carefully when they had a baby, depsite the availability of the best forms of birth control readily available to all without any attached stigma.


Well maybe Fred and Sally are Catholic.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> To date, there are various designations for the beginning of the Baby Boomer generation. In his book, Boomer Nation, Steve Gillon breaks Baby Boomers into two groups: Boomers, born between 1945 and 1957; and Shadow Boomers born between 1958 and 1963. In some cases the term Shadow Boomer is incorrectly applied to the children of the Baby Boomers. However this group is more accurately referred to as Echo Boomers.[2]
> 
> *William Strauss and Neil Howe, in their book Generations, include those conceived by soldiers on leave during the war, putting the generation's birth years at 1943 to 1960.* Howe and Strauss argue that persons born between 1961 and 1964 have political and cultural patterns very different from those born between 1955 and 1960 and fit into what those writers term the Thirteenth Generation or Generation X (also known as the Cold War generation) born between 1961 and 1981. As the influence of Strauss and Howe has grown, a smaller number of people still accept Baby Boomers as including those born after 1961, although there are some who put the dates at 1946 to 1963 because of the number of significant "Gen-X" figures born in 1964. There were over 79 million babies born during that generation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer
You are certainly not part of the silent generation....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Presumably, the other half had some "pent-up desire"s also...




Macfury said:


> Baby Boomers are post-WWII. There's no other definition that's meaningful because the terms refers to a pent-up desire by returning soldiers to raise families.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> Presumably, the other half had some "pent-up desire"s also...


HowEver: I think that this was the soldiers' fervent hope at least.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Scanned through the report. It doesn't say much except to reiterate that the current "plan" won't work, based on prior experience. Private incentives can work to a certain extent, but that would require more and longer-term commitments than the current plan, and it still would only do part of what they want. Basically, an advocacy group stating its case with what little data there is (this type of data often has 1 or 2 years lags, so they have plenty of room to opine).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: I think that the 1943 figure is only the opinion of those two. But you can ask SINC if he was the product of a soldier on leave.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Until those* who had been asked by the government to take up the slack in the workforce were summarily fired so that the returning soldiers could have jobs; were married off and shipped to the newly created suburbs and asked to fill their days endlessly housecleaning and diaper-changing, where just a few months before they were Rosie the Riveter, I'm sure at that point desires could have cooled off just a bit.

(*Recognizing of course the large contribution made in the armed forces; that is, it wasn't just male soldiers returning.)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> AS: I think that the 1943 figure is only the opinion of those two. But you can ask SINC if he was the product of a soldier on leave.


My mother was a private in the WAC and my father was a volunteer who became a Lt. in the South Saskatchewan Regiment. They were married in 1943 while both in the service during basic training and my father was posted overseas eight months before I was born. I never saw my Dad until I was well over two years old in late 1946.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I actually thought you were a bit older than that, SINC, but my point was that you're generation (and those a little older than you) were well positioned to 'surf' the wave created by the baby boom. You had time to become established, and enjoyed the benefit of a rapidly expanding post-war economy and population.

'Gen-X'ers, like myself, found ourselves graduating into an economy that was shrinking, looking for jobs in a market where the boomers' were in mid-carrer, sitting comfortably on their positions, and not moving until recently, at which point they hire their children - the echo boomers - rather than the Gen-Xers who've been under-employed their whole lives.

I'm not complaining... you could do a lot worse than being born into a demographic trough in the wealthiest civilization in human history. I've never really worried about starving or being eaten by a predator, but it's certainly not the case that everything has been handed to me on a silver platter either.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I guess what might be fair to all would be to establish a means test for couples requiring daycare. Kind of like your the age pension. If you make too much on your investments, you just don't get a pension. That would go a long way to satisfying me that those in need get it and those who aren't in need, don't.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

My age is very close to the trough in Canada (born in the 70s) and it is very easy to get jobs with so few people around in the same age group. There were specific times (recessions) that were tougher but in general it has not been hard. Maybe the post-boom, pre-70s got squeezed by a big generation, but didn't quite get all the benefits of being in a small generation.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> I guess what might be fair to all would be to establish a means test for couples requiring daycare. Kind of like your the age pension. If you make too much on your investments, you just don't get a pension. That would go a long way to satisfying me that those in need get it and those who aren't in need, don't.


That has been brought up with regards to child care. Instead of being universal, start with pretty strict means-testing. Going forward, it could be expanded.

