# Chilcare (or whatever): Rich get richer, poor poorer



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I expect to see more propaganda as the budget gets closer.

The Globe printed this


> Child-care proposal gives least to poorest
> Eliminating separate assistance program reduces Ottawa's payment to most needy
> 
> OTTAWA — Low- and middle-income families will realize the smallest net benefit from the Harper government's $1,200-a-year child-care payment in part because the Conservatives are scrapping a separate assistance program.
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060426.wxchildcare26/BNStory/National/home


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

People should be careful when complaining about childcare.

Why should MY tax dollars go to taking care of YOUR child, while YOU work?

What is next? A Child Food Program, for parents who can't afford to feed their kids properly? How about a Child Clothing Program, so that kids don't have to wear ripped trackpants?

How much does it take to raise a child?
$10000 / year (US Figures - $12000 CAN?)
- http://www.efgi.com/personal/living/childrenCosts.html
- http://conception.parenthood.com/crc2001_chart.html

So the government is throwing you $1200 pre-tax per year for 6 years. That's 10% of the cost of raising your child! 10% is HUGE!

Nobody ever said raising a child was cheap. Nobody ever said you HAD to have children. If you are struggling to make ends meet, be thankful for assistance that you can get. Daily Bread Foodbank. United Way. YMCA.

But don't you dare complain about the fact that you aren't getting enough free money from other people's pockets. You made the choice.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

My should MY TAX dollars go to support YOUR infrastructure such as roads that you drive on? Why should MY TAX dollars go to YOUR corporate WELFARE?
Because it's a choice that has been made as a society? 



guytoronto said:


> What is next? A Child Food Program, for parents who can't afford to feed their kids properly? How about a Child Clothing Program, so that kids don't have to wear ripped trackpants?


And why not? The investment that the government makes in childcare pays off for society in the long run. 



guytoronto said:


> So the government is throwing you $1200 pre-tax per year for 6 years. That's 10% of the cost of raising your child! 10% is HUGE!


It's not money that I want. It's a cheap bribe. The fact is that most parents will not see that money. The rich will benefits from this and the poor will not. 
The "plan" will mostly add some corporate welfare to companies that don't really need it. 



guytoronto said:


> Nobody ever said raising a child was cheap. Nobody ever said you HAD to have children. If you are struggling to make ends meet,* be thankful* for assistance that you can get. Daily Bread Foodbank. United Way. YMCA.


While I am grateful not to need welfare and assistance, there are people who do. I'd prefer to see a society where it's citizens don't need that kind of assistance. Those who do maybe thankful but it's a shameful process and adds to a stigma of being poor. 



guytoronto said:


> But don't you dare complain about the fact that you aren't getting enough free money from other people's pockets. You made the choice.


The $1200 only helps the rich and rich corporations. Don't try to sell be a bribe and tell me it's good for me. Don't sell me a "plan" that does the opposite of what you are proposing to do.


It's certainly is not making the world a better place.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> The $1200 only helps the rich and rich corporations. Don't try to sell be a bribe and tell me it's good for me. Don't sell me a "plan" that does the opposite of what you are proposing to do.


By global standards I'm rich but by Canadian standards I'm probably in the middle. I own a house in Toronto but its worth is below the median and I have a long mortgage. I also have two daughters, aged 4 and 1.

Unlike the Liberals, the Conservatives are going to assist me with some money to look after my kids while my wife and I work. Like many parents, we juggle the child care responsibilities and have so far used formal 'day cares', 'home cares' and family members to look after our kids. The money we get will not tie us to any one system... we will choose what we think is best. It will probably cover about 20% of the actual costs but it's a start and it's more than anyone else has done. It's no more a bribe than it would be if the government created a big daycare programme and said I could use it for free.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Well, Fink-Nottle you are lucky compared to many Canadians.


> DAYCARE AVERAGE MONTHLY COSTS: Most Expensive Nationwide
> 
> Chatham (Ontario) $825.83
> Ottawa $749.67
> ...


http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/04/20/RealChildCare/
The rest of the article is interesting.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> Well, Fink-Nottle you are lucky compared to many Canadians.


I agree... but what point are you making here? Am I lucky to have found affordable child care or to own a house in Toronto or to have two daughters or 'all of the above'? I am lucky... but not exceptional. There's lots of families like ours who will be helped by this new initiative.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

Very well said ArtistSeries, in reply to guytoronto. this is the way we've chosen our society to work.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Here's an idea.

Have a baby. Advertise as a stay-at-home-mom with room to care for 2 more children, at a cost of $250/month.

Now, you are saving the $600+ of real daycare. Plus, you are making $500/month with two other children. Plus, you are helping out two other mothers with really inexpensive childcare.

There's a business somebody could start. A national, mom-at-home registry!


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> Have a baby. Advertise as a stay-at-home-mom with room to care for 2 more children, at a cost of $250/month.


