# Early Childcare and Edu - Harper got it way wrong



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Canada last in ECE spending
> 
> MICHAEL STUPARYK / TORONTO STAR
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/195984

Good article.... worth the read. Quebec knows the importance. We almost had the start of one in Canada.
Now we're way way behind other nations. 



> While Mustard has had the ear of governments around the world, he's still trying to get the government in his own backyard to listen.
> 
> "Here I am as a thinker in residence to the government of South Australia," Mustard said. "They understand the subject and will probably move on it. That says what's the matter with our country? It's as simple as that."
> 
> ...


.....a little "progressive" thinking is in order.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Harper got it way wrong.....a little "progressive" thinking is in order.



BS! That's just a huge leap in assumption:

"Early Years Study 2: Putting Science Into Action, by Mustard, Margaret Norrie McCain and Stuart Shanker of York University, is a 185-page follow-up to the groundbreaking 1999 Early Years Study Mustard and McCain were commissioned to do by the provincial Conservative government.

The new report is published by the Council for Early Child Development, a not-for-profit group Mustard founded in 2004."

Note the dates 1999 and 2004?

Harper hasn't had enough time to get anything dead wrong. It was the 13 year reign of your Liberal buddies who screwed this one up.

The study was done, or the data collected long before Harper was elected. Get a grip.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Took the words out of my mouth, it's amazing how Harper can put child care in this country in the crapper in one short year. Because it was the envy of all nations for the 13 previous.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

I believe that the whole area could do with a bit more strategy and direction.

But....
This report strikes me as headline mongering.

Being last in spending is not necessarily a bad thing, especially since it is last in terms of developed nations. Also, my understanding is that there are a lot of blurred lines regarding what was counted as spending. It is hardly a simple task to compare the approaches on offer from different nations given different ways of organizing education and childhood services, federal and provincial responsibilities, public and private sector policies etc.

A headline like this is a good way to cause angst, and an even better way for a person or entity to promote their view of how things should be done.

One headline does not a disaster make.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

JumboJones said:


> Took the words out of my mouth, it's amazing how Harper can put child care in this country in the crapper in one short year. Because it was the envy of all nations for the 13 previous.


I'll bet MacDoc doesn't have the cajones to admit he's dead wrong accusing Harper as responsible for this issue.



Pelao said:


> A headline like this is a good way to cause angst, and an even better way for a person or entity to promote their view of how things should be done.


But it MacDoc's thread title is a convenient way to try and lay blame where it clearly does not belong. Harper had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's also difficult to accurately state these cost/benefit relationships--$20 million now saves $20 billion later, etc. I believe if you added up all of the benefits that might occur from just the "small investment" each pet project and program is seeking, the projected benefits could easily exceed the Gross National Product.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

SINC said:


> I'll bet MacDoc doesn't have the cajones to admit he's dead wrong accusing Harper as responsible for this issue.


But it was Harper that scrapped the holy grail of all child care plans, I mean it took 13 years to make, it must have been the saviour we were all looking for.  

Insert foot here...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The point here is, as with the environment issue, the Liberals were terrible, and yet the Conservatives are doing everything in their power to be worse.

I don't give the Liberals any credit for their all-talk-and-no-action record, but the record the Conservatives seem to be aiming for is no-talk-and-all-the-wrong-actions.

Canadians will have to decide which is worse at the next election. I'll probably be voting Green for the first time in my life, but I could be swayed to vote Liberal if it looks like the Conservatives have a chance of winning a majority.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper killed a $5 billion program that had the support of every single province and territory and subbed in a $200 under 6 benefit.

He got it dead wrong.

Indeed Martin waited way too long to put it in place - it should have been long ago as Quebec's was.

So inferring that Harper hasn't had time....are you suggesting he will recycle yet ANOTHER Liberal program that he axed????

Quibble all you want - *we are DEAD LAST in early childhood spending*. Kinda hard to argue with that FACT.

Reality was - there was a national program agreed upon that would have got us part way up to standard - Harper killed it - that's also FACT.

Do I guess it's a Star engendered shot at Harper et al.....of course.
Bottom line is - it's an entirely valid criticism. 

Martin could have done the program when he had a majority - he didn't - that's also valid criticism and one reason he's not PM.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Harper's plan only deserves a fraction of the blame.

Thirteen years of Liberal rule set the foundation for where we are today.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Martin could have done the program when he had a majority - he didn't - t...one reason he's not PM.


I remember people grumbling about this in the polling booth...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Harper hasn't had enough time to get anything dead wrong. It was the 13 year reign of your Liberal buddies who screwed this one up..


Scrapping provincial agreements that took years to get, jeopardizing the system in Quebec just months after taking office - how typically Con of you, blaming others for your own actions.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

A lot of the article points to what parents can do to improve early childhood education, it shouldn't be just up to a national innitiative to correct this problem. Simple advise from the article itself:

Advice from Dr. Fraser Mustard: "Simply talk to and hold your infant or toddler, please."

But please lets start throwing money at this because people can't raise their own children anymore.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I remember people grumbling about this in the polling booth...


Ahh yes, the shiny distraction of "money in your pockets" for "childcare"... How's that working out? How many daycare spaces have the Cons created and how that tax on the money? Have any daycares upped their prices to offset that "bonus"?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> But please lets start throwing money at this *because people can't raise their own children anymore.*


Hardly the point - but then again are you afraid that of something?
No one would force you to send your children there....


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

My wife will be going on maternity leave in a few months with our first child. Our budget will be EXTREMELY tight, but we'll be okay. While technically we will be living below the poverty line, we will not be living in poverty.

After a year when maternity and parental benefits expire, my wife will take in a couple of other kids to nanny for a LOT cheaper than any day care. That will more than offset the lose of her income.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Martin could have done the program when he had a majority - he didn't - that's also valid criticism and one reason he's not PM.


And *totally* responsible for Canada's standing. You just can't admit you're wrong can you MD? It's the standings I'm referring to, not the program cancellations. Wrong again.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

But they will be forcing me to pay taxes for it. Why don't we just give our children over to the gov't as soon as they are born, they obviously know how to raise them better. 

Why not educate the parents on what they need to do for their children if they expect them to develope to their full potential, instead of passing the buck over to the Gov't? We educate on breast feeding and caring for the baby, but nothing for us on how to educate them.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Canada would be a much better place if we abolished day care and made parents responsible for the early education of their children. Forget their material "wants" and give their children their "needs".


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> And *totally* responsible for Canada's standing. You just can't admit you're wrong can you MD? It's the standings I'm referring to, not the program cancellations. Wrong again.


How can someone at the Federal level be totally responsible for what is partially provincial matter?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

So now that the Liberals are involved, it is partially a Provincial matter too?

I totally agree with you, but have yet to see anyone else admitting the fact.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Take the same approach to education across the board - let's just dump the whole education system by your reasoning. 
Back to the 50s and beyond 

If children are poorly prepared they do not benefit and require extra help later.
3-6 is critical - it's part of education. Every other first world nation does a better job than we do in funding this critical aspect.
Because you're a parent in no way equips you to automatically optimize children's education nor does it socialize kids.
You don't OWN kids - you have responsibilty for their care and one of those is education.
Our 3-6 education/care structure sucks except in Quebec.

•••

AS responsible in the sense he killed a funding program for the provinces/territories for this.
Once more points to the need for taxes to "stay at home".

The provinces and Feds worked out a deal - specific to each province and with input from each province.
Harper killed it despite it partially being in place.

Yes JJ it is ultimately the provincial turf but funding is an issue - just as the Feds announced more funding for secondary edu this budget - the provinces will determine mostly how it's spent.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

As it is Ontario's education system is greatly underfunded, so why introduce another system that will be underfunded from the start, instead of correcting our current problems?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Childcare falls exclusively under provincial jurisdiction and the deals that Martin worked out amounted to bribing the provinces in exchange for cash (just like our healthcare system which is also provincial jurisdiction).

In Alberta, we ended up with a small amount of money with no strings attached because our provincial government doesn't want to get more involved with daycare than it already is (and they have farmed out most of it) and we have enough of our own money to ignore Ottawa.

Early childcare is very important but it is going to take a lot more political will to come up with a solid solution than currently exists in this country.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Ontario system certainly WAS underfunded - far less so now with new money both from Fed and provincial coffers.

Introducing a much needed ECC may actually take some of the pressure off the primary system ( note the comment about "every primary teacher knows this" ).
Ontario and Canada does rather well in other aspects of education on a world scale.
It's the glaring omission in this area that is so damning especially since a national program was budgeted and agreed to right across the nation.

Lots of talk about breaking the poverty cycle when all studies show children that move well through the educational system are the most likely to break that cycle and parents in poverty most likely to have challenged kids.

That all the other first world nations and Quebec see the need and the benefit....and Harper derailed a national program that would have remedied the problem to a large degree - makes this a sad sitation


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> bribing the provinces in exchange for cash


Ummm each province taylored the funding to it's needs. How does that constitute "bribing"? If Alberta wanted to play it as you mention that's fine - other's looked at differently.
You act as if the funding wasn't coming from the regions in the first place.

If anything a $200 per child non program was a voters bribe and resulted in nothing. Certainly nowhere near what Quebec and other nations have.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

It seems last year a report on the Quebec day care system found that it wasn't that great for kids:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazet....html?id=d16cc6be-0622-4719-8b4d-bba03a6a8a76


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> Day care study cites behavior problems
> 
> A much-anticipated report from the largest and longest-running study of American child care has found that keeping a preschooler in a day care center for a year or more increased the likelihood that the child would become disruptive in class — and that the effect persisted through the sixth grade.
> 
> ...



http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070326/NEWS01/703260307/1002/NEWS01


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Introducing a much needed ECC may actually take some of the pressure off the primary system ( note the comment about "every primary teacher knows this" ).


They might want to read these studies before they come to any conclusions. 

Dealing with kids has never been easy, I think it is more discipline than ECE that is the problem in most kids.

Personally I would take a room full of grade 1's than what a nurse has to go through on any given day. You want to talk about underfunding, have a look at our healthcare system before diverting money from this so people can have subsidized babysitting. 

Again fix current problems instead of creating new ones. The last thing the gov't needs is a bunch of EC Educators crying that they are under paid, because the program is under funded.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

JumboJones said:


> You want to talk about underfunding, have a look at our healthcare system before diverting money from this so people can have subsidized babysitting.


:clap: :clap: That's calling daycare exactly what it is.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> That's calling daycare exactly what it is.


Let's expand on it a little..."Subsidized babysitting so I can feel good about my important job and buy lots of neat consumer items."

You see, it's just not fair that only people who can afford to raise children should be allowed to have them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You guys swallow your right wing think tanks hook line and sincker.

CD Howe report. Just THE most netural source imaginable.....yeah right.

*Did not even study kids IN daycare.*!!!!!



> ..*.it [the study] doesn’t actually study children who are enrolled in child care programs. A careful reading of the report reveals that they examined the possible effects of child care on children who were “eligible” for Quebec’s child care program but who were not necessarily enrolled in any child care programs at all. In fact, the “findings” of increased aggression in children could just as easily be attributed to the children who were NOT enrolled in a child care program." *
> 
> "They did not follow individual children over time, examining their development before, during, and after they were enrolled in child care. In other words, they have no direct way of knowing what influence child care had on any given child."
> 
> "... it is the quality of the child care arrangement that is the most powerful predictor of child development. Yet the NBER report does not include any data on the quality of the child care environments in which the children participate. In short, then, this report does not study children in child care, nor does it consider any data at all about the quality of child care. These two factors alone mean that this research cannot be taken seriously in the continuing discussion on child care in Canada


That report was totally discredited by the University of British Columbia. 

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

There reports reports on ECC from all over the world showing the benefits of a quality program to kids, parents and society.

This is exactly why so many Canadians distrust Con agendas. Kicking and screaming....all the time.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> :clap: :clap: That's calling daycare exactly what it is.


One wonders about the ignorance.....
SINC, have you any experience the Quebec version of "babysitting" or are you talking out of *** about a subject you have absolutely no clue about?

BTW, the C.D. Howe report (for it's hardly a study) has been largely discredited.... I'd like to see right wing (and leftist) research that is neutral instead of starting with a conclusion and tried to "fudge" your finding....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Let's expand on it a little..."Subsidized babysitting so I can feel good about my important job and buy lots of neat consumer items."
> 
> You see, it's just not fair that only people who can afford to raise children should be allowed to have them.


What a way of distorting the issue....

Maybe we can enforce eugenics....

My main criticism about 7$ daycare is that some do use it a babysitting (mostly soccers moms by what I see) so maybe the problem is really the Conrads who think that society owes them....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sure, AS...it's that couple of quality hours each day that truly bonds parents and kids.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

So where does it say we have the right to daycare? I'd rather have the right to good and fast healthcare. I'm suprised more of the boomers out there are not worried about this too.