I think the goal should be universal, but it will take time to get a full program up and running so means-testing or making it a taxable benefit in the meantime seems reasonable.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> There were specific times (recessions) that were tougher but in general it has not been hard. Maybe the post-boom, pre-70s got squeezed by a big generation, but didn't quite get all the benefits of being in a small generation.


When I was at school many who had graduated a few years before me had a very hard time getting a decent job - these were mostly engineers.
I'd blame the economic policies of Reagan, Thatcher and Mulrooney - but that's another debate...
I sometime think of my generation as the "lost generation" - we missed out on the babyboom benefits and where usurped in the marketplace by the generation after us.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Scanned through the report. It doesn't say much except to reiterate that the current "plan" won't work, based on prior experience. Private incentives can work to a certain extent, but that would require more and longer-term commitments than the current plan, and it still would only do part of what they want. Basically, an advocacy group stating its case with what little data there is (this type of data often has 1 or 2 years lags, so they have plenty of room to opine).


That was exactly my point earlier in the thread, but da_jonesy chose to ignore the question.

No data + Politicized Group = Garbage Study


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Maybe the post-boom, pre-70s got squeezed by a big generation, but didn't quite get all the benefits of being in a small generation.


I was born in 1965, and believe me, I've felt that squeeze over the years. However, you're right that, in many fields, being a member of a small generation has advantages. In the late 80's I was making a fortune doing systems analysis, and there was simply no competition in the market. If I'd stayed in that field, by the time the echo-boomers were pouring out of the community colleges with diplomas in 'Information Technology' and saturating the market I'd have been well-established, if not retired and living on my yacht. Unfortunately, I had no real passion for IT (I was good at it, but found it boring) and went back to graduate school to pursue science, but when I graduated with my Ph.D, I found that all the jobs were occupied by boomers, and research budgets were being cut like the rain-forests. 

That's what I get for being idealistic. 

Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> That was exactly my point earlier in the thread, but da_jonesy chose to ignore the question.
> 
> No data + Politicized Group = Garbage Study


So tell me which independent group watches these numbers if not a Childcare advocacy group?

Fine... in lieu of some 3rd party data lets hear from the Conservatives themselves on how successful their policy has been. 

What, no answer from the Conservatives on this? Wow how surprising.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> Means-testing or making it a taxable benefit in the meantime seems reasonable.


Notr easonable if it's part of leading up to a non-means tested universal program.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> So tell me which independent group watches these numbers if not a Childcare advocacy group?
> 
> Fine... in lieu of some 3rd party data lets hear from the Conservatives themselves on how successful their policy has been.
> 
> What, no answer from the Conservatives on this? Wow how surprising.


I don't know who this group is and I question whether they are independent. It sounds like they wrote a study without actually collecting data. That's a great way to manage things. 

To measure success, you first have to define it. What are the metrics that you think should be considered?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> So tell me which independent group watches these numbers if not a Childcare advocacy group?


Political advocacy groups suddenly have credibility. Excellent. beejacon

Some actually produce good work. I have little experience with this one (just started).

If this "report" didn't have ehmac-friendly statements, it would have been ignored or torn apart when raised. 

The problem is that there may not be any good numbers out there (they refer to past work, which they had referred to before anyways). They may be able to say there's no uptake on the business tax credits (= 0 spaces), but the numbers needed to estimate whether or not the personal tax credits created spaces won't be available for some time in a way that can be statistically analysed. Even then, it is unlikely to draw a clear picture. I'm impressed how a political advocacy group got news coverage without having anything new to say.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> What, no answer from the Conservatives on this? Wow how surprising.





FeXL said:


> So, lemme get this straight...
> 
> We need a federally subsidized daycare program because it causes people to spend more money and therefore fuels the economy?



What, no answer from da_jonesy? No surprise.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> I'm impressed how a political advocacy group got news coverage without having anything new to say.


I'm shocked that an advocacy group would get airtime with the CBC. It's just so atypical of them. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I remember a childcareadvocacy group declaring a few years back that parents were harmful to childrens' emotional and educational development--better leave pre-school care in their hands. They did suggest that a child's aunt was preferable to its mother, but not preferable to a professional childcare worker.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I remember a childcareadvocacy group declaring a few years back that parents were harmful to childrens' emotional and educational development


I'm afraid I can think of several families where this is undoubtedly true 

And, before you dismiss the idea in general, a really good day-care provider can do things with your kids that very few parents can. I certainly wouldn't want to give up all my time with my chid, but I'm happy to have skilled professionals providing their services if I can get them.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I'm shocked that an advocacy group would get airtime with the CBC. It's just so atypical of them. :lmao:


 I agree.