I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess you haven't had to care for a newborn baby before. Suffice to say, if you don't synchronize your sleep cycles with the baby you will not sleep at all... good luck synchronizing with the 3 of them.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

The Liberal plan wouldn't guarantee that these low income people would be able to afford child daycare either, we would probably just have more unaffordable daycare spots, who wins then? At least this way low income people will have some money to eliviate the costs of raising children. And in "raising children" ideally you want to have a parent that looks after their own children, and not a daycare. Having children like everything else costs money, and if you are not ready to afford the cost of having children then don't.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Here's an idea.
> 
> Have a baby. Advertise as a stay-at-home-mom with room to care for 2 more children, at a cost of $250/month.
> 
> ...


I think it's been done, gt. not an easy job at any rate.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Why should MY tax dollars go to taking care of YOUR child, while YOU work?" These children are our future. 

I agree with AS. We make these choices as a society that lives together in a country. Some may want to set up "firewalls", but this is not how a society lives and grows together. Government should be the instrument that ensures that no one gets left behind as we move forward together as a country.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Having children like everything else costs money, and if you are not ready to afford the cost of having children then don't.


What? :yikes:


That's...that's...downright mean! I mean, then poor people would have to think twice before squeezing another one out. Only rich people would be able to have kids. We can't have that! Maybe we should move to a socialist system. That way we could wipe out the differences between the rich and the poor.

Screw democracy! Screw free enterprise! Screw freedom! Let's make sure everbody has a baby!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Only rich people would be able to have kids.


far too many people would prefer it that way
and just let poor people and immigrants bus tables, park cars and tend gardens while the uppercrust rings a little bell to summon high tea service


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> What? :yikes:
> 
> 
> That's...that's...downright mean! I mean, then poor people would have to think twice before squeezing another one out. Only rich people would be able to have kids. We can't have that! Maybe we should move to a socialist system. That way we could wipe out the differences between the rich and the poor.
> ...


that's a great idea. remove the last apartheid we have. you pluralized when you said "differences" so tell me, gt, what are the other differences between rich and poor besides money?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

You don't need to be rich to have children, you just need to be ready to make the financial sacrifice and not expect a free ride. If you're on social assistence and you keep having children, then you need to lie in the bed you made. As long as we keep bailing them out, they'll keep abusing the system. Work hard at improving your own life <b>before</b> bringing a new one into this world.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

darkscot said:


> that's a great idea. remove the last apartheid we have. you pluralized when you said "differences" so tell me, gt, what are the other differences between rich and poor besides money?


You can make up your own. Too many people feel that rich people don't deserve what they have. If you have money, you get certain things. That's the way it is. Deal with it. Just because you don't have money doesn't mean other people should give you theirs.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I thought the trend was that the more well off and educated people were, the smaller familites they had (in general). People who are poor or with less education end up having bigger families.

I'm one of those folks that didn't want either the Liberal or Conservative plan enacted. In a world where there is overpoplulation, why should we subsidize population growth.

If someone (male or female) wants to work versus stay at home to raise their children they should be ready to make enough to pay for care of their children while they are absent. You have to weight the cost versus the reward.

There was a time when people lived with extended families. Their are financial and social reasons for this. It takes a village to raise a child. It just may be that the nuclear family unit of ma, pa, and the kids is not a sustainable family structure in the long run. We might, as a society, have to back to extended families or more tight knit communities where neighbours helped each other and shared resources.

No I understand not all extended families can work. Many are destructive, unhealthy environments: dominance, discipline, physical abuse, verbal, substance abuse, sexual abuse, etc.

That being said, I think the market can create child care spaces easily if we readily value the wage of child care workers. Most people don't want to pay GOOD money to have some raise their child. The reason... they realize that it's not cost effective to actually have two parents working at the same time.

Child care, whatever its form should have some clear guidelines and regulations. This, I support.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"We might, as a society, have to back to extended families or more tight knit communities where neighbours helped each other and shared resources." Paul, I am all for neighbors helping out each other and sharing resources, be they human or financial. We either stick together or we go down together. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> "Why should MY tax dollars go to taking care of YOUR child, while YOU work?" These children are our future.
> 
> I agree with AS. We make these choices as a society that lives together in a country. Some may want to set up "firewalls", but this is not how a society lives and grows together. Government should be the instrument that ensures that no one gets left behind as we move forward together as a country.


Agreed 100%. Child Care is another of the social programs we have setup as a country to help people in need. I understand that there are people who will abuse social programs, but, for the most part, they are useful and give the help to those who need it. I view social child care programs to be just as important as public health care. We pay for a lot of things through our taxes whether we use them personally or not, but if we start cutting programs because someone doesn't believe they should be paying for it because they dont use it then most social programs will be gone. I don't use public health care, haven't since I was a child, but I gladly pay for it with my taxes because its important.

Trev


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> You don't need to be rich to have children, you just need to be ready to make the financial sacrifice and not expect a free ride. If you're on social assistence and you keep having children, then you need to lie in the bed you made. As long as we keep bailing them out, they'll keep abusing the system. Work hard at improving your own life *before* bringing a new one into this world.


That's my perspective. Having kids should be a decision instead of an "oopsie, I'll let the government sort it out" type scenario.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Modsuperstar, to avoid an "oopsie", especially for those in high school, would you favor more relevant sex education classes and even the distribution of condoms? This has been shown to be the best way to cut down on unwanted teen pregnancies.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> would you favor more relevant sex education classes and even the distribution of condoms?