Any report can be discreditted if you look hard enough, why is this one expert any more credable than the C.D. Howe report?

Nothing is going to replace a parents care in the early stages of life, children are way better off to have someone at home than being in daycare.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The reality is that both parents work because they have too. 
Again, you don't seem to have a clue about early education and long term benefits.

The drive-by smear that somehow parents who put their kids in daycare equates with parents who don't love their children is typical....

In the "idealized" 50s fathers spend very little time with the rugrats - maybe things are different in Toronto Proper.... 

No one forces you to put kids in daycare in Quebec and you do get a tax credit when you don't - guess you are afraid of choice....


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

As you now get a tax credit for having them in day care, I see that as a choice.

The reason for the smear is the debate of home care vs day care, and it shows that home care trumps day care.

Having children is a sacrifice and takes planning, yet most don't view it as that, and expect the gov't and tax payers to bail them out.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

JJ - *they did not even study kids IN daycare*!!!!!!........did you read the analysis from British Columbia??- no - you just kneejerked it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> My main criticism about 7$ daycare is that some do use it a babysitting (mostly soccers moms by what I see) so maybe the problem is really the Conrads who think that society owes them....


I just read a study from the US that said the bottom 25% (I think it was 25%) of income earners in the US got $8 in government funding for every $1 paid in tax.

In contrast the top income earners received only about $0.30 to $0.40 for every $1 paid in tax.

You make it sound like high income earners are leaching off everybody else.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Ummm each province taylored the funding to it's needs. If Alberta wanted to play it as you mention that's fine - other's looked at differently.


In the original article, one of the primary issues mentioned is our "chaotic mess" of programs. The solution that Martin attempted was to make a list of standards and pay the provinces if they would implement them. The problem was that the provinces all had different views of what those standards should be, including Alberta which said give us the money and don't ask any questions (Quebec said that too).

The program also lacked the required funding, childcare advocates said it would require at least $10 billion but Martin only had $5 billion.

The end result would still be a "chaotic mess" of underfunded programs varying from province to province.



> If anything a $200 per child non program was a voters bribe and resulted in nothing. Certainly nowhere near what Quebec and other nations have.


Of course it was but you aren't going to get a national childcare program in Canada given the current political climate in the country. The provinces don't agree (re: Quebec vs. Alberta) and know well that what Ottawa giveth, it also taketh away.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I just read a study from the US that said the bottom 25% (I think it was 25%) of income earners in the US got $8 in government funding for every $1 paid in tax.
> 
> In contrast the top income earners received only about $0.30 to $0.40 for every $1 paid in tax.
> 
> You make it sound like high income earners are leaching off everybody else.


What does a US study have to do with Canada?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> As you now get a tax credit for having them in day care, I see that as a choice.


What the Cons have done is a populist measure that does not take the well being of children into account.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Z
Except all the provinces and the territories AGREED TO IT.
The funding was started and paid for the first year.

Alberta got what it agreed to. They signed off as did all the others. It was started to be implemented.

Trying to make a sow's ear from a silk purse this time??

••

Yeah what does an educational program have to do with income levels. All pay whether they have kids or not.

Somehow 3-6 is different than 6-18????


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Z
> Except all the provinces and the territories AGREED TO IT.


Agreed to what? A "chaotic mess" of programs that differed from publicly funded $7/day in Quebec to an entirely privatized industry in Alberta (even government registered daycares/homes are privately run).

This wasn't the solution the study in the original article said was needed.



> Alberta got what it agreed to. They signed off as did all the others. It was started to be implemented.


We agreed to take Ottawa's money with no reporting or stings attached. How does that help improve childcare standards to the levels wanted in the original article?



> Trying to make a sow's ear from a silk purse this time??


No, I'm just calling a spade a spade. Martin's deal was bad, Harper's isn't any better and there won't be a national solution to this problem in the foreseeable future.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Funny thing that ALL the provinces and the territories signed off on such a bad deal. Will wonders never cease.

Clearly a fully national program isn't built overnight.
The remainder of the school system was not either.

Now what do we have - nothing.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Funny thing that ALL the provinces and the territories signed off on such a bad deal. Will wonders never cease.


It wasn't a bad deal for Alberta, the provincial government got around $100 million no strings attached, however, the deal would not have addressed the issues raised in this report or improved childcare standards.

Good deal for the Alberta government, bad deal for kids (and that is who this thread is supposed to be about).



> Clearly a fully national program isn't built overnight.


Obviously, and one isn't built by giving away money with no strings attached. Martin's effort is what it was, a desperate attempt to spend billions to patch something together with a minority government for purely political purposes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, have you any experience the Quebec version of "babysitting" or are you talking out of *** about a subject you have absolutely no clue about?


Really AS, how would you expect me to have any experience with things in Quebec? I have never lived there. But we did have children without the gift of free babysitters, something most families now feel entitled to. Bottom line, have kids, pay for your own services. I did.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

MacDoc wrote:


> Somehow 3-6 is different than 6-18????


Philosophically not... but the problem is that the previous plan to establish a Day Care system would copy many of the mistakes we have made with our School System. It's a system where parents have very limited input into how schools are run, limited control over where their kids attend school, and no choice to opt out unless they are rich or have the time to teach the kids themselves. In addition the monolothic nature of the system has made the teachers' union ridiculously powerful... even while the school and teachers are often not given the resources they need to properly teach.

I would be pleased to see a Daycare/School system where money followed children and parents had some power. Otherwise, parents and their children are best served with money which, although insufficient, at least gives them some choices.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> What does a US study have to do with Canada?


We have a fairly similar tax structure as the US (i.e. progressive). I am sure the numbers are reasonably similar (i.e. low income people get a lot more benefit relative to the amount of tax paid and vice versa for high income people).

The fact in our country is that high income earners pay way more in tax than they get back in benefits. In light of that, I don't think your statement about the Conrads of the world was very well thought out.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Really AS, *how would you expect me to have any experience with things in Quebec?* I have never lived there. But we did have children without the gift of free babysitters, something most families now feel entitled to. Bottom line, have kids, pay for your own services. I did.


Well SINC, you seem quite the expert - even qualifying it as "babysitting". 
It's about time you lookup what really happens at a CPE....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> We have a fairly similar tax structure as the US (i.e. progressive). I am sure the numbers are reasonably similar (i.e. low income people get a lot more benefit relative to the amount of tax paid and vice versa for high income people).
> 
> The fact in our country is that high income earners pay way more in tax than they get back in benefits. In light of that, I don't think your statement about the Conrads of the world was very well thought out.


VD, having lived and worked in both countries, I can tell you that it's not the same.

You may think that the poor have it easy - but the reality is something else. You'd be surprise how many doors are open when you have money.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I tried to look up CPE, but as usual with your stuff, it was all in French. No help to me there AS.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

We can nationalize healthcare (although it's a joke--apparently my HC card doesn't work very well in other provinces and typically pay out of pocket and get a fraction of it reimbursed) but why is it bad to nationalize daycare?

So far people it seems that those who are against it seem to dislike it because _they_ didn't/won't have it or need it.

Yet we have public education... even though some Canadians didn't have it.

We also have healthcare... even though some Canadians didn't have it.

Why not daycare? Parents (single ones included) have far less stable and consistent work hours than their parents had. They also have much higher living costs as well. The number of single parents is far more than they were 25 years ago, and yet the divide between the poor and the wealthy is getting even wider.

Yet it's met with indifference. "Buck up folks. You made your bed. You can sleep in it. When I was your age... I didn't have the luxuries you had... with your iPods... and internet..." forgetting that their own parents themselves didn't have what their children had when their were the same age.

People seem to think that having a national daycare is about giving something to people who don't deserve it, that they are a part of the "me too" generation that expects everything handed to them on a silver platter. How about those that want it because it would give them the opportunity to go to school? To get a better education? To get a better job? And perhaps get a better life for their children. Because with no national daycare plan the people who are having a great difficulty getting out of poverty will most likely have children that consider poverty to be the norm without realizing the potential. People in low-income housing tend to live in a vicious cycle that is very difficult to break free of. They get the least quality education, the least marketable skills and the lowest paying jobs.

Why should we have nationalized day care? Because it helps. Period. Isn't that the point of socialized programs? If you don't think we should, then let's get rid of it all--*everything*. Because if you believe no one deserves one program, then nobody deserves ANY of them. Get rid of it all.

Then we can let those who can support themselves pay for their needs. The rest can just die.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I tried to look up CPE, but *as usual with your stuff, it was all in French*. No help to me there AS.


Funny that, Quebec being a French province....

Here is a link to a CPE run in a CEGEP (college to you)
http://www.vaniercollege.qc.ca/childcare/internal_rules.html

Basically CPE have strict guidelines that benefit the child.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> et we have public education... We also have healthcare... Why not daycare?


Why don't we send government employees around to wipe their butts when they ring a little bell?

...And then nationalize the service.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Why not daycare? Parents (single ones included) have far less stable and consistent work hours than their parents had. They also have much higher living costs as well. The number of single parents is far more than they were 25 years ago, and yet the divide between the poor and the wealthy is getting even wider.


It is a good idea, a critical idea, but I think individual provinces are going to have to decide how they will handle it, I don't think a national program is possible in the current political environment.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Manny - I think you miss a critical aspect which is both childcare and early childhood education.

In my mind while the daycare is important especially for families starting out and immigrants struggling with new languages and multple jobs.... the education aspect for their kids are critical for society.

Many like myself took the route off fairly costly private early education and even between my kids - one of whom got much better kick off for school the success in early grades was noticeable. Now yeah might be different kids but Kenz is just now catching up in school success compared to his sister.

For kids from less advantaged family or immigrants with ESL kids the edu part would have a dsproportionate positive impact.

There are also some healthcare implications. Kids immune systems benefit from socialization early on.
Times are different now - when I grew up there were tons of kids in the neighborhood, dad worked, mum stayed home and we all a million cousins to socialize with.

Long gone for good or ill.

An argument purely on econmic reason ( daycare for workers ) I think is marginal for public funding.

The edu aspect in combination with the daycare working parents benefit....and the emphasis or peer nations have put on their programs I think are the best argument for a national effort for funding.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> We can nationalize healthcare (although it's a joke--apparently my HC card doesn't work very well in other provinces and typically pay out of pocket and get a fraction of it reimbursed) but why is it bad to nationalize daycare?
> 
> So far people it seems that those who are against it seem to dislike it because _they_ didn't/won't have it or need it.


It is bad to nationalize day care because it creates a dependent society. A society who thinks just because they have children, they are still entitled to the good things in life without question. Things like two cars, two TVs, the latest computer, a DVD player, a stereo system, a house, a university education, and a free baby sitter to boot.



MannyP Design said:


> Yet we have public education... even though some Canadians didn't have it.
> We also have healthcare... even though some Canadians didn't have it..


Contrary to your beliefs, we did indeed have public education from the time I began school in 1950, until I graduated from that free schooling in 1962.
And as for health care, I grew up in Saskatchewan and in fact was a recipient of health care in Health Region number 1 in Swift Current. See “The Roots of North America’s First Comprehensive Public Health Insurance System” here:
http://www.ep.liu.se/ej/hygiea/ra/007/paper.pdf



MannyP Design said:


> Why not daycare? Parents (single ones included) have far less stable and consistent work hours than their parents had. They also have much higher living costs as well. The number of single parents is far more than they were 25 years ago, and yet the divide between the poor and the wealthy is getting even wider.


That’s just plain bull. I explained to you once in great detail how tough it was for my wife and I in another thread and you didn’t even respond. Must have hit home then, why not now?



MannyP Design said:


> Yet it's met with indifference. "Buck up folks. You made your bed. You can sleep in it. When I was your age... I didn't have the luxuries you had... with your iPods... and internet..." forgetting that their own parents themselves didn't have what their children had when their were the same age.


Exactly, but you either don’t get it, or choose to ignore it. 



MannyP Design said:


> People seem to think that having a national daycare is about giving something to people who don't deserve it, that they are a part of the "me too" generation that expects everything handed to them on a silver platter. How about those that want it because it would give them the opportunity to go to school? To get a better education? To get a better job? And perhaps get a better life for their children.


Hello? Don’t HAVE children until you can afford it. And if you can’t don’t. Saves the rest of us supporting you.



MannyP Design said:


> Why should we have nationalized day care? Because it helps. Period. Isn't that the point of socialized programs? If you don't think we should, then let's get rid of it all--*everything*. Because if you believe no one deserves one program, then nobody deserves ANY of them. Get rid of it all.


That is just plain bizarre. Doesn’t show a lot of maturity, nor well thought out for your own children's benefit.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Why don't we send government employees around to wipe their butts when they ring a little bell?
> 
> ...And then nationalize the service.


Meh, they do it already... sans bell. Some Federal departments subsidize day-cares for public servants. The daycare my son goes to is paid for, in part, by the Federal government.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> It is bad to nationalize day care because it creates a dependent society. A society who thinks just because they have children, they are still entitled to the good things in life without question. Things like two cars, two TVs, the latest computer, a DVD player, a stereo system, a house, a university education, and a free baby sitter to boot.