There are useful tidbits in there, and references that were useful last time they compiled them into a report (a report they reference in this one). Not news, still worth a shot as a compilation (relatively concise) of the case for a child care program.

This group is worth giving a chance by reading a meatier report: http://www.vifamily.ca/about/about.html . I read a couple reports about a year back, and continue to check their site on occasion.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I'm afraid I can think of several families where this is undoubtedly true


Agreed, but the general self-serving nature of the report was over-the-top. I have met many child care workers as well who I would trust far less than the average parent.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> To all of you guys (you know who you are) who thought you knew about Economics and somehow $1200 a year would magically create a "childcare market"... eat it. I am disgusted with all of you.


So does this wording still apply, or, from the old threads and this one, do you realise that a difference of opinion on this is not worthy of, "I am disgusted with all of you." unless one is particularly intolerant? 

And have "you guys", the ones who know who they are that stated a childcare market would be created (to meet some unknown standard), been properly shown up?

In short, have you been satiated?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Obviously my career choice, and other decisions have played a much bigger role in my economic status, but demographics have certainly constrained my options. At the age of 41, I haven't yet been able to earn enough to buy a house, or save anything for retirement, or do much of the other things that people of previous generations would have considered 'normal' for someone of my age, and I'm certainly not unusual in this situation among my cohort.


It bothers me to no end that someone in an important field like yours ends up in this situation while someone who can skate and fight will make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in the NHL.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

zoziw said:


> It bothers me to no end that someone in an important field like yours ends up in this situation while someone who can skate and fight will make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in the NHL.


Such is the nature of life and the free market. When somebody has a better system, let me know.

It's true about the Gen X'ers. They have had a tough time in the job market. Luckily I was born after them and graduated to a solid economy. I work with a guy who is 40 and he pretty much got his start when I did (I'm 31).

Financially, we are probably about equal in terms of home equity, cars, savings, etc...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

FeXL said:


> What, no answer from da_jonesy? No surprise.


Sorry missed it totally... And yes, a federally funded Childcare program would be beneficial to the economy. Show me how it would hurt the economy.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> So does this wording still apply, or, from the old threads and this one, do you realise that a difference of opinion on this is not worthy of, "I am disgusted with all of you." unless one is particularly intolerant?
> 
> And have "you guys", the ones who know who they are that stated a childcare market would be created (to meet some unknown standard), been properly shown up?
> 
> In short, have you been satiated?


HHHmmm satiated... let me think. <cue Jeopardy theme>...

What is not really? Alex.

Sadly no one has shown me how $1200 a year for a family has created any new childcare spaces (which does not surprise me). Regardless of this groups political agenda their statement has illustrated how a glaringly ill conceived policy daftly spun (I'll give them that) can pull the wool over voters eyes.

I'm man enough to step up say when the Conservative's do something right (like the Income Trust issue)... To bad nobody is man enough to owe up when the Conservatives fall flat on their face on an issue like this.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> To all of you guys (you know who you are) who thought you knew about Economics and somehow $1200 a year would magically create a "childcare market"... eat it. I am disgusted with all of you.





Beej said:


> So does this wording still apply, or, from the old threads and this one, do you realise that a difference of opinion on this is not worthy of, "... eat it. I am disgusted with all of you." unless one is particularly intolerant?


Too bad a certain someone is not man enough to know when he overstepped the boundaries of good taste (. . . eat it. "I am disgusted with all of you") and have the brass necessities to retract and apologize for those comments towards fellow members. That is the saddest part of this whole thread.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Too bad a certain someone is not man enough to know when he overstepped the boundaries of good taste....


All in the name of encouraging compassion in others....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Sadly no one has shown me how $1200 a year for a family has created any new childcare spaces (which does not surprise me). Regardless of this groups political agenda their statement has illustrated how a glaringly ill conceived policy daftly spun (I'll give them that) can pull the wool over voters eyes.


The onus is on you to prove your point, not for us to disprove your unsubstantiated accusations. 

Care to answer my metrics question?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The onus is on you to prove your point, not for us to disprove your unsubstantiated accusations.