Anybody who doesn't support this needs their head examined. Let the Christian Funadmentalists start their tirade.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

guytoronto, no "tirade" from me. I strongly support such educational moves, and think that it needs to start as early as grade 7.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> You don't need to be rich to have children, you just need to be ready to make the financial sacrifice and not expect a free ride. If you're on social assistence and you keep having children, then you need to lie in the bed you made. As long as we keep bailing them out, they'll keep abusing the system. Work hard at improving your own life <b>before</b> bringing a new one into this world.


Are those words to live by? So what of the 14 year old girl who gets knocked because she doesn't know any better? Is she out on the street?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

modsuperstar said:


> That's my perspective. Having kids should be a decision instead of an "oopsie, I'll let the government sort it out" type scenario.


Easier said than done. Do you think that 14 year olds have any idea what they are getting into when they start screwing around?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Anybody who doesn't support this needs their head examined.


Funny how the Quebec childcare model provides education to children....


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Are those words to live by? So what of the 14 year old girl who gets knocked because she doesn't know any better? Is she out on the street?


Under 18 mother? Child should be put into the adoption system, with grandparents and family getting first crack.

a) Eliminates the problems of a 14yo girl trying to raise a baby.
b) Gives a child to a family who wants it.
c) Eliminates the problems of young girls who WANT to get pregnant (calling Maury Povich), because they wouldn't be allowed to keep the baby.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> far too many people would prefer it that way
> and just let poor people and immigrants bus tables, park cars and tend gardens while the uppercrust rings a little bell to summon high tea service


And a child care program would increase the supply of unskilled labour.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> And a child care program would increase the supply of unskilled labour.


And it would also increase the supply of skilled labour (as it has in Quebec).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Under 18 mother? Child should be put into the adoption system, with grandparents and family getting first crack.
> 
> a) Eliminates the problems of a 14yo girl trying to raise a baby.
> b) Gives a child to a family who wants it.
> c) Eliminates the problems of young girls who WANT to get pregnant (calling Maury Povich), because they wouldn't be allowed to keep the baby.


What's next forced sterilization and elimination of queers, defectives and any other social group you don't like?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> guytoronto, no "tirade" from me. I strongly support such educational moves, and think that it needs to start as early as grade 7.


Sex ed started in 5 for me. What's everyone else's experience?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Sex ed started in 5 for me. What's everyone else's experience?


Start another thread Beej - I see another debate here...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And it would also increase the supply of skilled labour (as it has in Quebec).


Sending that many caregivers into the job market would not help those in the lowest wage groups. It would be more competition. :clap: Go economic policy!


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> You can make up your own. Too many people feel that rich people don't deserve what they have. If you have money, you get certain things. That's the way it is. Deal with it. Just because you don't have money doesn't mean other people should give you theirs.


I am dealing with it. I trust you would opt out of medicare then if something bad happens to you or yours and pay for it yourself.

I have no reason to make up my own difference. I never said there was more than one difference between rich and poor, you did.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Start another thread Beej - I see another debate here...


The practical exam was very easy.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Sending that many caregivers into the job market would not help those in the lowest wage groups. It would be more competition. :clap: Go economic policy!


You call them "caregivers" - some would object to that definition. Quebec's policy offers real choice.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> You call them "caregivers" - some would object to that definition. Quebec's policy offers real choice.


I'm not talking about the choice. I'm specifically pointing out the rhetoric about rich and poor and the likely affect boosting labour supply has on existing low-wage workers. This sort of program will get more people into the labour force, which I like, but that is not so great for existing low-wage workers.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> What's next forced sterilization and elimination of queers, defectives and any other social group you don't like?


Hmmm...let's see. Prevent kids from having kids. Definitely a bad idea. What does being queer have to do with anything in this thread? What do you consider a defective? I don't like a lot of social groups, but at no time did I recommend eliminating anyone.

Why is getting knocked up an untouchable right?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> You call them "caregivers" - some would object to that definition. Quebec's policy offers real choice.


Quebecs program is not all sunshine and lollypops. First off the Province is sinking in debt and this program is crying for more $$$, the program has huge waiting lists and the consequences of institutionalized children is just coming to light.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=929cf146-ba21-4252-a1ef-c61e68757802&k=45887

Thanks but no thanks.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> People should be careful when complaining about childcare.
> 
> Why should MY tax dollars go to taking care of YOUR child, while YOU work?


This caught my eye, I will read the rest of it once I get this off my chest...

guytoronto, 
You should pay for my child's daycare because in 30 years time he'll be paying for you to get your garbage emptied when you're retired and living the life.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Quebecs program is not all sunshine and lollypops. First off the Province is sinking in debt and this program is crying for more $$$, the program has huge waiting lists and the consequences of institutionalized children is just coming to light.
> http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=929cf146-ba21-4252-a1ef-c61e68757802&k=45887


No one said that Quebec's program was without fault.
The Charest government (Liberal in name only) has cut funding to it - while dolling out more corporate welfare. 
*There is a mixture of private and public daycare in Quebec - in other words, choice. *
The "study" in the article has been discussed here already.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Under 18 mother? Child should be put into the adoption system, with grandparents and family getting first crack.
> 
> a) Eliminates the problems of a 14yo girl trying to raise a baby.
> b) Gives a child to a family who wants it.
> c) Eliminates the problems of young girls who WANT to get pregnant (calling Maury Povich), because they wouldn't be allowed to keep the baby.