Nationalized healthcare also creates dependent society. It creates a burden by allowing those who are too sick to contribute or otherwise help themselves.

Two cars are a necessity in a lot of households. A university education is a necessity in order to be able to pay for a house... cars... TVs... stereos... etc. Those who can afford all of that generally don't need nationalized daycare. Where in my post did I say they needed it? Regardless, I believe all families should be able to partake in national daycare (reasons given below.)



> Contrary to your beliefs, we did indeed have public education from the time I began school in 1950, until I graduated from that free schooling in 1962.


I wasn't referring to you, or your generation. I was referring to what you might consider _your_ parents and/or grandparents. There were a lot of people who couldn't go to school because it a) wasn't available; b) an option because they needed to contribute to the household; c) parents couldn't afford to clothe their children (outside of rags, that is) or purchase supplies.



> That’s just plain bull. I explained to you once in great detail how tough it was for my wife and I in another thread and you didn’t even respond. Must have hit home then, why not now?


I did respond but whatever. Do you think that you're the only person who's ever worked late hours? I just booked over 100 hours of overtime/freelance work this month. You don't see me posting it on the web like the world owes me something or that I think other people are any less because of it.

I own a house... a car... a stereo... ipod... computers... TVs... VCRs... etc, etc. Yet my child not only gets subsidized daycare in Québec, he also goes to a daycare that is also additionally subsidized by the Federal Government that has incredible facilities and access to education that most children won't see until kindergarten (if at all). It's something I think all children should get because it has a profound effect on a child's development and education.

We pay $7 a day. Diapers, food, supplies... all covered.

How right is that? Meanwhile, some woman who works in Ottawa has to work two jobs because her husband died of cancer pays close to $1400 a month for daycare.

If people are entitled to public education... why not lower the age group to children over a year old?



> Exactly, but you either don’t get it, or choose to ignore it.


Nope. You must have glazed over my response.



> Hello? Don’t HAVE children until you can afford it. And if you can’t don’t. Saves the rest of us supporting you.


Life is not black or white. It's not just about messing around and then expecting everyone else to pick up the tab and look after your kids while you go out partying. It's not just about having kids if you can't afford it. A parent can die or become very sick and unable to support their family nor have the support of family or friends. Does that make them any less responsible? Nope. Entitled? Not any more than needing medical services.

People depend on a great deal of things--period.



> That is just plain bizarre. Doesn’t show a lot of maturity, nor well thought for your own children's benefit.


It makes a valid point. Sorry if it was too obtuse for you to understand.

What people don't seem to understand is that daycare is not baby-sitting; believe it or not a lot of daycare providers hold university degrees (child technicians as some jokingly refer to themselves as) and give the children a daily routine that ensures their developmental necessities are met with respects to activities, exercise, education, etc.

What better way to ensure future Canadians are ready to take on the responsibilities of what life has to offer? It gives us a chance to drive home the very ideas of discipline, respect, and a strong ethic at a very young age when they are most eager to learn and absorb concepts.

The sad fact is a lot of today's parents don't see enough of their children because they spend too much time at work either working two jobs or expectations placed on them by their workplace. Some parents adjust by working from home, or quit their job to take care of their children but not everyone has that as an option.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> The sad fact is a lot of today's parents don't see enough of their children because they spend too much time at work either working two jobs or expectations placed on them by their workplace. Some parents adjust by working from home, or quit their job to take care of their children but not everyone has that as an option.


The sad fact is that they want to have children they can't afford WHILE maintaining a rather consumer-centric lifestyle. Folks, you're not doing us any favours by reproducing. It's a burden on the environment and it really isn't important to me whether someone replicates a particular strand of DNA. It isn't a duty to society either--that's a remnant of having children to become future soldiers.

Too easy to whelp, then talk tearfully about the beauty of making sure these kids get off on the right foot with someone else's cash.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good post Manny :clap:

••

MF you could take exactly the same attitude to education in general.
The premise of education for all from primary through high school not as a choice is embedded in this society.
This is a much needed extension of that same premise and Canada is behind our peers in implementing it.

It's also a rational response to educational problems that do exist in the primary system because this prepping is not universally available.

Not all parents will opt for the public system just as we don't always opt for public schooling.
At the same time we ALL pay for public edu and some of us exercise our choices on top of that.

We as a society DON'T spend money on ECC and then try and tackle poverty cycles post education. Wrong headed bigtime.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Macfury said:


> The sad fact is that they want to have children they can't afford WHILE maintaining a rather consumer-centric lifestyle. Folks, you're not doing us any favours by reproducing. It's a burden on the environment and it really isn't important to me whether someone replicates a particular strand of DNA. It isn't a duty to society either--that's a remnant of having children to become future soldiers.
> 
> Too easy to whelp, then talk tearfully about the beauty of making sure these kids get off on the right foot with someone else's cash.


I think we also need to consider the many women (whether married or not) in this country who find themselves with an unplanned pregancy and what we expect them to do about it:



> 4. In recent decades, the absolute number of reported therapeutic abortions in Canada has increased. The abortion rate (number of abortions per live births) has remained relatively constant in the last decade. *Of the persons seeking abortion, 68% cite economic pressure as a primary reason *(Family Planning Perspective, July, 1989). Our society does not provide adequate child care resources for the "working poor". Men are not always held responsible for the children they father. Until these systemic problems are dealt with, people will continue to decide that abortion is the least difficult of disturbing options. The economic system will need to be changed so as to encourage and support the choice not to abort.


http://www.elcic-lopp.ca/policies_400.shtml

I've seen numbers as high as the above mentioned 68% and as low as 21% when it comes to economic pressures being the primary reason a woman has an abortion.

If we could bolster the maternity leave program so that it benefited single mothers and poor families as much as it benefits my middle-class family and had each province implement $7/day childcare, think of the impact we could have on the abortion numbers in this country.

If we do nothing and leave these people to fall into the, hard to escape from, poverty hole, how can we blame them for making a different choice?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good points Z.

The entire situation with the poor disadvantaged and just plain unlucky and yeah even the stupid.....begs for at least some well structured safe haven for the kids that result.

It's the only hope of breaking the cycle and Canada needs well educated stable citizens.
Public education is also a common bond between cultures and much occurs in the 3-6 age range.

In my mind - I'd pay more for post secondary for my kids to make early edu available universally if I had a choice between the two.

I simply think it's smart trade off financially and in societal benefit.

Canada does pretty well on an international scale for education....this is a glaring exception.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The three to six age range is not one that should include formal education of any kind. Rather it is the formative years where children should be bonding with their parents, their siblings and other children they encounter in their daily lives. Let kids be kids until the age of six, then introduce "away from the home" influences that will further shape their development.

Until there is a new focus on an old standard called family, the system will continue to be flawed.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> The three to six age range is not one that should include formal education of any kind. Rather it is the formative years where children should be bonding with their parents


Except Dad, right? 'Cause its perfectly okay and expected for Dad to be working.

Actually, I'll give you more credit than that... let's assume you don't care which parent stays home, and takes 6 years off their career development for each child the couple has. But you do have to agree that the traditional system you're advocating essentially prohibits both parents from pursuing professional careers, don't you? If one parent wants to give up their career options in order to spend the time with their children, good on 'em. I don't think you can beat a full-time stay-at-home parent in most cases. But realistically, that's not an option for most couples, and it isn't even desirable for some people (one of my scientific mentors often jokes that she'd probably have drowned her kids if she'd had to take care of them herself... the fact that she could foist them off on hired care-givers and get back to the lab was a blessing for all concerned).

The fact is that in modern society most families consist of two working parents, and the availability of quality day-care is of great importance. It's of even more importance to the single parent families. The only people who don't benefit directly from readily-available, high-quality, low-cost day care are people without children, and those wealthy enough to be able to afford for one parent to stay home or to hire private care-givers. And even these latter groups benefit indirectly from the improvements to society socialized daycare gives rise to.



> Until there is a new focus on an old standard called family, the system will continue to be flawed.


All systems are flawed, SINC. But focusing on 21st century families is a good idea, and 21st century families need access to good day care.

Cheers.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That good ol neocon gut feelin' again eh. Mom in the kitchen dad off to work .
Why how 50s.










Different world and study after study has shown the benefits to kids and society.
Of course Sinc is right and every other G8 nation has no idea what they are talking about spending all that money on early education. 

Geez keep the little woman home....eh.

••

and 21st century kids deserve access to the kick off benefits early education brings.



> The Abecedarian Intervention
> 
> The Abecedarian project was a carefully controlled scientific study of the potential benefits of early childhood education for poor children.
> 
> ...


http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/

Not only kids benefit but parents as well.

We could have kept kids home - we put them in preschool for all those same reasons.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: If a family finds themselves incapable of imparting these simple benefits to their children, I suggest they lay off having kids until they get their heads screwed on straight.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> If one parent wants to give up their career options in order to spend the time with their children, good on 'em. I don't think you can beat a full-time stay-at-home parent in most cases.


That is my point exactly. You want children, accept the responsibility that comes with them, and take that most important six years and make the most of it. It took extreme sacrifice for us to achieve this, and I might add my wife's career resumed without much effect.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Or they could work shift work. Imagine that, two working parents, and one is always free to be with the children. But no one wants to make a sacrifice when they have children.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

My experiences are obviously purely anecdotal, but I know of three families who have elected to have one parent stay at home with the kids (two mom's and one dad) due to the lack of affordable, high-quality child care (all three of these families are in Edmonton, BTW). All three of these parents are university-educated (one with a graduate degree) and all three of these stay-at-home parents are frustrated with the fact that they have had to sacrifice their professional careers because they couldn't find adequate child-care opportunities. Obviously these families are paying an enormous opportunity-cost, in terms of lost earning potential from the stay-at-home parent, but perhaps less obvious is the cost to society of early-to-mid-career professionals dropping out of the workforce to look after their children. On the positive side, all of these parents and their children are benefitting from their time together...although one of the mothers has become rather desperate for opportunities to get out of the house and away from her kids.

Back in the 'good ole days' extended families used to live near by, and grandparents, aunts/uncles or just trusted neighbors all participated in child care. That was definitely a good thing in most cases. But it no longer describes the situation of most modern families. Furthermore, because of globalization, most families can no longer manage on a single income, making it necessary for both parents to work. Day care is therefore a necessity of modern life.

In a perfect world, I suspect that most parents would be happy to take a 5-year sabbatical from their jobs to raise a child (I know I would), but it just isn't an option for most of us. Given that economic and social forces _require_ that we put our children in day care, the least society can do is invest modestly in the system such that our children are well cared for and exposed to valuable learning and socialization experiences.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> That is my point exactly. You want children, accept the responsibility that comes with them, and take that most important six years and make the most of it. It took extreme sacrifice for us to achieve this, and I might add my wife's career resumed without much effect.


Okay, I'll give you credit for being consistent. And I'll even go so far as to say that I wish more people would take your point of view on this issue, and consequently not have children (but that's because I'd like to see a massive decrease in population).

However, realistically, you can't expect most people to accept that they have to take six years off work to have a child. And Jumbo, shift work is not an option in many jobs.

Let me make it clear that I fully support anyone who _wants_ to stay home with their kids, I'm just saying it isn't an option for many, and consequently we need better day care options.

Cheers


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

bryanc said:


> the least society can do is invest modestly in the system such that our children are well cared for and exposed to valuable learning and socialization experiences.


I believe the Conservitive gov't introduced a modest investment last year.

All these University degrees yet none can figure out their finances, or is it that they don't want to make a lifestyle change, i.e. no internet or cable or god forbid, no cell phone.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

bryanc said:


> And Jumbo, shift work is not an option in many jobs.


What a cop out, SACRIFICE!!!! Change jobs for crying out load, if you need two incomes bad enough do what you have to do, the tax payers shouldn't have to bail you out because you are unwilling to change your lifestyle.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Given that economic and social forces _require_ that we put our children in day care, the least society can do is invest modestly in the system such that our children are well cared for and exposed to valuable learning and socialization experiences.


Given that having children is a personal choice and not a necessity by any standards, the whole comparison is a canard.

If I choose to buy more food than my refrigerator can hold, I will need to find some way to refrigerate the rest of it. If I buy a car that consumes more gas than I can afford, I will have to do something about it. If I have a child KNOWING I will have to rely on charity (sorry, subsidized day care) to take care of it...then waxing over how I really would have preferred to stay home, but, you know, economic necessity, blah blah--loses all of its meaning.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> The three to six age range is not one that should include formal education of any kind. Rather it is the formative years where children should be bonding with their parents, their siblings and other children they encounter in their daily lives. Let kids be kids until the age of six, then introduce "away from the home" influences that will further shape their development.


You're absolutely right. Ideally, children should be raised by their parents and spend time with them and their siblings... but the way society has evolved today it is impractical and virtually impossible.