I'll remember that VD....


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Vandave said:


> It's true about the Gen X'ers. They have had a tough time in the job market. Luckily I was born after them and graduated to a solid economy. I work with a guy who is 40 and he pretty much got his start when I did (I'm 31).
> 
> Financially, we are probably about equal in terms of home equity, cars, savings, etc...


That's certainly consistent with my experience. I'm about where I would have expected to be at 30, and about where most professional 30-year-olds are now. Which is nothing to complain about. The universe has never been 'fair' and my luck regarding when and where to be born could certainly have been much worse 

Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Too bad a certain someone is not man enough to know when he overstepped the boundaries of good taste (. . . eat it. "I am disgusted with all of you") and have the brass necessities to retract and apologize for those comments towards fellow members. That is the saddest part of this whole thread.


C'mon boys you guys are like tired broken records... Not only can you NOT point to anywhere which shows that the Conservative policy on childcare was in the least bit successful. You've become so bitter that you resort to personal attacks of the sort that you accuse others of dealing your way from other threads. 

Hypocrisy at its finest. My statements stand.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> My statements stand.


Colour me surprised....:yawn:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> anywhere which shows that the Conservative policy on childcare was in the least bit successful.


Successful at what you wanted or what its supporters wanted or what it was spun to do? What are you actually angry about here?

My read:
What you wanted from it is irrelevant vis a vis your "eat it" comments to introduce the topic. That was your choice.

Many supporters did not want universal child care. End of story. It was successful at that and got some extra money to parents of young children.

It was spun as a "plan". It was not a plan. So eat it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: Perhaps he wanted a program that actually produces the children for him--maybe take care of them offsite until they can produce offspring which could be sent to him when he's an old man so he could have grandchildren 'round his knee? I mean, what's government for unless it delivers exactly what you want?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> C'mon boys you guys are like tired broken records... Not only can you NOT point to anywhere which shows that the Conservative policy on childcare was in the least bit successful. You've become so bitter that you resort to personal attacks of the sort that you accuse others of dealing your way from other threads.
> 
> Hypocrisy at its finest. My statements stand.


Keep digging that hole.  

You still don't get it. If you make silly accusations you need to provide the proof.

You can't judge success if you don't first define what it is. You seem quite unwilling to do this. I guess you prefer rhetoric over substance.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

had the cons prediction of 25K extra spaces come true it would have been announced from the tallest towers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Children... you have failed to explain how $1200 a year has assisted in creating any net new childcare placements nor have you explained how $1200 substantially assists anyone when average childcare cost run well over $7000 annually in some parts of Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/daycarecosts.html

I think what I was looking for was for some of you to admit to the FACT that sometimes the government has to provide essential services because a "free market" approach does not necessarily address social requirements adequately if at all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> ... a "free market" approach does not necessarily address social requirements adequately if at all.


A free market can't make affordable what people want, just because they want it. It can make that service, or product MORE affordable. Government does much less than that.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> A free market can't make affordable what people want, just because they want it. It can make that service, or product MORE affordable. Government does much less than that.


Affordability is not the issue... It is the *availability* of the service. You guys aren't even coming to the table with an understanding of the issue.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It is NOT up to government to make the service available. That is the job of the private sector who establish and operate daycare services. Macfury is right, government can only make it more affordable.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Affordability is not the issue... It is the *availability* of the service. You guys aren't even coming to the table with an understanding of the issue.


What you fail to understand is that the Conservative Plan was to give parents choice. It was not to designed purely to create daycare space, nor was it designed to provide full funding. It was designed to help parents out and to assist them with childcare. That's what you don't get. 

Your claim of the Conservative Plan being a failure on the basis of it not providing full funding shows a serious lack of understanding. The plan was never designed to do this. So why would you expect such an outcome?


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> came along in 1976 at a cost of $30,000 when I was earning $9,600 a year at that time.


sinc, the multiple is now around 7-10x, not 3x as it was in your day. boomers don't understand that the cost of living is now much higher than it was in the 60s. i'm not just talking about housing. to get a 'decent' job you now need a university degree which costs 10s of thousands, whereas in the past, someone without a high school diploma could become Peter Mansbridge.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I think what I was looking for was for some of you to admit to the FACT that sometimes the government has to provide *essential *services because a "free market" approach does not necessarily address *social requirements adequately *if at all.