Are you on Crack?

care to justify any of those?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Loafer said:


> This caught my eye, I will read the rest of it once I get this off my chest...
> 
> guytoronto,
> You should pay for my child's daycare because in 30 years time he'll be paying for you to get your garbage emptied when you're retired and living the life.



Well said :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Funny how the CD Howe Institute starts to trumpet this US report purportedly regarding the Quebec Healthcare system.



> The Quebec system, while unique in North America is actually (according to the Organization for Economic cooperation and Development) the norm in most of the developed countries in the world which provide near-universal, high quality, affordable child care. The child development research in those
> countries consistently demonstrates both the short- and long-term benefits of these child care arrangements.
> Thus, one major problem with the NBER report is that it contradicts nearly an entire generation of robust and consistent findings that demonstrate the positive effects of quality care on young children. Further, the NBER’s conclusions are also in direct contradiction with those of world-class economists such as the Nobel Prize Winner for Economics, both of whom have spoken out strongly for the economic, labor and family benefits of child care programs.
> 
> ...


Rest of the response here

http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/documents/ResponsetoKevinMilligan.pdf



> The authors are faculty members at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Hertzman is Director of the Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP) an interdisciplinary early child development research institute
> based at UBC. Dr. Goelman is Associate Director of HELP and Dr. Kershaw is in the Faculty of Graduate Studies at UBC and is a faculty research affiliate in HELP.


Like the earlier idiotic report on schools from the Fraser Institute isn't it passing strange an economist , not a specialist in the field under study, authors the report and that CD Howe should start trumpeting a US report at this time.

Ideology masquerading as science.

•••

Like other civilized nations early childcare is an extension of the educational system that benefits all of society and it has been shown time and again the benefits to the children and society in all manner of ways.
Like education, whether you have a child or not, it's part of the cost of the social structure - your education was free, your parents and others childless also paid.......pass it on.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Loafer said:


> This caught my eye, I will read the rest of it once I get this off my chest...
> 
> guytoronto,
> You should pay for my child's daycare because in 30 years time he'll be paying for you to get your garbage emptied when you're retired and living the life.


So it's a pyramid scheme? Not really. I think there should be subsidies because there are many benefits, like with higher education, but not full subsidies. Maybe half/half, targetted for higher ratios for low-income groups and lower ratios for high income.


----------



## marrmoo (Jul 24, 2003)

As the director of a not-for-profit childcare organization I have enjoyed reading the different viewpoints. I will be short and sweet with my input.

A national childcare system that is fully accessible to all Canadians should be as important as our current education system. After all we are not talking about babysitting. We are talking about an Early Learning and Care System. Regulated and licensed. Take the opportunity to visit your local regulated non-profit childcare centre and experience the difference in care, philosophy and learning opportunities. Expensive, yes but the children in our country are worth the investment.
I would be delighted to take the opportunity to offer anyone a tour of our eight centres.

Rest assured the references to childcare is babysitting or something a neighbour could easily do would stop.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Are those words to live by? So what of the 14 year old girl who gets knocked because she doesn't know any better? Is she out on the street?


The law thinks of 14 year olds as capable of comprehending consequences of their actions, why is it a stretch for getting pregnant. "Don't know any better" is not an excuse. If you can't afford to raise the child then the child should go to a family that would be able to. And not have to relie on the system for the means to raise your child. Low income housing and welfare is not the way for a child to be raised.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MarMoo :clap: :clap:......shout it out.



> *A national childcare system that is fully accessible to all Canadians should be as important as our current education system.*


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> The law thinks of 14 year olds as capable of comprehending consequences of their actions, why is it a stretch for getting pregnant. "Don't know any better" is not an excuse. If you can't afford to raise the child then the child should go to a family that would be able to. And not have to relie on the system for the means to raise your child. Low income housing and welfare is not the way for a child to be raised.



Thank god the system isn't run by people like you. Thankfully the system is starting to understand that people make mistakes... that the results of those mistakes cannot be easily avoided.

My wife teaches a special program a a high school in St.Catharines. Her only students are teen moms and teen moms to be. Rather than tossing them on to the street to fend for themselves (as Jumbo would have us do), they are given the chance to finnish their high school. In this way they are given the opportunity to make something better for themselves and their children.

The only way these kids are capable of making something better for themselves is by providing childcare so they can study and do their lessons.

People like Jumbo would think that tossing people to the wolves would solve our problems... that WAS the status quo, and how did that work out for people? Drive desperate people to even more desperate solutions... forcing people to choose crime and prostitution as the only way to bring in income. At least their are more civilized means of assisting people. 

Are there people who abuse the system? Sure there are, but there are checks and balances in place to sniff out fraudulent abuse of the system. Simply cutting off assistance is NOT a solution.