I would love to have my son raised directly by myself, my wife and/or his grandparents without needing to send him to daycare. Unfortunately it's a fact of life--my parents needed to do it as do we.



> Until there is a new focus on an old standard called family, the system will continue to be flawed.


The old family system is dead and will never return. It's an unfortunate fact. Our climate just won't allow for people to live the old ways... Jobs are relocated to more centric regions (or worse--overseas) in order to save money where housing costs are insanely high and commuting eats away our personal time but the taxes are higher than ever, yet we're supposedly at a surplus. Top it off today's youth need to pack up and head west in order to find gainful employment leaving the very core of a supportive family structure behind.

The odds are stacked against the traditional family way and I really don't see a chance "the system" will change any time soon.

I'm very much a believer in the idea that it takes a village to raise a child. Society is getting into too much of an isolated way of life. Perhaps we need to consider becoming a little more outward in our way of thinking?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> The old family system is dead and will never return. I


Cop-out. Today's social system is just a blip on history.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Back in the 'good ole days' extended families used to live near by, and grandparents, aunts/uncles or just trusted neighbors all participated in child care. That was definitely a good thing in most cases. But it no longer describes the situation of most modern families.


For the record, from the time our first child was a year old, we lived in Grande Prairie, Alberta, then Wallacburg, Ontario, then Kenora, Ontario, then Grande Prairie again, and finally Fort McMurray. All of these places were in excess of 1200 to 3,000 km from our parents who lived in southern Saskatchewan so there was no extended family to rely on. Further, this was not the 50's as MacDoc would have you believe, it was 1970 through 1987.

Each move resulted in my wife losing the part time position she had obtained in those communities, but each time she would find similar employment in the new community. I simply don't buy the "can't be done today" bulsh!t. It can and many still do it.

I suggest parent's "wants" outstrip the "needs" of their children far to often, and therein lies the problem with a subsidized baby sitting service.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> All these University degrees yet none can figure out their finances, or is it that they don't want to make a lifestyle change, i.e. no internet or cable or god forbid, no cell phone.


Are you always so judgmental, or are you just having a bad day?

One of these families is quite wealthy. They just can't find good day care options so the mother has been forced to put her career on hold. My point is not that the family is so disadvantaged by this, but rather that society looses the valuable skills of a highly trained individual. Given the competitive and rapidly changing nature of her field, it is unlikely that she will re-enter the workforce when her child starts school.

Another of the examples I used are an academic couple, who don't have a TV, let alone cable, and I don't think they have a cell phone either. Lack of day care is damaging one of their careers, probably irreparably (try getting a job in science after not publishing any research for a few years).

In my third example, the husband was a school teacher and he's now staying at home with their kids. They own their own house, and they don't have a TV either (I think they probably have a cell phone, but I'm sure they manage to pay their bills). The point here is that society is missing out on the skills of a teacher who instructed 30 kids at a time, so that he can look after two kids. Good deal?

Society has invested a lot in the specialized educations of each of these individuals (especially the second), and each of these investments is likely to be lost due to the fact that they were forced by lack of day care to choose between their careers and having a family. If you force people to make this choice, many of them will choose to abandon their careers, much to the detriment of society. Provide attractive day care options, and these highly trained individuals may still take 6-months or a year off, but they'll return to the workforce.

And speaking as someone who has three university degrees, figuring out your finances is not easy when you don't get paid enough to buy groceries.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

JumboJones said:


> What a cop out, SACRIFICE!!!! Change jobs for crying out load, if you need two incomes bad enough do what you have to do, the tax payers shouldn't have to bail you out because you are unwilling to change your lifestyle.


You still ignore the fact that it's not _just_ about parents who can't afford to support their child. You're focusing on one particular scenario that isn't necessarily accurate of the entire picture.

Do you consider healthcare a bailout? Why are a lot of people opposing private healthcare? Should it not be a choice? If someone can afford it, why don't we allow them to pay for required services?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Macfury said:


> Cop-out. Today's social system is just a blip on history.


Bull****. A cop-out would be believing in universal healthcare and public education, but not daycare all in the name of some idiotic scenario that paints all parents with the same brush.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Do you consider healthcare a bailout?


 It is.



MannyP Design said:


> Why are a lot of people opposing private healthcare?


Because they fear that someone will be able to get better health care then they do--even if their level of care remains stable.



MannyP Design said:


> If someone can afford it, why don't we allow them to pay for required services?


An excellent question. We should.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

So you believe those who can't afford healthcare should be left to die?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Are you always so judgmental, or are you just having a bad day?


Sorry bryanc, I was talking in general, not specific to your examples, no offence intended.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> What a cop out, SACRIFICE!!!! Change jobs for crying out load, if you need two incomes bad enough do what you have to do, the tax payers shouldn't have to bail you out because you are unwilling to change your lifestyle.


I guess you're not familiar with careers that require decades of specialized training.

Going to school for 20+ years _is_ a sacrifice. What you're suggesting is that people pursuing such careers should also sacrifice the opportunity to have a family.

And what do you suggest single parent families sacrifice? Should single mothers change jobs.... maybe something with 2 minute shifts?

And, as I've mentioned, while I'm all for reduced population, I'm not very comfortable with the eugenic overtones of "if you can't afford to stay home for half a dozen years, you can't afford to have children."

Cheers


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> So you believe those who can't afford healthcare should be left to die?


I'm sorry healthcare and daycare don't even compare, for exactly this point.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Sorry bryanc, I was talking in general, not specific to your examples, no offence intended.


No problem... I'm a little sensitive about the "if you're so damn smart, why can't you manage your finances better" criticism, having spent 10 years in graduate school (followed by 6 years as a postdoctoral researcher) making less than the guy who mops the floor in 7-11.

Cheers


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

bryanc said:


> I guess you're not familiar with careers that require decades of specialized training.


Sure but are you saying you wouldn't take a temporary position until your child is in JK? If you really need the cash from a 2 incomes, you should be able to comprimise. Or is being a night cleaner below someone who has a University Degree?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Going to school for 20+ years _is_ a sacrifice. What you're suggesting is that people pursuing such careers should also sacrifice the opportunity to have a family.


These are all personal choices. If you want the job that requires 20 years of training, go for it. It isn't a "sacrifice"--it's just a decision to invest in that career based on perceived rewards, personal or financial. Others "sacrifice" five years. Big deal. 

If you intend to devote so much time to your career that you can't properly look after children, I think not having them is a great choice.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

bryanc said:


> No problem... I'm a little sensitive about the "if you're so damn smart, why can't you manage your finances better" criticism, having spent 10 years in graduate school (followed by 6 years as a postdoctoral researcher) making less than the guy who mops the floor in 7-11.
> 
> Cheers


Hey we're all in that boat, I came out of 6 years of design school with a debt of $40K and my starting job was $25K a year.

And there is nothing wrong with a custodian making more than you, they make the world go 'round. I'm sure they're accepting applications if you're interested in making more money. I worked as a dish washer for 6 years while going through University, it's a job that needs to get done, and they should get paid well for doing it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> So you believe those who can't afford healthcare should be left to die?


Such a ridiculous comparison hardly deserves a response, but for the record, no one has died recently from staying home with their children.

Health care is not even in the same league as a free baby sitting service. And speaking of leagues, when a pro hockey, or any other pro sport player, tears a ligament in his knee, does he wait in line for the system for an MRI and repair? Hell no. He jumps the cure, gets fixed and is back playing before an average patient's normal wait time is half way through.

So where is this "equality" in health care you speak of?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> And there is nothing wrong with a custodian making more than you, they make the world go 'round. I'm sure they're accepting applications if you're interested in making more money.


That wasn't my point, but I can understand how you might've got that impression... bad comparison on my part.

What I'm getting at is that some careers require decades of education, extremely long hours (I worked about 70 h/week as a grad student... second jobs are not an option for most), and don't pay very well. Yes, MF, these are personal choices, and without day care, even fewer people will be willing to make these sacrifices. Indeed, I can't think of any professional group with fewer children, or who have what few children they have so late in their lives as research scientists. This is generally accepted as one of the primary reasons there remains a significant gender gap in my field. Availability of *quality* day care would certainly help alleviate this problem.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Yes, MF, these are personal choices, and without day care, even fewer people will be willing to make these sacrifices.


OK, then, let them be unwilling to make those sacrifices. The economy will adjust.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Such a ridiculous comparison hardly deserves a response, but for the record, no one has died recently from staying home with their children.
> 
> Health care is not even in the same league as a free baby sitting service. And speaking of leagues, when a pro hockey, or any other pro sport player, tears a ligament in his knee, does he wait in line for the system for an MRI and repair? Hell no. He jumps the cure, gets fixed and is back playing before an average patient's normal wait time is half way through.
> 
> So where is this "equality" in health care you speak of?


Speaking of ridiculous comparisions: Most pros have private doctors and/or team physicians at the ready. Rarely do the ever enter a public hospital and chances are they don't use a single dime from taxpayers' dollars. Oddly enough the pro athletes are the very reason why some regions will have an MRI at the ready 24/7 with a technician. Some hospitals can't even afford to keep them there full time.

But isn't that they very idea you've been talking about? [email protected] everyone else--if you can't afford it, go to hell. You should be responsible and accept the consequences of your actions or lifestyle. If you can afford an injury/baby, then why should you get free healthcare/daycare? Why should I pay for some jackass' medical bills who refuses to stop smoking, drinking or binging on fatty foods?

You're still ignoring the fact that daycare isn't the same as baby sitting. Not even close. But I won't let that deter you from your fun.

Childcare is every much a necessity as is healthcare.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> You're still ignoring the fact that daycare isn't the same as baby sitting. Not even close. But I won't let that deter you from your fun.


Nor I you, in your delusion that health care even remotely compares to baby sitting services.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Childcare is every much a necessity as is healthcare.


It becomes a necessity if parents abdicate their personal responsibilities by making other choices.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Macfury said:


> It becomes a necessity if parents abdicate their personal responsibilities by making other choices.


The same could be said with respects to one's health-style choices.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> The same could be said with respects to one's health-style choices.



Yes it could.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Nor I you, in your delusion that health care even remotely compares to baby sitting services.


Is that the best you can do? :lmao:


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It becomes a necessity if parents abdicate their personal responsibilities by making other choices.


Or if they choose not to have an abortion, which your train of thought would seem to endorse.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

zoziw said:


> Or if they choose not to have an abortion, which your train of thought would seem to endorse.


I haven't suggested abortion at all, nor am I intending to send a train of thought to that station.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I haven't suggested abortion at all, nor am I intending to send a train of thought to that station.


But that is where your train of thought will lead many women to. As I mentioned earlier, between 21% - 68% of women who make this choice do so primarily because of financial concerns but if we can offer $7/day quality childcare we might make choosing to have the child a much easier decision to make.

Currently, in Calgary, the typical daycare rate starts at $700 per month whereas a $7 per day charge would work out to around $140 per month. That drastically reduces the financial burden for women in this situation. Heck, Stephen Harper's $100 per month cheque almost covers that and the Liberal Child Tax Benefit would pick up the difference in most situations.

$7 per day would remove one of the highest costs associate with having a child for single women who are concerned about the financial impact of having a child they weren't expecting.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would invest in more birth control and sterilization techniques.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I would invest in more birth control and *sterilization techniques.*


Eugenics again, I see....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Eugenics again, I see....


Your comment suggest you have no real concept of the meaning of the term "eugenics."


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Your comment suggest you have no real concept of the meaning of the term "eugenics."


Doesn't look that way to me. Eugenics is the selective breeding of human beings. Your last comment - invest more in sterilization techniques rather than subsidize child care - can be very reasonably construed to mean that you think the poor should be sterilized. If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully.

Cheers


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

But we really should be detering this kind of action, if there is always a saftey net for people to fall on, they'll still make stupid decisions (i.e. unprotected sex). As it is teens think unprotected sex is ok because they can always get an abortion.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Fundamentally, this argument boils down to the role we believe governments should play in society. From the right, the argument is that government should stay out of child-care, presumably because the free market can do it better.

However, in this instance, it is abundantly clear that the free market has not stepped up to the plate. Despite the high demand for day care, the private sector shows little interest in providing adequate service.

In contrast, from the left the argument is that quality early childhood education has a demonstrable beneficial effect on human development, and frees parents to better participate in society. It is therefore a valuable investment in society that benefits everyone. Like education, health care, environmental protection, and labour protection, child care is something that the profit incentive does not address well, and is better served by a socialized model.

If someone can tell me why I, as a Canadian taxpayer, should want to save a few tax dollars so that skilled workers I had to pay to train will stay at home looking after their children, or so that the working poor remain locked in poverty, I'd like to hear the argument.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> As it is teens think unprotected sex is ok because they can always get an abortion.


:yikes: I really have no idea where to begin with this. What color is the sky on your planet?