Do you see where opinion and fact take different paths? I'm not disgusted but still think "eating it" was a strange choice for you. Start with separating your opinion (and the opinion of many Canadians, according to polls) from statements of fact and people eating things and/or being disgusted. 

If I have to get anymore condescending to help you "get" it, I'm going to start giggling.

[Note, VD, MF and Sinc covered much of this, but I've already typed it.]


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

What if a majority of Canadians believed that it IS within the purview of their government to provide free or affordable daycare? And elected them for that reason and for that purpose?





SINC said:


> It is NOT up to government to make the service available. That is the job of the private sector who establish and operate daycare services. Macfury is right, government can only make it more affordable.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Do you see where opinion and fact take different paths? I'm not disgusted but still think "eating it" was a strange choice for you. Start with separating your opinion (and the opinion of many Canadians, according to polls) from statements of fact and people eating things and/or being disgusted.


Beej as Macspectrum pointed out the conservatives claimed their approach would create 25K new placements... where are those new placements? 

The issue has always been availability. The alternative approach was to create a nationalized system targeting 400 000 new placements over 5 years. Clearly we will now never know if that was going to be successful... but what we do know is that $1200 a year has not created 25K new placements and only just skims the surface regarding affordability as wee can plainly see.



sinc said:


> It is NOT up to government to make the service available. That is the job of the private sector who establish and operate daycare services. Macfury is right, government can only make it more affordable.


To the last few comments from Vandave and Sinc that it is not the place of government to create childcare placements. The same could be said about hospitals, schools, bridges, community centers. Do you guys not live in our society? Did you not go to public school funded by tax payers dollars? Vandave, did you not get an education subsidized by the Government?

I honestly think the issue boils down to plain selfishness on your parts. You either don't have kids or had your kids long ago and because the service was not available to you it shouldn't be available to anyone else.



> If I have to get anymore condescending to help you "get" it, I'm going to start giggling.


Finally for your last comment about being condescending... go for it. Use big letters and small words. Just remember to single out others for "beejsecution" when they feel strongly about certain topics and voice their dismay.

NOTE... beejsecution is the persecution dealt by beej while not addressing the real issue but finding fault in the way in which that issue was expressed. :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> NOTE... beejsecution is the persecution dealt by beej while not addressing the real issue but finding fault in the way in which that issue was expressed. :lmao:


Maybe we should ask for an icon to express that.
The Beej is rather prone to this....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> What you fail to understand is that the Conservative Plan was to give parents choice.


And it seems to have failed at that. 
If we go by reports of some parents here, the price of daycare has gone up just because of the government's version of "choice"....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> The issue has always been availability. The alternative approach was to create a nationalized system targeting 400 000 new placements over 5 years. Clearly we will now never know if that was going to be successful... but what we do know is that $1200 a year has not created 25K new placements and only just skims the surface regarding affordability as wee can plainly see.
> .......................
> To the last few comments from Vandave and Sinc that it is not the place of government to create childcare placements. The same could be said about hospitals, schools, bridges, community centers. Do you guys not live in our society? Did you not go to public school funded by tax payers dollars? Vandave, did you not get an education subsidized by the Government?
> .......................
> ...


Sure. What does that have to do with eating stuff and getting disgusted at ehmacers? Maybe you should get some help.
.......................
Standard argument. I think it is a good idea, along the lines of public education. Some don't. We can think up all sorts of things that could be universal. I'm still not sure where eating and disgust enter this. National burgercare delivered by MacDonald's? That's disgusting.
.......................
And there it is. What it really is about, finally. At least that's honest.
.......................
Will small words help you? Can do. Did others encourage people to "eat it" and were they also disgusted? How about others that do things "on occasion" versus, "this happens a fair amount". Oops. Too many big words. 

Ok DJ, me do it when you say. You not "get" it not matter. Clear?
.......................
One "real issue" is your real problem: " plain selfishness on your parts" which we are finally getting to. Fruitful avenue for discussion.

Another is what a real plan needs and how to start. I posted some comments on that.

What is the real issue to you aside from disgust (that people don't agree)?

Please expand on a real issue once you're done advising others when to eat "it" or, perhaps, establishing "selfishness" is plenty.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Please expand on a real issue once you're done advising others when to eat "it" or, perhaps, establishing "selfishness" is plenty.


Just more beejsecution. Get back to me when you are done. 