----------



## marrmoo (Jul 24, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> MarMoo :clap: :clap:......shout it out.


Believe me Macdoc I yell and scream every chance I get. Including when lobbying our politicians both Provincial and Federal. 

Ironic I read this thread just after returning from a meeting with my MP(McKay-Scarborough Guildwood) presenting him with a petition with over 1000 names on it urging him to stand up and fight for this in the upcoming budget discussions.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"A national childcare system that is fully accessible to all Canadians should be as important as our current education system. After all we are not talking about babysitting. We are talking about an Early Learning and Care System. Regulated and licensed. Take the opportunity to visit your local regulated non-profit childcare centre and experience the difference in care, philosophy and learning opportunities. Expensive, yes but the children in our country are worth the investment." Marrmoo makes an excellent point. I am on the board of directors of the MUN Childcare Centre here at Memorial University of Newfoundland. I have been active in early childhood education since 1979 here in NL and have had my son in daycare when I became a single father four days short of his 4th birthday. I want to see regulated quality daycare, and not the corporate-style childcare which has profit as its primary motive (i.e., minimum wages for the workers, a lowering of standards and the increase in the allowable number of children per worker).


----------



## marrmoo (Jul 24, 2003)

" have had my son in daycare when I became a single father four days short of his 4th birthday. I want to see regulated quality daycare, and not the corporate-style childcare which has profit as its primary motive (i.e., minimum wages for the workers, a lowering of standards and the increase in the allowable number of children per worker)."

Who better to to speak to the values of child care then a parent who has had the benefit of the system. Better yet I'm sure your son Dr.G could sing the virtues of this type of Early Learning and Care.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

marrmoo said:


> Believe me Macdoc I yell and scream every chance I get. Including when lobbying our politicians both Provincial and Federal.


It's too bad that some do not see the difference between expenditure and investment....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So can my daughter - she had excellent early childcare - loved it, thrived in and it showed all the way through school where she was skipped a grade and is just graduating with 95% plus Grade 12 average from a tough private school.

Due to circumstances my son did not get the same early advantage ( he had some but not the same level ) and has struggled as a student.
Now it's not ALL the early care but it helps weak students get a head start and good students just thrive with the enriched environment.

I also firmly believe it builds a stronger immune system than stay at home kids and provides superior socialization from an early age so that kids learn they are not the centre of the universe and have to deal with their peers.

( my daughter sometimes misses the "centre of the universe" idea when it comes to spending money ) 
•••

Investment indeed



> more recent analysis suggests that these figures may actually understate the true returns: *The November 2004 follow-up study on the Perry Preschool Program 40 years after its inception calculates the total benefit-cost ratio at $17 for every dollar invested,* confirming that the benefits of ECD continue well into adulthood. Other recent studies of ECD programs in Michigan, New Jersey, Oklahoma and elsewhere provide additional evidence that investments to help young children prepare for school and beyond pay large dividends to society.


http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/05-06/ecd.cfm


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

marrmoo said:


> After all we are not talking about babysitting. We are talking about an Early Learning and Care System.


Are there any studies showing the optimum number of hours for an effective "Early Learning and Care System"?

Kindergarten has fewer instructional hours than Elementary School, and Nursery school has fewer hours yet. Is there some optimum number of hours that are needed for childeren of different ages? How were the hours for these programs arrived at?

While I'm all for effective, accessible public education, there is also a "babysitting" component to most child care. For example, for grade school age children, people who work full time still need care for their children before and after school, during holidays, etc. If we are to assume that grade school childeren are getting an approriate number of instructional hours through the school system, then I would argue that child care over and above this amount is more "babysitting" than "education".

I agree with universal access to education, but not babysitting.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You miss the point - it's before grade school that is critical and "baby sitting" is not the enriched environment of a good daycare facility.
Children are ready and willing to learn very early and people trained in this area know how to balance play time and learning in a mix that keeps kids engaged.

It IS part of education, study after study has shown how important. Do some reading.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> It IS part of education, study after study has shown how important. Do some reading.


Well than provide links to some objective studies to read!

My daughter went to nursery school before kindergarten, but this was only a few hours a week, her primary care was provided by a stay at home parent.

While I believe that nursery school provided some of the benefits you claim for daycare, I don't belive that the 40 - 60 hours / week of daycare required for a parent to work full time would be necessary to provide the same benefit.

Although I don't have anything to back this up, my gut feel is that after some point you hit diminishing returns, and may in fact even be detrimental to the development of children. I don't think anyone would argue that children should spend 100% of their time in daycare, without *any* contact with parents, so I'm just trying to understand where the "sweet spot" is, and how it was arrived at.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

marrmoo said:


> A national childcare system that is fully accessible to all Canadians should be as important as our current education system.


I think this will be the end result that we should head for but, practically, our educational approach was not implemented in one go. There was development and that's what childcare needs. Lots of learning for advocates and opponents. A particularly tricky part will be the notion of the 'state' raising kids (ie mandatory education we have now) by law. Either way, I think the Liberals, once they finally were ready, had the right approach. Ease it in; the issue is not without reasonable opposition. In 20 years, we'll wonder what the fuss was about.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> Although I don't have anything to back this up, my gut feel is that after some point you hit diminishing returns, and may in fact even be detrimental to the development of children. I don't think anyone would argue that children should spend 100% of their time in daycare, without *any* contact with parents, so I'm just trying to understand where the "sweet spot" is, and how it was arrived at.