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Doesn't look that way to me. Eugenics is the selective breeding of human beings. Your last comment - invest more in sterilization techniques rather than subsidize child care - can be very reasonably construed to mean that you think the poor should be sterilized. If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully.


Perhaps you should be more careful with your words. Both tubal ligation and vasectomies are voluntary sterilization procedures. It's your choice to politicize them with highly charged rhetoric about enforced sterilization, selective breeding and the poor.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

bryanc said:


> so that skilled workers I had to pay to train will stay at home looking after their children


If this is what you are coming the table with then we should get rid of paid leave too, because god forbid you waste your time and money. 

At any given time any one of your employees can leave for up to a year and you'll still need to bring someone else in.


----------



## Ravenclaw (Feb 18, 2007)

I'm curious. Can anyone tell me how much childcare workers in Quebec make on this univeral system?

Also, are parents obligated to enrol their children daily for a minimum number of hours?

Haven't studies in the past shown that after a certain number of hours in group care the benefits for the very young child begin to decline?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Fundamentally, this argument boils down to the role we believe governments should play in society. From the right, the argument is that government should stay out of child-care, presumably because the free market can do it better.
> 
> However, in this instance, it is abundantly clear that the free market has not stepped up to the plate.



You are fundamentally wrong. If you see "the market" as a mechanism to provide you with all of your "needs" at a price you like you are doomed to be disappointed. An analogy: "Since the market hasn't stepped up to the plate to provide me with a home of my own, it's time for government to intervene."


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

bryanc said:


> :yikes: I really have no idea where to begin with this. What color is the sky on your planet?
> 
> Cheers


I guess your quite removed from the thoughts of teens these days, please have a stop by Hamilton anytime you want to see this in action.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> An analogy: "Since the market hasn't stepped up to the plate to provide me with a home of my own, it's time for government to intervene."


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Both tubal ligation and vasectomies are voluntary sterilization procedures. It's your choice to politicize them with highly charged rhetoric about enforced sterilization, selective breeding and the poor.


Actually, it wasn't me that made that connection, I was simply pointing out that, given the way you presented it, the connection was a reasonable inference. If that wasn't your intention, then what relevance do these medical procedures have in the discussion at hand?



> If you see "the market" as a mechanism to provide you with all of your "needs" at a price you like you are doomed to be disappointed.


That is not how I see the market. What the market does, it does very well, and in the majority of cases very little, if any government manipulation of the free market is necessary. However in some cases, and I argue that child-care is one of them, the free market doesn't seem to be working. The evidence for this is abundantly clear: almost every parent I know is dissatisfied with their child-care options. However, business has, correctly in my opinion, recognized that there is little opportunity for profit here (not to mention enormous exposure to liability), and has therefore not satisfied this demand. I can think of few more obvious examples of an exception to the rule that the market will efficiently satisfy societies demands.

Cheers.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> I guess your quite removed from the thoughts of teens these days, please have a stop by Hamilton anytime you want to see this in action.


I don't doubt that there are individual cases that fit your argument, but I dispute the implication that adolescent sexual activity is significantly impacted by the existence of abortions.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> The evidence for this is abundantly clear: almost every parent I know is dissatisfied with their child-care options. However, business has, correctly in my opinion, recognized that there is little opportunity for profit here (not to mention enormous exposure to liability), and has therefore not satisfied this demand. I can think of few more obvious examples of an exception to the rule that the market will efficiently satisfy societies demands.
> 
> Cheers.


You don't seem to understand the importance of the price part and how it balances supply and demand. The market does not "satisfy society's demands" except at a price that balances the reality of supply (also allowing for timelines and never being in equilibrium). So your "evidence" is not evidence at all. Disatisfaction (anecdotal at that), as you've described it, is not evidence. How much more will they pay to be satisfied?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I would invest in more birth control and sterilization techniques.


We already invest in both birth control education and providing contraception to people and still have around 100,000 abortions a year. Given the number of people who use birth control, even the statistically small failure rate still adds up to a significant number.

I'm not sure what you mean by sterilization, most women who find themselves with unexpected pregnancies are in their mid-twenties or younger. When should we start sterilizing them and what criteria should we use?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> If this is what you are coming the table with then we should get rid of paid leave too, because god forbid you waste your time and money.


 This is exactly why we have paid leave... to retain skilled workers. Child care serves exactly the same purpose (plus others). How do you get the idea that my support for child care would suggest an opposition t paid leave?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> If that wasn't your intention, then what relevance do these medical procedures have in the discussion at hand?


They demonstrate that relatively low cost procedures chosen by an individual can eliminate them entering the "needy" state of being unable to provide for their children without assistance.



bryanc said:


> ..the free market doesn't seem to be working. The evidence for this is abundantly clear: almost every parent I know is dissatisfied with their child-care options. However, business has, correctly in my opinion, recognized that there is little opportunity for profit here (not to mention enormous exposureto liability), and has therefore not satisfied this demand. I can think of few more obvious examples of an exception to the rule that the market will efficiently satisfy societies demands.


The market recognizes that parents don't spend much money on child care. Because they are having more children than they can afford, the amount they have to spend on child care diminishes even more. When I am dissatisfied with the food I eat at a fast food restaurant, I earn enough money to eat at a better place.

The free market has not met your demand because the cost of paying someone to care for more children than is affordable to an individual of certain means--is unaffordable. The market isn't failing--it's the decision-making process of the parents who want more services than their income allows.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Ravenclaw said:


> I'm curious. Can anyone tell me how much childcare workers in Quebec make on this univeral system?
> 
> *Also, are parents obligated to enrol their children daily for a minimum number of hours?
> *
> Haven't studies in the past shown that after a certain number of hours in group care the benefits for the very young child begin to decline?


I believe children must be enrolled for a minimum of 4 hours per day (if I recall correctly) but most will make accommodations if need be--in our case we paid for a spot until our son was old enough.

But I think studies will show pretty much anything in decline after a certain amount of hours (look at workplace productivity, LOL.)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> You don't seem to understand the importance of the price part and how it balances supply and demand. The market does not "satisfy society's demands" except at a price that balances the reality of supply (also allowing for timelines and never being in equilibrium). So your "evidence" is not evidence at all. Disatisfaction (anecdotal at that), as you've described it, is not evidence. How much more will they pay to be satisfied?


I agree that my anecdotal experience is not evidence, but my experience certainly seems consistent with the reported popularity of government-subsidized day care.

The problem here is two fold: apart from the very wealthy (who can hire professional care-givers) many parents can't find adequate child care due to lack of availability. Presumably supply and demand should correct this, however, as I've already mentioned, the profitability of providing day care is arguable, and the potential for liability is very high. 

If we let the free market handle this, the cost of day care will necessarily rise until the profitability becomes sufficient to attract private investment. If this cost rises, then the wages parents must earn to pay these increasing prices must also rise. Even at the current prices, many professionals are already choosing to abandon their work in favor of staying home with their children, because day care costs make their net earning potential low enough that the opportunity cost becomes negligible.

The second part of the problem is the variable and often very low standard of care available in private day-care facilities. Even if they can find places for their kids, many parents will choose to stay home with their kids if they can't find *high quality* day-care. The profit model will tend to find the lowest common denominator with respect to quality of care, because, once a child has been enrolled in the program, all extra costs of looking after that child are lost profit.

The idea I'm promoting is not that we should build big government institutions to raise babies away from their parents, but that anything society can reasonably do to provide parents with the opportunity to work, go to school, or otherwise employ their skills while their children are getting high-quality professional care, good learning and socialization experiences, is a good investment. Furthermore, such a system is not well suited to profit-based economics, so it is one of those rare examples of somewhere the government can apply it's strengths in regulating, monitoring and enforcing standards, and subsidizing costs.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Presumably supply and demand should correct this
> ......................................
> because day care costs make their net earning potential low enough that the opportunity cost becomes negligible.
> ......................................
> ...


No. It's about the price. Supply and demand still hasn't corrected the imbalance between those who want 10,000 sqft mansions and those that have them. You're making a public policy value-judgement, not a statement about the market working or not.
......................................
That's a mechanism of demand and the standard downward-sloping curve.
......................................
Depends on the market they're going for. Multiple quality levels will tend to be offered. From what are essentially private schools for 2-year olds to whatever minimum the law will allow (and some illegal operations). Then there's the "blackmarket" of local teenagers and other parents. 
......................................
I think universal child care is a good idea, but you've described why we don't have "universal-type" market child care. Why would the market produce that? The market does not provide the price you want for the service you want. It provides a price and service, but you may be at the wrong end of the demand curve (bottom end). 

Personally, I think some things are a great deal and others not. Some things I can't even buy, whether or not I think they're a good deal.

If you're referring to the general concept of externalities and such, there may be something there, although "benefits" calcs are usually grossly inflated and don't include full cost calculations. As it is, you've described a failing from a personal agent point of view, and that's not correct.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The market recognizes that parents don't spend much money on child care. Because they are having more children than they can afford, the amount they have to spend on child care diminishes even more. When I am dissatisfied with the food I eat at a fast food restaurant, I earn enough money to eat at a better place.


Of the families I know that have been unable to find adequate child care options, the parents have been choosing to stay at home to look after 1 child each (one of the families has two children, but one was already in school). Part of what makes good day care systems good is the efficient use of skills and resources. Not all of us are great at dealing with little kids... that doesn't make us bad parents. Furthermore, having a Ph.D. biochemist looking after a single two year old in her apartment, rather than a someone with a diploma in early childhood education looking after 10 two-year-olds in a well-equiped play-room is an inefficient use of resources, and a frustration for all concerned.



> The market isn't failing--it's the decision-making process of the parents who want more services than their income allows.


As I said, this isn't just about inexpensive child care, it's about quality child care. But the fact is that you're partially right. The highly trained scientists who've abandoned their careers after decades of subsidized education did so because they made the choice to have a child. If you think that was a good deal for society, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Cheers


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

bryanc said:


> This is exactly why we have paid leave... to retain skilled workers. Child care serves exactly the same purpose (plus others). How do you get the idea that my support for child care would suggest an opposition t paid leave?


Either they leave for the first year of their childs birth or the first 5 years, either way you'll need to find a replacement and pay to train them. So ideally for you not to waste your money in training they can't leave for any amount of time.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> The idea I'm promoting is not that we should build big government institutions to raise babies away from their parents, but that anything society can reasonably do to provide parents with the opportunity to work, go to school, or otherwise employ their skills while their children are getting high-quality professional care, good learning and socialization experiences, is a good investment. Furthermore, such a system is not well suited to profit-based economics, so it is one of those rare examples of somewhere the government can apply it's strengths in regulating, monitoring and enforcing standards, and subsidizing costs.


I have yet to meet a parent who would not be delighted by such an articulate summary of what _should_ and _could_ be. 
:clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> The highly trained scientists who've abandoned their careers after decades of subsidized education did so because they made the choice to have a child. If you think that was a good deal for society, we'll have to agree to disagree.


Wow, you seem to be basing this purely on maximising GDP, and not as a social welfare tool. 

I don't think our social policy should be designed to help the priveleged class (yes, highly trained scientists are statistically part of that, no more whining from you  ); but that due to the multiple reasons (economic being a good one), universal (non-monopoly) child care is a good idea.

I think there are economic benefits (probably quite high if means-tested, otherwise, meh) but that there's also a welfare imperative.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Furthermore, having a Ph.D. biochemist looking after a single two year old in her apartment, rather than a someone with a diploma in early childhood education looking after 10 two-year-olds in a well-equiped play-room is an inefficient use of resources, and a frustration for all concerned.


Having children was a poor use of this family's limited resources.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Wow, you seem to be basing this purely on a basis of maximising GDP, and not as a social welfare tool.


Well, not purely, but I have no doubt that a good national day care system would improve our GDP. 



> I don't think our social policy should be designed to help the priveleged class (yes, highly trained scientists are statistically part of that, no more whining from you  )


But I *like* whining... seriously, though... the only reason for that is that the statistics include previous generations.



> I think there are economic benefits (probably quite high if means-tested, otherwise, meh) but that there's also a welfare imperative.


I think you're right. A national child care system is a good idea from both an economic and a social standpoint. But I don't think we're going to get one from the Conservatives.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Having children was a poor use of this family's limited resources.


I see. Only wealthy people who are skilled with pre-schoolers should have children. Got it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Having children was a poor use of this family's limited resources.


How very Con of you - always leaving out the "human" factor - unless you want to justify one of your needs....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Well, not purely, but I have no doubt that a good national day care system would improve our GDP.
> .................................
> But I *like* whining... seriously, though... the only reason for that is that the statistics include previous generations.
> .................................
> But I don't think we're going to get one from the Conservatives.


Short-term, maybe because it puts some child care on the books. Overall, probably not (including economic cost of taxation) because the current price does much of that balancing act. 