PS. Your attempt at condescension looks more childish than my "eat it statement" in the first place. I'm sorry, I didn't think you would bite on that one. ha ha ha.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Just more beejsecution. Get back to me when you are done.
> 
> PS. Your attempt at condescension looks more childish than my "eat it statement" in the first place. I'm sorry, I didn't think you would bite on that one. ha ha ha.


As long as disgusting people roam the earth, I will beejsecute them. beejacon

I'm glad you got it this time. I think I've almost tuned my language to the point where you can more readily understand it.

So what is the real issue, according to DJ?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> As long as disgusting people roam the earth, I will beejsecute them. beejacon


Your aim seems to be off....

Use the powers for good..... not beejsecution....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Your aim seems to be off....
> 
> Use the powers for good..... not beejsecution....


Some people are disgusted by differences of opinion. Not me. Wilful and repeated intellectual shortcomings seem worse, to me.

My aim is true and the powers, in this case, for the good and beejsecution simultaneously, as usual. If you disagree with me you can "eat it" and you disgust me.  

To each their own, I guess.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> As long as disgusting people roam the earth, I will beejsecute them. beejacon
> 
> I'm glad you got it this time. I think I've almost tuned my language to the point where you can more readily understand it.
> 
> So what is the real issue, according to DJ?


Touche... I'm sorry that you felt that you weren't being understood. Tough issues like this are hard to grasp and eventually you will be able to participate in the discussion rather than just beejescuting people who don't express themselves they way you see fit.

I apologize for not understanding that your mechanism for discourse is the only way in which people can express themselves.

I'm sorry that my apologies are nothing but thinly veiled criticism of your pathological need to beejsecute people.

BTW... I am still disgusted in anyone who thought that $1200 a month was an adequate mechanism to provide additional childcare placements. And for those who thought and argued that the conservatives were right... they can still "eat it". Ha ha ha.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Some people are disgusted by differences of opinion. Not me. Wilful and repeated intellectual shortcomings seem worse, to me.


Willful and repeated intellectual shortcomings thy name is Beejsecution.

or

Hello Kettle this is the Pot... guess what?

or 

HHHmmmmm where is that mirror in Beejtown?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Touche... I'm sorry that you felt that you weren't being understood. Tough issues like this are hard to grasp and eventually you will be able to participate in the discussion rather than just beejescuting people who don't express themselves they way you see fit.
> 
> I apologize for not understanding that your mechanism for discourse is the only way in which people can express themselves.
> 
> ...


Hmmm. You still don't get it. Is it the total number of big words used, just specific ones, or the order I place them in? Perhaps a Yoda-style dialect would be easier...

Your real issue where is? Opinion different, others have, disgust you?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> To the last few comments from Vandave and Sinc that it is not the place of government to create childcare placements. The same could be said about hospitals, schools, bridges, community centers. Do you guys not live in our society? Did you not go to public school funded by tax payers dollars? Vandave, did you not get an education subsidized by the Government?
> 
> I honestly think the issue boils down to plain selfishness on your parts. You either don't have kids or had your kids long ago and because the service was not available to you it shouldn't be available to anyone else.


Nothing I have said so far has indicated my position. I have only repeated what the Conservative Plan was and that you provided no evidence of it not working. The plan was to give parents choice.

Do I support a federally created government daycare program along the lines of what the Liberals proposed? Hell no. I think the last thing we need is another government agency. I would rather see something along the lines of what the Conservatives are doing, which is to give people choice. Not all parents want to put their kids in daycare. Some want to stay home, others want grandparents or friends to help out. I don't see why these people should be penalized by not buying into the 'Big Brother' system.

Was the Conservative plan meant to be a total solution? No. Can we do more? Yes. I hope we eventually increase the amount. But, let's first see how the current system is doing so we know where to direct money and resources. Rome wasn't built in a day.

As far a selfishness.... I just found out two weeks ago that my wife is pregnant.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Hmmm. You still don't get it. Is it the total number of big words used, just specific ones, or the order I place them in? Perhaps a Yoda-style dialect would be easier...
> 
> Your real issue where is? Opinion different, others have, disgust you?



LOL this is sweetness... Read rest of thread you did not. 

Beej this is so unlike you to keep pushing this. I will assume that Beej's account has been hijacked. I await the real Beej who will get back to demonstrating how $1200 a year will create 25 000 new placements or otherwise explain where those placements have in fact gone.