It would be like school. 6-8 hours per day or less. Probably less early on, working up to the normal school-day by 5 years old.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"It IS part of education, study after study has shown how important." Very true, MacDoc, especially when it comes to expressive and receptive language development.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> People like Jumbo


Oh goody! The 'people like you' game. People like you would *insert destroyed society characterization*. :clap:


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Beej said:


> It would be like school. 6-8 hours per day or less. Probably less early on, working up to the normal school-day by 5 years old.


If that is the case, then early childhood education doesn't provide enough hours for full time working parents. My point is the hours over and above what is needed for education should not be subsidised.

Since "regular" grade school doesn't run 40 - 60 hours per week for 50 weeks per year, I don't think an effective early childhood education program would need to either.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> My point is the hours over and above what is needed for education should not be subsidised.


A good point that needs discussing. Of course, the all-powerful economy could use the labour.  This is part of the slow learning process about implementing this because, at the start, so many interests warp the end-result that parents and other voters just can't really see what's going on. This is short-term economic policy, long-term economic policy, social policy, long-term investment in people and all sorts of things, but each group is keeping its cards close and saying 'We're for the children.' A simple statement to negate all opposition.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PB - look at the Quebec system - it works and where there is overtime required parents pay an additional fee.
I would like to see EVERY school be geared for daycare starting at age 3 or so for 1/2 day then on up graduated.
Each kid is different and they go in fits and starts.
The facilities are there lets see them used 24/7/365.

Schools and libraries and the recreation centres should be at the heart of every community and in full use.
One of the greatest crimes Harris committed was gutting those programs in Ontario.
Pools in particular  - the educational extended use is only now getting back to some semblance of rational use thanks in part to Bob Rae's report on educational funding and the implementation.

it takes a village, a town, a city, a province, a country and planet........to get the future set on course through the kids.
It starts early.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I find it ironic - access to schools and community facilities make a home valuable. Perhaps a specific capital gains tax on short housing amd property flips that funds schools in the community would provide some needed funding and help keep a lid on speculation 
Say 90% in the first year tapering to zero in 10 years. :clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> PB - look at the Quebec system - it works and where there is overtime required parents pay an additional fee.


It's not so black and white. The system is flexible and adapted to regional realities. For example some centres are big buildings. They try and integrate them into residential areas. These usually have long hours. 
You also have affiliated daycares that are run in private houses (they have guidelines). Certain schools also "daycare". Some parents have to leave for work early - their kids can be dropped off early or picked up late (they have activities for the kids). This supplemental care is $7/day (it applies to primary school age kids). The programs often continue to run during "holidays" - not all parents can take every school holiday. 

Some $7/day centres also offer "normal" daycare (full price). Some of the criticism lately about the daycares has to do with the Charest government trying to gut many aspects of the program.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Certain schools also "daycare". Some parents have to leave for work early - their kids can be dropped off early or picked up late (they have activities for the kids). This supplemental care is $7/day (it applies to primary school age kids). The programs often continue to run during "holidays" - not all parents can take every school holiday.


This "daycare" portion of a program should not be subsidized, IMHO. I figure it would take a whole lot more than $7/day to offer this service, and the users of this service should pay the full cost of offering the service, plus a reasonable profit.

There may need to be some sort of limited income support program for the working poor, but I don't like the idea of people who make financial sacrifices to raise their kids subsidising services for families with two incomes.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's a choice you make just as I have to pay for public schooling even tho one kid goes to private.
Daycare programs are part of the edu system. I don't have a problem with scaled fees for extended hours but it's too important to forgo.
You can home school your kids too - but you'll still pay school taxes.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

For those that know the Quebec systems. 
What does it offer people that don't have 9-5 jobs? These people being more likely to be earning Walmart wages and needing help the most. 
-Retail employees where most stores are open until 9 or 10pm, 
-Factory workers having to work night shift. 
-Hospitality and restaurant workers?
-People that work weekends? 
-People that choose to take off work to care for their children?
-People that live in small towns and rural areas where funded daycare facilities don't exist?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/04/26/caledon060426.html

Minister responds to Caledon calculations.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You think $3.28 a day is going to help those categories either?? Get a grip.
And yes many of those in those categories will have some access to the daycare centres just as they have access to the educational system.
Far and away in the studies those MOST benefitting are those in the lower income strata - higher income already know the benefits and pay for high quality care.

Those people are most benefitted from the Liberal income tax break which Harper chooses to dismantle.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Beej said:


> http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/04/26/caledon060426.html
> 
> Minister responds to Caledon calculations.


Well, I guess we'll just have to wait until the budget to see how this all plays out.