Medium and longer-term there's more potential based on childhood performance and continuiity of skills development in the labour market. On the former, beware of "anything goes" estimates such as when they do economic cost estimates of people watching Olympic hockey. On the latter, I'm not up-to-date on labour market hysteresis (engineering term?) by which there's a long-term impact from being out of work temporarily.
.................................
Simply by going to university, you're statistically in a privileged class. Add in grad school and go from there. That you chose a field or career that doesn't pay well enough for child care is, well, your problem and not an indication of less privilege. I don't mean to be mean, but that's an important choice in university.
.................................
Agreed.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

bryanc said:


> I see. Only wealthy people who are skilled with pre-schoolers should have children. Got it.


Eugenics indeed....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I see. Only wealthy people who are skilled with pre-schoolers should have children. Got it.


A poor conclusion for a research scientist. What you're telling me is that--knowing the type of situation having children might create, knowing the potential earning power of each partner and what they might have to give up by paying someone to take care of the child--this couple chose to have one anyway, then hoped that others might bail them out.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Is that the best you can do? :lmao:


Given that in your rosy little world child care (state baby sitting) is equated with health care, I'm afraid it is. Let me know when the next parent dies because of no subsidized baby sitting services and I'll change my mind when that happens.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Either they leave for the first year of their childs birth or the first 5 years, either way you'll need to find a replacement and pay to train them. So ideally for you not to waste your money in training they can't leave for any amount of time.


Okay, I understand your argument. But it seems simplistic to me. Let's use a hypothetical example:

Sally and Bob are a couple, early in their careers. He's just landed his first job as a graphic designer, which pays $26k/year, but he's optimistic that if he works hard for the next few years, and develops a reputation, he'll start earning more and get some job security as well. Sally is a computer programmer with a diploma in IT from a community college. She makes $35k/year. Between the two of them, they can make ends meet and are starting to save for a house, and they'd like to have a child. 

Sally's can get a year of Maternity leave and will be able to get her job back without any loss of seniority or pension, but they'll need day-care for their child when Sally goes back to work. Bob can adjust his schedule so that the baby will only have to be in day care for 4-hours a day.

Because of the national child care program, there are spaces in high quality day care programs in Sally and Bob's neighborhood, and everybody lives happily ever after. The community (that's you and me and the rest of the tax payers of Canada) all pitch in a few cents, and the baby gets good care (not to mention good bonding time with parents that aren't financially stressed) and grows up to be a productive member of society. Sally and Bob keep their productive and rewarding jobs, pay their taxes, and everyone else gets the same benefits.

Contrast that with: because there are no day care options available, either Sally or Bob will have to put their careers on hold until their child is old enough to go to school, or they have to put off having children until they're in their mid-40s and can afford to hire a nanny (by which time they'll also probably want to hire a surrogate mother and pay for fertility treatments). If either of them quit their jobs, they won't have enough money to buy a house, and will probably start accumulating debts. And if either of them quit, by the time they're ready to re-enter the workforce in 6 or 7 years, their skills and experience will be obsolete and they'll be forced to start from scratch.

The value of the national day care system is pretty obvious to me.

And, I should point out, for the record, my son is 6 now, and we're not planning on having any more kids. While I would certainly have appreciated having the option when my son was younger, any national day care service isn't going to benefit me directly in any way. It just seems like an obviously good idea to me.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> What you're telling me is that--knowing the type of situation having children might create, knowing the potential earning power of each partner and what they might have to give up by paying someone to take care of the child--this couple chose to have one anyway, then hoped that others might bail them out.


The calculation was: risk loosing a (low paying) career in science, or risk not having a family. They chose to have a child and hope they'd be able to get into one of the very few day care spaces available. They're still trying to get into a space and her career may not be irretrievably damaged (it's only been 3 years). But more (and/or better) day care spaces would make this an unnecessary sacrifice. And given all the talk about how important it is to attract women into the sciences, you'd think this long-standing and well-understood barrier to women in the sciences would be dealt with. No one is asking for 'bail-outs'.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sally and Bob are a couple, early in their careers. He's just landed his first job as a graphic designer, which pays $26k/year, but he's optimistic that if he works hard for the next few years, and develops a reputation, he'll start earning more and get some job security as well. Sally is a computer programmer with a diploma in IT from a community college. She makes $35k/year. Between the two of them, they can make ends meet and are starting to save for a house, and they'd like to have a child. *Realizing they can't afford one, Sally and Bob keep their productive and rewarding jobs, pay their taxes, and everyone else gets the same benefits.*


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Given that in your rosy little world child care (state baby sitting) is equated with health care, I'm afraid it is. Let me know when the next parent dies because of no subsidized baby sitting services and I'll change my mind when that happens.


Always ready to make an argument for something that affects you personally...
Sorry SINC, it's not baby sitting.... and if you think it is, then you are off track with your arguments...

Early education is a form of prevention in some cases.
Maybe we should ask doctors not to treat smokers and fat people when they have health problems because they should of known better....


----------



## Ravenclaw (Feb 18, 2007)

"Ten two year olds together with great play equipment" doesn't necessarily constitute better child care for the Biochemist's child. 

Granted, this person probably should be working because she doesn't sound like she can do her best right now with regards to the child. There are many activities which cost next to nothing that this mom and child could take part in: swimming, library, jungle-gym, even inexpensive preschool later, at three years old. 

I'm sure with her training, in a few years she'll be welcomed back into the science community in some capacity, though she may not be at the level she was at before she became a mother. 

When you have children, sacrifices are inevitable. As children become older the demands can become greater; soon families realize that someone/parent needs to be home at 3:00 when the kids get out of school. Most kids grow to dislike after-school care and begin to take up after-school activities which require a parent's presence (i.e. drive)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Maybe we should ask doctors not to treat smokers and fat people when they have health problems because they should of known better....


Better yet make parents legally responsible to raise their children for the first six years of life and _then_ move on to a career. Either that or don't have children. That too is prevention. Prevention of the invasion of taxpayers' wallets.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> That you chose a field or career that doesn't pay well enough for child care is, well, your problem and not an indication of less privilege. I don't mean to be mean, but that's an important choice in university.


Fair enough. But this brings up an important point, and one that I think is worth discussing.

There are many valuable careers that don't pay particularly well (another example of the free market not providing an ideal reflection of value). One of the things I think is great about Canada is that even though some citizens are not as economically well positioned as others, reasonable efforts are made to ensure that those who choose less well-paying careers can still enjoy a reasonable standard of living.

Life isn't necessarily all about the pursuit of money. Having enough money to get by is important, and by having a subsidized day care system we reduce the amount of money a family needs to 'get by' during that brief phase where children need 24x7 supervision. This allows people who do the valuable things that don't pay so well to enjoy one of the most fundamental aspects of living.

It's also important to note that lack of day care space doesn't seem to stop people who can't afford it from having large families. So it's not like subsidized day care is going to cause a population explosion. If anything, I'd expect it to have the opposite effect, in that it frees people to pursue educations and careers, both of which correlate with smaller family sizes.

Cheers


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> That too is prevention. Prevention of the invasion of taxpayers' wallets.


So is refusing to medically treat smokers and/or the obese.... and I'm sure you get the point (or at least I hope you do).


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Better yet make parents legally responsible to raise their children for the first six years of life and _then_ move on to a career. Either that or don't have children. That too is prevention. Prevention of the invasion of taxpayers' wallets.


Uh... parent *are* legally responsible for their children, aren't they?

But if you're suggesting that parents shouldn't embark on careers until after their kids are in school, that's an interesting idea. How would you work that into careers that require decades of education? I know several graduate students who've decided to have kids, despite the fact that they're still in school, because they're in their mid-30s and it's getting close to crunch-time biologically.

Then, of course, there's the sticky problem that many people don't find someone they want to have kids with until they're well into their careers.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> So is refusing to medically treat smokers and/or the obese.... and I'm sure you get the point (or at least I hope you do).


Oh, I get the point all right. Yes, I used the health care system once in my 60 plus years for my heart attack. I was in hospital for 7 days total and my bill would have been $14,000 (Alberta Health lets you know how much it would have cost if not for them). I paid substantially more than that in premiums over the 42 years I worked, quit smoking and my conscience is clear. 

And everyone will use the health care system during their final days if nothing else. That is a given.

But I never put one child in day care and thousands of other don't either, and I paid plenty of taxes into that too. That entitles us non-users to gripe about it. 

Like I said you simply cannot compare medical treatment with state baby sitting. It isn't even remotely similar.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Ravenclaw said:


> "Ten two year olds together with great play equipment" doesn't necessarily constitute better child care for the Biochemist's child.


My point is that not all of us are ideally suited, either by training or disposition, to deal with small children. This does not necessarily make us bad parents. But there are people who are great with children, and employing those people to help with child care while those of us with other skills do what we're good at is a win-win-win.



> I'm sure with her training, in a few years she'll be welcomed back into the science community in some capacity, though she may not be at the level she was at before she became a mother.


Possibly, but you may not be aware of how competitive and fast-moving some research fields are. However, the individual case is not really important in understanding the general principle. People have different skills and different dispositions. Despite wanting to have a child, not everyone will be ideally suited to providing care at every stage of that child's development. We don't see it as unreasonable that society should subsidize teaching some of our children calculus, so why is it unreasonable that society should subsidize teaching some of our children how to share?



> When you have children, sacrifices are inevitable.


Absolutely. But why shouldn't we reduce unnecessary sacrifices, especially when it will benefit everyone?

Cheers?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> There are many valuable careers that don't pay particularly well (another example of the free market not providing an ideal reflection of value).
> .....................................
> One of the things I think is great about Canada is that even though some citizens are not as economically well positioned as others, reasonable efforts are made to ensure that those who choose less well-paying careers can still enjoy a reasonable standard of living.
> .....................................
> ...


For most careers, "example of the free market not providing an ideal reflection of value" is what people tell themselves to make themselves think they're worth more (financially) with no evidence other than sentimentality and broader claims of some virtuous activity. 

If somebody will do your job for less at the same level of quality (broad measure), then you're overpaid, not under-valued, financially. If no one will pay you more, then you're not underpaid. If someone will but you won't take it for other reasons, then there's nothing to complain about. Have a beer, muse about what could have been, and move on.

No appeals to sentiment needed or the presumed broader virtue of your pursuit. People shouldn't, in my opinion, draw personal self worth from their pay. Nor should they kid themselves into an inflated financial worth to "society" based on an assumed undervaluing.

Without real financial values (versus faery values to "society"), we'd get 10 million theologists and philosophers who couldn't figure out what went wrong. 
.....................................
I agree in general but probably not in the specifics. 
.....................................
Exactly. We all make choices in this respect. If you had the brains and upbringing (based on statistical profile of entrants) to get into university, I have little sympathy if you're not happy with your pay. Again, not to pick on you, but I hear this way too much. I'm using the "royal" you.  

The opportunities and choices were all there, as was plenty of info on career potential (still risk involved). Everybody made their choices. Some due to which class had cuter people, others due to scheduling. Too bad. There's plenty of support to go back and do something else if you're second guessing an enjoyment-$$$ balance. 

Business school seemed horrid to you maybe? It did to me. $250k per year ain't worth that poop.
.....................................
Again, I agree in general but probably not in the specifics.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> My point is that not all of us are ideally suited, either by training or disposition, to deal with small children. This does not necessarily make us bad parents.


But possibly _unsuitable_ parents.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Because of the national child care program, there are spaces in high quality day care programs in Sally and Bob's neighborhood, and everybody lives happily ever after. The community (that's you and me and the rest of the tax payers of Canada) all pitch in a few cents, and the baby gets good care (not to mention good bonding time with parents that aren't financially stressed) and grows up to be a productive member of society. Sally and Bob keep their productive and rewarding jobs, pay their taxes, and everyone else gets the same benefits.


Quite the rosey outlook you have here, too bad our healthcare system doesn't even work like this. 

Like every other social service it will be abused to the point of no return. It wont take long before it will get over worked and underfunded and no one will have quality day care. And just wait until they unionize, and stike, then you'll have to stay home and look after your children anyway.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> And just wait until they unionize, and stike, then you'll have to stay home and look after your children anyway.


Replacement worker! Scab! They'll force you to let your children wander the streets.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Uh... parent *are* legally responsible for their children, aren't they?
> 
> But if you're suggesting that parents shouldn't embark on careers until after their kids are in school, that's an interesting idea. How would you work that into careers that require decades of education? I know several graduate students who've decided to have kids, despite the fact that they're still in school, because they're in their mid-30s and it's getting close to crunch-time biologically.
> 
> ...


Perhaps I didn't phrase that well. What I meant was that regardless of when parents want to have children, they should be legally responsible to provide one parent to care for the child until it reaches school age.

Nobody forces a parent to choose a career that requires decades of education. If they choose such a career, they've pretty much, "made their own bed" so to speak.