_edited for grammar_


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Nothing I have said so far has indicated my position. I have only repeated what the Conservative Plan was and that you provided no evidence of it not working. The plan was to give parents choice.
> 
> Do I support a federally created government daycare program along the lines of what the Liberals proposed? Hell no. I think the last thing we need is another government agency. I would rather see something along the lines of what the Conservatives are doing, which is to give people choice. Not all parents want to put their kids in daycare. Some want to stay home, others want grandparents or friends to help out. I don't see why these people should be penalized by not buying into the 'Big Brother' system.
> 
> ...



Hey Man congrats on the good news...

Lets you and I revisit this topic in about 22 months. I'd be curious how you think that $1200 will find you a new placement in a quality daycare. I'm not saying that trying to be a dick, I am very serious. If the two of you decide to work your child deserves the best possible childcare our society can offer. We as a society owe your child that much.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

da_jonesy said:


> f the two of you decide to work your child deserves the best possible childcare our society can offer. We as a society owe your child that much.


No, we as a society do _not_. This is a sad fallacy. Just as we as a society do not owe anyone the finest housing, the finest education, the finest medical care, or the finest car that society can pay for, we do not owe anyone the best childcare society can afford . The government makes accommodations to pay for certain things to a certain level in an attempt to help the country to run more smoothly and to prevent social dislocation on a large scale. The slate of such items may change from year to year and generation to generation. 

Your premise is tremendously faulty.

My son was six when this legislation was announced.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Macfury said:


> No, we as a society do _not_. This is a sad fallacy. Just as we as a society do not owe anyone the finest housing, the finest education, the finest medical care, or the finest car that society can pay for, we do not owe anyone the best childcare society can afford . The government makes accommodations to pay for certain things to a certain level in an attempt to help the country to run more smoothly and to prevent social dislocation on a large scale. The slate of such items may change from year to year and generation to generation.
> 
> Your premise is tremendously faulty.
> 
> My son was six when this legislation was announced.


I have to agree with Macfury. I don't think society 'owes' me such a service.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No, we as a society do _not_. This is a sad fallacy. Just as we as a society do not owe anyone the finest housing, the finest education, the finest medical care, or the finest car that society can pay for, we do not owe anyone the best childcare society can afford . The government makes accommodations to pay for certain things to a certain level in an attempt to help the country to run more smoothly and to prevent social dislocation on a large scale. The slate of such items may change from year to year and generation to generation.
> 
> Your premise is tremendously faulty.
> 
> My son was six when this legislation was announced.


This very quickly going to turn into a "he" said "she" said... And I being the "he" say that you are flat out wrong...

There is a "social contract" by which we adhere to by the very nature of participating in a society. And yes that contract changes and evolves as society evolves. If this were not the case then we would not offer public education, law enforcement or health services. 

My premise is entirely spot on. So much so that some of the services required by our society are even entrenched in our Charter and Constitution. Clearly childcare is not one of them, but the fact remains that as a society we agree to provide a certain level of assistance and respect to our common person.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

What Macfury said. In Spades. Society owes nothing to parents. Have children, pay the price. If you can meet a means test, then society should help.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> What Macfury said. In Spades. Society owes nothing to parents. Have children, pay the price. If you can meet a means test, then society should help.


SINC, and what happens to your "society" when people find having children too expensive for their north american lifestyle?
more immigrants who don't mind sharing bad housing and bad jobs?
that means more of "those people" that speak "strange languages" at places like the hospital where your wife works


be careful of what you wish for


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

So society owes you roads, but not childcare. I'm not hearing "have cars or take the bus, pay the price." Sure, you'll say you partially pay for this in other taxes--but not all of it.

Are you owed an education? Did you send your kids to university? Do you think tuition covered all the expenses? Tuition paid about 25% of the cost, the rest came from the provincial and federal governments. Should your children or grandchildren have to pay 100% for university now? Want an education? Pay the price.

For that matter, in Ontario you qualify for free tuition as a senior. Want an advanced education? Bite it--pay the price.

There are scores of other examples where people "choose" to live a certain way. The benefits of public childcare have been calculated though. These children socialize better, get sick less and generally become better adults. Perhaps they even whine less when their tax dollars go into roads they don't use or services they don't need. Perhaps not. Nobody's perfect.