Meanwhile, we'll let the Conservative critics rant and rave about how the government should pay for every child's meal from birth until 18...and then pay their full tuition costs.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Well, I guess we'll just have to wait until the budget to see how this all plays out.
> 
> Meanwhile, we'll let the Conservative critics rant and rave about how the government should pay for every child's meal from birth until 18...and then pay their full tuition costs.


ah yes, better to just have them all in factory sweat shops to help the corporation's bottom line
after all, if parents can't feed 'em why not let 'em work at age 10, eh?
make 'em pay their own way in life
let them learn early how hard life is in a 1st world country
Upper Canada College could use a few more janitors and gardeners and at a good price too


----------



## mannypwife (Feb 15, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> There may need to be some sort of limited income support program for the working poor, but I don't like the idea of people who make financial sacrifices to raise their kids subsidising services for families with two incomes.


... so, families with two incomes couldn't possibly be making financial sacrifices to raise their kids as well? Two incomes doesn't necessarily mean that a family is rolling on easy street. 

Sometimes we as a society need to contribute to something that is for the greater good, as opposed to only benefiting our little sphere of influence. For example, being non-addicted and non-abusing of legal or illegal drugs, I could personally say that I don't like the idea of paying a chunk of the $40 Billion per year it is costing our country ( <A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/ky8d8">Globe and Mail Story</A> ), however, being a contributing member of our society I won't begrudge people the help they need. I personally have a child now, and am very thankful for any help we can get with childcare.

MacGuiver, don't know all the answers to your questions, but here's some feedback:


MacGuiver said:


> For those that know the Quebec systems.
> What does it offer people that don't have 9-5 jobs? These people being more likely to be earning Walmart wages and needing help the most.
> -Retail employees where most stores are open until 9 or 10pm,
> -Factory workers having to work night shift.
> ...


The Quebec system has recently introduced incentives for daycare providers to provide care at the rate of $7.00 / day for care provided outside core hours. This is just starting, but some daycares are taking them up on it and providing 24 hour service to accommodate shift workers/ etc. (Now before people start screaming about leaving a child for 24 hours, that isn't how it works, you get "a work day's" worth of care (8-10 hours)). 

As far as I know, there isn't much relief if you want to stay home and take care of your children, kind of the same as everywhere else, if you can afford it, do it. 

Not sure about the small towns and rural areas, but I think that the subsidized care is fairly wide-spread- there are just huge waiting lists.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Thanks mannypwife, 

Cute little fella by the way.
I guess my questions come from the claim that the Quebec system is "universal childcare". If its as universal as it claims to be it should serve everyone. I think their could be huge numbers of parents falling through the cracks there but I may be wrong. 
I have my doubts it really does serve everyone and if it did, how many more billions would it cost to do so? Can a province strapped with growing debt afford to go deeper? Do SUV driving, 9-5 moms and dads need the government to pay for and raise their children while Joe farmer and his wife are paying for it plus having to pay for a local sitter besides? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:
Good post. MannyPWife
When childcare gets more integrated into the educational system as it should be given the enormous benefits then it will be able to serve a wider range of situations.

It also will make more effective use of existing facilities like schools and provide income for many who love children and want to help them grow. Not every person is an effective teacher and kids often learn better from others where the emotional interaction is less thatn with a parent.

The greater exposure to peers and the outside the home world early on the healthier and more balanced the child in my mind.
Not all children are ready early and that's for a parent to judge but the opportunity needs to be there, affordably. Especially for families struggling to get established in income, or language or education, having some of the burden carried for them in those areas in regards to quality care and education for their children is in my mind beneficial to the entire society.

Study after study has shown it to be so.


----------



## mannypwife (Feb 15, 2005)

MacGuiver,
First, thanks! We think he's cute too (usually).

There are definitely people falling through the cracks in the system in Quebec. I've had my son on a waiting list for daycare at several different centers since I found out I was pregnant in late 2004. To date, we still have not been accepted and at our preferred place, we are 208th on the list! Most are saying that we will not get in until 2007 or 2008 if at all (since most centers prefer to get kids while they are still infants and have them go through "grades" with children of the same age).

But, at least Quebec is trying. I know a co-worker that sits next to me in the cube farm is paying $8-9000 per year in Ontario (or more by now probably) for her two kids in daycare, and she said she was getting a deal. When you consider that this comes off the top of her take-home, it doesn't leave a whole lot of money for other things, however, they can't afford for her to stay home and keep their house. I personally don't consider a house to be a financial luxury unless you are living in some fancy-schmancy mansion, so I don't think she should have to sacrifice her house to stay home with her kids. So, I feel that the system should help her out. 

I understand the flaws in the Quebec system with respect to access to care, but one of the things I really like about the system is that it treats all families equally. If you can find a $7 space you won't be rejected based on your income. IMO, there are too many formulas etc that exclude parents from benefits based on income without acknowledging they may have more going out than coming in (and not just on luxuries). 

For example, I'm still paying my massive student loans that I had to take out in order to afford to go to school. I had to go to school so that I would be able to find a good job. To find that good job, I had to leave my home province (dragging my new husband with me) and move to a place with a much higher cost of living where we have no family support (no going to grandma's for daycare). So, under most formulas, we aren't eligible for any help, but in Quebec, if I can find a $7 spot, I can have it. Thus, the money I'm not spending on childcare can be spent on paying down debt and buying essentials for my child and family.