The vast majority of parents today spend only 2 to 6 years in secondary education to obtain their education (vocational school tradesmen to university degrees, other than medicine/science), making them 20 to 24 years old when they enter the work force. Plenty young enough to find a mate, have children and re-enter the workforce by their early 30s.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> they should be legally responsible to provide one parent to care for the child until it reaches school age.


Ok. How about we start school at 2 then?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Ok. How about we start school at 2 then?


That's not funny. That very well be their next tactic! :lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> That's not funny. That very well be their next tactic! :lmao:


I also could have made a lot more money as a lawyer.

Boring, long hours early in the career...blech. 

But I only rarely run into random law offices and scream at them about how underpaid I am and how overpaid they are.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Ok. How about we start school at 2 then?


And abortion until the age of 18....


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> If somebody will do your job for less at the same level of quality (broad measure), then you're overpaid, not under-valued, financially.


If you define "value" financially, then this is self-eviently true. My point is that there are values other than money.



> Without such mechanisms, we'd get 10 million theologists and philosophers who couldn't figure out what went wrong.


You've got a point here, regarding the theologians especially. But I do expect that you agree that there are some serious imbalances in the financial value placed on certain professions (say, baseball players, silicone-enhanced pop singers, cosmetic surgeons, and movie actors, v.s. really good kindergarden teachers, farmers, honest police officers, and S.P.C.A. workers, for example). My point is not that the free market is terrible, just that it is sometimes skewed.

Consequently, we need to respect and value the contributions to society made by people who don't get paid very well, and anything we can do as a society that reduces the amount of money someone needs to live a reasonable standard of living should be at least seriously considered. Not all such measures are practical or even desirable, but a subsidized day care system seems like a no-brainer to me.



> We all make choices in this respect. If you had the brains and upbringing (based on statistical profile of entrants) to get into university, I have little sympathy if you're not happy with your pay.


If the right to complain about being underpaid is not listed in the Charter, it should be 



> The opportunities and choices were all there, as was plenty of info on career potential (still risk involved).


Actually, for the record, back in 1982, I did talk to a career counselor, who told me that an academic research scientist could expect to spend 5 years in graduate school, and then start earning about $50k/year. Well, the $50k turned out to be about right, eventually... if you don't adjust for inflation... after 10 years of graduate school, and 6 years of postdoctoral work. But, hey, who's counting? I do, now, make a point of ensuring that student's considering a career in science have more accurate information on the career path than I got.

Despite the obvious thread-jack and your remonstrations regarding whining about how little scientists get paid, I decided to post this last little tidbit for the benefit of any lurking would-be scientists.

Cheers


----------



## Ravenclaw (Feb 18, 2007)

My oldest son (who was never in day care) has been accepted into an honors program in Biochemistry for the fall. I'm surprised at your comments about the lifestyle and income. He is also considering Engineering.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Given that in your rosy little world child care (state baby sitting) is equated with health care, I'm afraid it is. Let me know when the next parent dies because of no subsidized baby sitting services and I'll change my mind when that happens.


You truly are an incredibly close-minded individual. You really are. :lmao:

I've said my piece. Feel free to review my posts if you feel like taking your head out of your ass sometime in the near future.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Consequently, we need to respect and value the contributions to society made by people who don't get paid very well, and anything we can do as a society that reduces the amount of money someone needs to live a reasonable standard of living should be at least seriously considered. Not all such measures are practical or even desirable, but a subsidized day care system seems like a no-brainer to me


This is a huge leap. We don't need to respect the contributions made by people who don't consider their pay adequate any more or less than the contributions of those who are content. There is no imbalance to redress here.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> I've said my piece. Feel free to review my posts if you feel like taking your head out of your ass sometime in the near future.


Nice talk. Very mature as well. 

Last time I checked, my opinions were as valid as yours, but I don't lower myself to vulgarity when I'm frustrated with a disagreement of opinion. That is crossing the line.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> You've got a point here, regarding the theologians especially. But I do expect that you agree that there are some serious imbalances in the financial value placed on certain professions (say, baseball players, silicone-enhanced pop singers, cosmetic surgeons, and movie actors, v.s. really good kindergarden teachers, farmers, honest police officers, and S.P.C.A. workers, for example).
> 
> My point is not that the free market is terrible, just that it is sometimes skewed.
> ...................................
> ...


What's your standard? Some personal choice on what's better for society? 

People want to shovel more money at sports stars, so be it. I don't. But "society" values them, financially, more. Nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with expecting a personal definition of value to apply to "society". See: religion.

Everybody has their own (and also differ in what they say versus what they'll pay for) value allocation of their money. The outcome is what it is. If a specific problem occurs due to the structure of the industry (ie. teachers) that's one thing, but not an "imbalance" problem across industries (not a "skew"). 
...................................
I think we need to respect and value all people (well, some people...  ). Maybe the person getting $400k per year is underpaid by some personal measure because of how many jobs they create and investment they draw into research that boosts Canada's long-term wealth and funds our social programs. The fake "undervaluing" isn't just for people who make less. It's arbitrary.

To me social programs are not about fixing some fabricated imbalance like that. They're just about: social welfare because we can afford it and I think it should be done (my personal view on charity); helping to make sure people get second chances and don't have to make major decisions with their backs to the wall; and, helping provide opportunities to succeed (but not success itself). 

The "balancing" here is regarding children (increased opportunity for disadvantaged) and people who end up in the poop, for whatever reason. 

Everybody also has their own opinions on public policy intervention. So we end up with some ever-changing melange. Yippee. 
...................................
I respect your right to complain, but not your act of complaining. beejacon
...................................


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Nice talk. Very mature as well.
> 
> Last time I checked, my opinions were as valid as yours, but I don't lower myself to vulgarity when I'm frustrated with a disagreement of opinion. That is crossing the line.


Hey, you have your opinion, I have mine. I have no problem with that--never have.

But don't act like you've been taking the high road with all the bull**** you've been spewing at me.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It's not bull****, it's my opinion and my true life experience, and like I said there is no need for vulgarity. I can respect your opinion, it's just that I can't agree with it. Try doing the same.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Ravenclaw said:


> My oldest son (who was never in day care) has been accepted into an honors program in Biochemistry for the fall. I'm surprised at your comments about the lifestyle and income. He is also considering Engineering.


Good for him. And don't put too much stock in my horror story. A major component of the problems faced by my cohort of scientists was/is a function of demographics and vagaries of funding: most Canadian Universities hired faculty like crazy in the 60's and 70's, and funding for science was strong... then, during the 80's, 90's and this decade, funding was cut to the point where there was no money for salaries, and research labs had to run on graduate students... consequently most labs were training many more graduate students than there were jobs for. I saw some statistical analysis of this problem in Science Magazine a few years ago, and it was estimated that each PI (principle investigator) trained 17 people capable of replacing them when they retired, during the course of their career. At my university, 1 retirement in 5 is being replaced. So about 1/85 Ph.D. graduates can expect to be hired due to retirement of faculty. The other 84 are in a tough spot, and that comes as something of a nasty shock after working 70 h/week for ten years. It's certainly a competitive market.

However, the demographics are coming around (although there's no sign of improvement WRT research funding). Faculty are aging (the average age of Canadian faculty was 58, last time I saw data on this), and retirements will be making some room. Furthermore, over the past decade the sad state of academia has started to get some notice, and fewer students have been pursuing graduate training (at least in Western countries... we still get lots of asian applicants). So it seems that the pendulum is starting to swing. I expect that, should your son choose to go the academic route, by the time he's looking for faculty positions, he'll be in the middle of a hiring boom. And biochemistry is going to be a high demand field, both in research and industry. If he likes it, I'd advise him to stick with it.

That being said, applications people (engineers, doctors, lawyers) always make more money than researchers (scientists, philosophers).

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> I respect your right to complain, but not your act of complaining.


Noted... and I should clearly state that my current situation isn't that bad... but I do feel that I was misinformed and misguided in my decision making regarding my career and I now go to some effort to counter the misinformation that circulates regarding the academic career option.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> This is a huge leap. We don't need to respect the contributions made by people who don't consider their pay adequate any more or less than the contributions of those who are content. There is no imbalance to redress here.


That's not what I was saying... we don't need to respect people's contributions more just because they're paid less, but we need to judge the value of their contributions *independently* of how well they may be paid for them.

The poet or the kindergarden teacher may be making a much more important contribution to society than the CEO or the baseball player, despite the evidence of their respective paycheques. That's all I'm saying.

Consequently, if we can do things that make our society more sufferable for low income earners, without significantly harming the rest of us, we should do so. The fact that a national day care program would benefit may middle-class and wealthy families too makes it a no-brainer.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Consequently, if we can do things that make our society more sufferable for low income earners,...


I think it's a stretch. The low-income poet who finds life a little more tolerable because she gets national child care?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I think it's a stretch. The low-income poet who finds life a little more tolerable because she gets national child care?


How is that hard to imagine? Not many poets are able to support themselves with out working at least one part time job. Accessible, affordable, quality child care would make life much more manageable.

Of course you might argue that without their suffering, they'd have nothing to write poetry about, but by that reasoning, we should be trying to make the world as hard to survive as possible, and we'd all be living in a Nietzschian nightmare.

Cheers


----------



## mannypwife (Feb 15, 2005)

I was just catching up on this thread after a long period of lurkdom, and one of the themes I am taking away from this is "don't have kids if you can't afford them". That's a fairly abstract concept in my opinion.

For example, I assure you that Manny and I waited longer than either of us wanted before we had our son, just to try to make sure that we had all of the resources necessary to give him a good life. In doing so, we have de facto limited the total number of children we may have- since I would prefer not to be stopping to cash my old age pension cheque on the way to my kid's high school graduation, we probably won't be having many more.

As any of us living in the real world know already, there is never a "perfect" time to have children, there is never really "enough" money (unless you've hit a jackpot somewhere) and if people continue to wait until the stars align for their perfect vision of the "right" time and when you can "afford" children, you waste your whole life waiting and potentially deprive yourself of one of the greatest joys of living.

Under this "don't do X if you don't have the money" concept, I fear that our population growth will dwindle even further. We are already facing a desperate lack of skilled workers as the baby boomers retire because of the ever-increasing tendency of couples to wait until later in life to have children, or to limit the number of children they have due to professional and financial concerns. 

Personally, I would like to amend our thinking to "have children when you are ready to be responsible for them". That, in my opinion, does not include choosing between putting your career in the freeze-frame for 5 years or losing your house just so that you have someone to watch over your most precious resource while they are young. It encompasses all the emotional maturity and security necessary to care for a child, not necessarily your bank balance.

My son is in daycare, I have a career, my husband has a career. Because of the generosity of the Quebec govt (in this one area of service anyway), we can not only afford a fabulous daycare for our son, we can also put some money in an RESP for him so that he doesn't start out his adulthood shackled by the student loans that we both had.

And for those who think that it is handed to us on a silver platter in Quebec, I had to search every single day for months before finding a subsidized daycare spot for my son, and I certainly pay dearly in provincial taxes for these benefits. 

My take home is hundreds of dollars less per month than my colleague at the exact same salary level, simply because she lives in Ontario. However, she and her husband have just found out that she is pregnant (planned) and now must try to find a way to budget over $1000/mth daycare in addition to car, mortgage and student loan payments. She is a professional, productive member of society, who I feel has every right to get a little help in the form of subsidized childcare, and I hope that it happens soon.

I don't feel that our system should coddle those who refuse to help themselves, but I feel that the every day working Canadian has a right to some help too. I don't think you should need to lose everything you own before you qualify for a break.

Laura


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mannypwife said:


> you waste your whole life waiting and potentially deprive yourself of one of the greatest joys of living.
> .........................
> Under this "don't do X if you don't have the money" concept, I fear that our population growth will dwindle even further.
> .........................
> ...


Wealth redistribution as joy redistribution? As a joy, make do. Others should not subsidise your joy.
.........................
Then, if importing children is cheaper, that should be done. Appeals to the economy face ugly implications. I acknowledge possible gains, but that's a cold route to go for justification.
.........................
Education is a societal and personal investment. There must be a cost to the individual as they are a major beneficiary in terms of job selection and income.
.........................
Tough choice. Ask the single person about paying for that. 
.........................
I agree with everything but the use of "right". I think that it is smart policy to have universal childcare (even for rich families). It is not a right. It is a good idea.


----------



## mannypwife (Feb 15, 2005)

Sigh... see why I lurk? Good thing that Weed Man used up my quota of reactionary displays of temper for tonight.

Laura


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well the battlelines seem to be whether one embraces "it takes a village" concept.

If you accept that children are societal wealth of the future - then shared costing - as it is with their education up to the end of highschool - is a village cost to be shared in some form.

If you view kids as a "luxury".......different set of values in play.

I see ECC as a simply a critical extension of the public education system and a shared cost of daycare/edu a reasonable balance in achieving that for those kids most at risk.

Pay me now or pay me later also comes into play - studies bear it out.

BTW many of the capital facilities are already in place and this is just making the most of what is already there.