SINC said:


> What Macfury said. In Spades. Society owes nothing to parents. Have children, pay the price. If you can meet a means test, then society should help.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> No, we as a society do _not_. This is a sad fallacy. Just as we as a society do not owe anyone the finest housing, the finest education, the finest medical care, or the finest car that society can pay for, we do not owe anyone the best childcare society can afford . The government makes accommodations to pay for certain things to a certain level in an attempt to help the country to run more smoothly and to prevent social dislocation on a large scale. The slate of such items may change from year to year and generation to generation.
> 
> Your premise is tremendously faulty.


Yep, that's it. I see universal child care as a smart public policy choice that is worth the cost, but it is not in any way "owed" by society any more than beercare is owed (and those who disagree are selfish). Government should seriously consider and discuss all good policy ideas. "owing" has nothing to do with it. $0 tuition is not owed to society, but it can be smart policy to subsidise tuition and offer loan programs and such. Some places consider $0 tuition to be smart, others not. Selfish jerks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> SINC, and what happens to your "society" when people find having children too expensive for their north american lifestyle?


I would pray that it would lead to a stabilizing of population that will help us to come up with reasonable policies based on predictable population levels.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> SINC, and what happens to your "society" when people find having children too expensive for their north american lifestyle?
> more immigrants who don't mind sharing bad housing and bad jobs?
> that means more of "those people" that speak "strange languages" at places like the hospital where your wife works
> 
> ...


Nice try at diversion Michael. Next time you are in hospital what would you rather have? A caregiver you understand and can understand you, or one with such a lack of understanding and speaking of basic english that you can't make your needs known, nor can you be understand by the caregiver?

Sadly, it happens all the time to the detriment of the patient.

And whose fault is it? The hospital administrators who think only of savings over quality care. If they cared, they would insist on an independent communications test before they unleash language impaired caregivers on an unsuspecting public. Until the family screams bloody murder that is. Then they mysteriously disappear from that ward until that patient is discharged. Funny how that works isn't it?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> And whose fault is it? The hospital administrators who think only of *savings over quality care*.


How very socialist of you....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Hey Man congrats on the good news...
> 
> Lets you and I revisit this topic in about 22 months. I'd be curious how you think that $1200 will find you a new placement in a quality daycare. I'm not saying that trying to be a dick, I am very serious. If the two of you decide to work your child deserves the best possible childcare our society can offer. We as a society owe your child that much.


Thank you. It's very early still so anything could happen.

My expectation isn't to have all of daycare paid for. We will find a solution that works for us that probably won't be 100% daycare. My wife will probably work 3 days per week. I hope that my mom will babysit on 2 or 3 of those days, while daycare takes care of what is left. Or perhaps I work a 4 day schedule.

In any case, I don't think I will be a good test subject for you. Our family income is above the average Canadian family so it affords us more options. That said, I sure pay a lot for real estate on the West Coast.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Yep, that's it. I see universal child care as a smart public policy choice that is worth the cost, but it is not in any way "owed" by society any more than beercare is owed (and those who disagree are selfish). Government should seriously consider and discuss all good policy ideas. "owing" has nothing to do with it. $0 tuition is not owed to society, but it can be smart policy to subsidise tuition and offer loan programs and such. Some places consider $0 tuition to be smart, others not. Selfish jerks.


I would have to say I agree with Beej on the question of "owing". We may disagree on the level of social welfare that would be a smart choice or how it should be implemented, (almost certainly), but I don't think childcare or anything else is "owed".

That said almost any money spent on education and support of children is a good investment. We don't owe anyone a good education, but a society that produces healthy, educated and happy children growing into adults will certainly be better off, then one that tosses to the wolves those who happen to be in unfortunate economic circumstances. Those children will eventually cost us more in the long run, I believe.

When I relate to others in my local small community, I don't assume that any of my neighbours or myself owe anything to the community. But I tend to think better of those who are willing to pay in terms of their time to make this a better place to live. Communities where there are many willing to do their share for the common good are better places to live. Those where few participate and only look out for #1, would be lonely and unpleasant places.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Beej said:


> Yep, that's it. I see universal child care as a smart public policy choice that is worth the cost, but it is not in any way "owed" by society any more than beercare is owed (and those who disagree are selfish). Government should seriously consider and discuss all good policy ideas. "owing" has nothing to do with it. $0 tuition is not owed to society, but it can be smart policy to subsidise tuition and offer loan programs and such. Some places consider $0 tuition to be smart, others not. Selfish jerks.


very well put Beej
:clap:


----------