Like I said, not a perfect system, but at least it's trying. This is one of the reasons we have stayed in Quebec rather than making the move to Ottawa that a lot of our friends have done.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A fine posting, mannypwife. We need these sorts of posts to help provide some perspective on this issue. Paix.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

mannypwife said:


> Sometimes we as a society need to contribute to something that is for the greater good, as opposed to only benefiting our little sphere of influence.


Agreed - which is why I support a well funded public education system, including early childhood education as appropriate.

I still see an "education" and a "babysitting" component to daycare, and I don't see how subsidising the "babysitting" component contributes to the good of society. The decision to stay home to raise kids or to leave them with a "babysitter" is based on personal and financial considerations, and I don't see why public policy should favour one choice over the other.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> I still see an "education" and a "babysitting" component to daycare, and I don't see how subsidising _the "babysitting" component contributes to the good of society._ The decision to stay home to raise kids or to leave them with a "babysitter" is based on personal and financial considerations, and I don't see why public policy should favour one choice over the other.


The extended hours (up to 10 a day total) reflect the working realities to many. If my partner or myself cannot make it on time (she usually works 8-5) then it's nice to know we can stretch that time by half hour of so (meetings run late, traffic). 
Of course I would prefer to spend as much time with our kids but sometimes we have to compromise. 
I'd like to see public policy offer either the choices (stay at home or daycare).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The extended hours (up to 10 a day total) reflect the working realities to many. If my partner or myself cannot make it on time (she usually works 8-5) then it's nice to know we can stretch that time by half hour of so (meetings run late, traffic).
> Of course I would prefer to spend as much time with our kids but sometimes we have to compromise.
> I'd like to see public policy offer either the choices (stay at home or daycare).


I think the problem comes when people use government money to offload tough decisions. If it's a small minority, no big deal; all social programs have freeloaders. But if it's extensive then people are just getting out of tough decisions. This gets back to PBs education vs baby-sitting point. Good to see the discussion here progress into some details.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MannyPWife® gave a good perspective. In our case, our child was in private daycare for the longest time. We switched her to 7$/day 3 days a weeks. At first we hesitated, because it's one caregiver for 5 children (as opposed to 1 caregiver for 3 children). Public daycare was actually better for her (activities, social interaction, music lessons). When a spot opened up, we decided to put her there full time. We have been offered 7$/day care at a few institutions but prefer the home public daycare.

Yes, there is abuse - we hear of the rich women you drops off her kid to go shopping - but at least all the kids are treated equally. I work adjacent to CPE (institution). Some workplaces also offer CPEs such as Concordia University
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~glpp/about.html
and the government does have a fairly handy site
http://www.mapanswer.com/mfe/RechercheRegion_en.jsp


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The extended hours (up to 10 a day total) reflect the working realities to many. If my partner or myself cannot make it on time (she usually works 8-5) then it's nice to know we can stretch that time by half hour of so (meetings run late, traffic).


I don't deny that extended hours are useful for many - I just question the wisdom of artificially lowering the price of this service with public funds.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> I don't deny that extended hours are useful for many - I just question the wisdom of artificially lowering the price of this service with public funds.


you must also disagree with electricity prices too then?

gov't is to serve the people - not just a tax grab to service themselves
society has changed from single to double income
that's reality - mrs. cleaver doesn't exist anymore - 

housing prices are way out of control
perhaps if people owned buildings and not land, that would help curb the need for dual incomes?

the single biggest expense almost all people buy is a house
reduce housing costs and you reduce need for 2 incomes and then you can rant and rave about 'choices'


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> housing prices are way out of control
> perhaps if people owned buildings and not land, that would help curb the need for dual incomes?
> 
> the single biggest expense almost all people buy is a house
> reduce housing costs and you reduce need for 2 incomes and then you can rant and rave about 'choices'


Much publicised but housing is more affordable than in the 80s. Housing costs can't be magically reduced by government (except by lowering property taxes other fees) without much wasted effort. Government taxation already favours detached housing sprawl over the more environmental medium and high-density.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you must also disagree with electricity prices too then?


?!?
I'm not sure how this is related, or what your point is.

Besides, almost all people use electricity, but despite your comments below there are still a significant number of stay at home parents.


MACSPECTRUM said:


> gov't is to serve the people - not just a tax grab to service themselves
> society has changed from single to double income
> that's reality - mrs. cleaver doesn't exist anymore -


Not entirely true - there are still a large number of stay at home parents, so childcare is not a universal need in the same way that education or health care are. I don't think we should artificially lower the costs of going back to work for people who choose to do so. If some form of income support is necessary for low income families then that is a separate discussion, but I don't like giving government assistance to those that choose to go back to work and nothing to those who stay home to raise kids.


MACSPECTRUM said:


> housing prices are way out of control
> perhaps if people owned buildings and not land, that would help curb the need for dual incomes?
> 
> the single biggest expense almost all people buy is a house
> reduce housing costs and you reduce need for 2 incomes and then you can rant and rave about 'choices'


Again, not sure how this is related, and not much can be done about housing prices in the short term. Besides, housing prices are vary widely with location so it is hard to generalize about the cost of housing.


----------