•••

MannyP wife....:clap: :clap: more please - don't lurk.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mannypwife said:


> She is a professional, productive member of society, who I feel has every right to get a little help in the form of subsidized childcare, and I hope that it happens soon.


Whatever for? If she's productive, she and her partner have the means to pay their own way. 



mannypwife said:


> I don't feel that our system should coddle those who refuse to help themselves, but I feel that the every day working Canadian has a right to some help too. I don't think you should need to lose everything you own before you qualify for a break.


Sure thing if a single wage earner family can't cope financially with raising a child. If both parents are employed, no way.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So Sinc in his wisdom has decided just where the public education line is drawn for community support and where it's not because HE doesn't think early education is important.

Quebec thinks otherwise.
The G8 nations think otherwise -

Hmmm who to have confidence in????


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> So Sinc in his wisdom has decided just where the public education line is drawn for community support and where it's not because HE doesn't think early education is important.
> 
> Quebec thinks otherwise.
> The G8 nations think otherwise -
> ...


Wrong again Mr. Intellect. I said nothing about public education.

I object to subsidized baby sitting.

If you can't grasp the difference, why comment?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mannypwife said:


> We are already facing a desperate lack of skilled workers as the baby boomers retire because of the ever-increasing tendency of couples to wait until later in life to have children, or to limit the number of children they have due to professional and financial concerns.


You know something--having children to help fill a shortage of skilled labour is bad motivation. Better our populations should decline, even if it means some hardship adjusting to the situation--there's your GHG problem taken care of right there.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> . Better our populations should decline, even if it means some hardship adjusting to the situation--there's your GHG problem taken care of right there.


100% with you on that count. I did not expect to have kids and while I enjoy and love them immensely I recognize there are just way too many of us by about 95%.

••

Sure Sinc.... just because YOU can't comprehend the difference in no way invalidates what Quebec and the other G8 nations KNOW. EEC is invaluable, and has a terrific ROI.

Babysitting. ....'nother flat earth outlook from the resident dinosaur. You can't even get the age range right.......


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Babysitting. ....'nother flat earth outlook from the resident dinosaur. You can't even get the age range right.......


Same old thing MD. Little blue balls of outrage and stupid flat earth jokes. Can that superior intellect not come up with some new insults?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Whatever for? If she's productive, she and her partner have the means to pay their own way.


Does productive = well-paid in your world? Sadly, it doesn't in mine. There are plenty of hardworking professionals who can barely make ends meet in my experience. These people make valuable contributions to society (despite their meager paychques), and requiring them to choose between staying home for 5 or 6 years (and damaging their career), or not having a family is a bad deal for everyone.

Subsidizing day care costs is a good deal for everyone (yes, even you... you're always complaining about the socially maladjusted youth of today... accessible, affordable, high-quality early childhood education is among the most effective solutions to this problem).

It seems to me that you're just bitter about the prospect of people getting an advantage you didn't have. I can understand that. I certainly wish good day care options had been available for us when our son was younger, but I'm looking at the bigger picture and recognizing that this is good for society, despite the fact that I'll never be able to take direct advantage of it.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> I object to subsidized baby sitting.


I've seen pretty compelling arguments that the entire primary/secondary education system can be fairly characterized as 'subsidized baby sitting'. Despite the fact that some schools do a reasonable job of actually teaching kids something, it is abundantly clear that any adult of normal mental capacity can learn the high school curriculum much faster than the 12 years we allocate for kids. But the point of the education system isn't just to teach the kids some stuff, it's to keep them busy and safe while their parents work.

If all we cared about was that our citizens had a basic education, we wouldn't put them in school until they were 17 or so.

Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

bryanc said:


> But the point of the education system isn't just to teach the kids some stuff, it's to keep them busy and safe while their parents work.


I think it's more than that, although admittedly that's a biggie. It's also to socialize children so that they learn to make nice with others - perhaps learn a little bit of stuff like tolerance of diversity, good sportsmanship, team building, school spirit, etc. Many of these skills come in handy once it's time for little Billy or Sally to start their own careers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> These people make valuable contributions to society (despite their meager paychques), and requiring them to choose between staying home for 5 or 6 years (and damaging their career), or not having a family is a bad deal for everyone.


It isn't a bad deal for everyone. It's a choice that a person makes based on available information. You seem to be angry that some people have to make a choice that others don't have to make. A plea for equal outcomes? If these people choose not to procreate, how is that a bad deal for everyone? If they choose different jobs, so that they can afford what they want, I might give them a pat on the back.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I've seen pretty compelling arguments that the entire primary/secondary education system can be fairly characterized as 'subsidized baby sitting'.


That being the case, at least a motivated stay-at-home parent could impart something useful to the child during pre-school years, instead of having the child enter not 14 years of "subsidized baby sitting" but 18--including those years where a child can gain the greatest advantage of personal, one-on-one attention from a parent.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It isn't a bad deal for everyone.


Having poorly educated, socially maladjusted kids and frustrated, stressed-out, and financially over-extended parents is a bad deal for society.



> If these people choose not to procreate, how is that a bad deal for everyone?


It's not. But be at least a little realistic. People will continue to reproduce. You can't fight 4.5 billion years of evolution. I hope people will continue to have fewer children in the future, and providing them with opportunities to pursue higher education and careers without having to sacrifice as much financially is an extremely effective way of reducing population growth.

I'm not saying it's causative, but the European countries with national subsidized day care programs don't seem to be suffering from population explosions.



> If they choose different jobs, so that they can afford what they want, I might give them a pat on the back.


So you think we should all just chase money, and the invisible hand of the market will yield a healthy society?

The free market is a lot like the ecosystem... it works really well at what it does, but it doesn't produce justice, happiness, or limit suffering. As a species, we've created our civilization largely to escape the 'law of the jungle'. Why would we want to let the economy rule instead. The economy should serve us, not the other way around.

Cheers


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Amen to that. Reminds me of a mantra I've come to adopt in recent years: _work to live, not live to work._


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> It's also to socialize children so that they learn to make nice with others - perhaps learn a little bit of stuff like tolerance of diversity, good sportsmanship, team building, school spirit, etc. Many of these skills come in handy once it's time for little Billy or Sally to start their own careers.


Yep and the tolerance, learn to share, etc at that age is critical for later education and societal attitudes.
That North Carolina study is so clear on the benefits down the line and early socialization is incredibly important.

Time with kids is important to both kids and parents but peer interaction and also interaction with non-parents is vital as well.
Kids behave differently with non-parent authority figures ( gee they actually CAN be polite - go figure  )

We are very social primates and the small size and dispersed nature of today's families ( extended I'm including ) means getting those vital peer and non parent experiences requires a different approach by society.

Also in my view helping a child develop goes beyond innate parenting skills. ECC teachers can often make an enormous difference in a child's life due to their training and their patience.
Children respond differently to teaching/correction from a parent or non parent - and may accept teaching and social training from a non-parent more easily.

In my view it's more important to society and less optional than post secondary.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

In general, I think a child that gets both - some day care, and some home care - is in the best situation. Many of the kids in academic families I know (including mine) are 'only children'. Either by choice or due to the constraints of their careers, their parents have only had the opportunity to have one child, so those kids don't enjoy the benefits (or costs) of siblings. Day care can help with that as well.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Having poorly educated, socially maladjusted kids and frustrated, stressed-out, and financially over-extended parents is a bad deal for society.


Assuming that only subsidized babysitting saves them from this fate.




bryanc said:


> I hope people will continue to have fewer children in the future, and providing them with opportunities to pursue higher education and careers without having to sacrifice as much financially is an extremely effective way of reducing population growth.


A national babysitting program as a curb to population growth? Now we're really reaching.



bryanc said:


> I'm not saying it's causative, but the European countries with national subsidized day care programs don't seem to be suffering from population explosions.


For a research scientist to even throw this one out there, is a little embarrassing.




bryanc said:


> The free market is a lot like the ecosystem... it works really well at what it does, but it doesn't produce justice, happiness, or limit suffering. As a species, we've created our civilization largely to escape the 'law of the jungle'. Why would we want to let the economy rule instead. The economy should serve us, not the other way around.


The economy does not "serve us." It's a way of describing the manner people are likely to interact in whatever we happen to call commerce. A country with a healthy economy is far more likely to produce a situation where we see justice and less suffering--even without massive government intervention. Declaring that the economy does not produce these things is like saying the weather can't grow corn. It's a non sequitir. 

Not having day care is not the equivalent of bowing to the "law of the jungle." The economy itself is one of the waysby which energy is funneled into commerce instead of jungle fights.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Assuming that only subsidized babysitting saves them from this fate.


No assumption. Day care is simply one of many mechanisms that help prevent this.



> A national babysitting program as a curb to population growth? Now we're really reaching.
> 
> For a research scientist to even throw this one out there, is a little embarrassing.


As I said, it's purely correlative. I was simply disputing your implication that subsidized day care would encourage people to have more kids. That is clearly not born out by the facts.



> The economy does not "serve us." It's a way of describing the manner people are likely to interact...


The economy does a lot more than 'describe'. To a large extent, economic factors govern people's lives. My point is that we need not let the economy mindlessly govern... we can and should intervene when the economy is not serving society well.



> Not having day care is not the equivalent of bowing to the "law of the jungle." The economy itself is one of the waysby which energy is funneled into commerce instead of jungle fights.


My point is that the unregulated economy is nothing but an ecology (with money as the currency, rather than energy). There is no reason to expect that an unregulated economy will give rise to consistently desirable social conditions. When it does, great, let it run free and enjoy the efficiency and wealth it creates. But when it's not working to our benefit, put constraints or incentives in place that will guide it in desirable directions. Socialized medicine, envrionmental protection laws, socialized education, and socialized day care are all good examples of ways we can tweak our economy to make it work better.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> ...it's purely correlative. I was simply disputing your implication that subsidized day care would encourage people to have more kids. That is clearly not born out by the facts.


You yourself were describing how people of limited means might not choose to have children unless they knew they had subsidized daycare waiting in the wings. I didn't make that assumption at all. I merely said that those who would find it a struggle to take responsibility for their kids' upbringing would do us all a favour by not having them.



bryanc said:


> My point is that we need not let the economy mindlessly govern... we can and should intervene when the economy is not serving society well.


So now you're back a little before the place where you started--making a case for government intervention in general, but getting no closer to making a case to use that intervention to help provide "day care" to people who choose to have children they can't take care of.



bryanc said:


> Socialized medicine, environmental protection laws, socialized education, and socialized day care are all good examples of ways we can tweak our economy to make it work better.


These don't make the economy work better. They provide specific goals in exchange for robbing the economy of some of its vigour. Each goal needs to be prioritized and argued for on its own merit. If we include too many of these desirable goals, we no longer have a functioning economy.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Having poorly educated, socially maladjusted kids and frustrated, stressed-out, and financially over-extended parents is a bad deal for society.


You don't need to have children to have this. As Mannies wife said you'll never be financially ready to have children, which is true, you need to be willing to do what needs to be done in order to survive.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> My point is that we need not let the economy mindlessly govern... we can and should intervene when the economy is not serving society well.
> 
> So now you're back a little before the place where you started--making a case for government intervention in general, but getting no closer to making *a case to use that intervention to help provide "day care" to people who choose to have children they can't take care of.*


You have that very wrong - I CAN take care of my kids but CHOSE EEC for my kids because the combination is better in my mind.
Subsidizing is for those that do not have the means to make that choice. Just as we do with postsecondary.
It's part of the education system as all the other G8 nations except us have figured out.

I CHOSE private school because I could, I PAY for public school anyways.

If you cannot accept that ECC results in improvements for families, kids and society - no amount of suasion will budge you - so why ask for a case to made.

If you DO accept "it takes a village"....the case is as self evident as it is for public education and "best method" is what should be discussed.

Society subsidizes post secondary. ECC is in the same educational/social beneficial spectrum of communal actions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> You have that very wrong - I CAN take care of my kids but CHOSE EEC for my kids because the combination is better in my mind.





MacDoc said:


> If you DO accept "it takes a village"....the case is as self evident as it is for public education and "best method" is what should be discussed.


I don't. It only takes a village when parents abdicate their responsibilities. Attempts to apply a "village" analogy to daycare are wrongheaded. A real village in the traditional sense implies all sorts of roles and long-term responsibilities not even remotely addressed by urban life--or urban life plus daycare.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> [Socialized medicine, public education, environmental protection laws, etc.] These don't make the economy work better. They provide specific goals in exchange for robbing the economy of some of its vigour.


I guess this comes down to what we mean by 'make the economy work better.'

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and you may even be right, but I have a very hard time believing that a completely unregulated free market would be a world most of us would find better than one with an economy regulated as necessary to best serve society.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Then we will have to disagree. It ALWAYS takes a village.

It is part of my responsibility to my kids to provide socialization and early learning opportunity - it's hardly abdicating - it' IS acting responsibly.


----------

