TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Government Funded Daycare program
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what arbiter and others are forgetting, is that subsidised daycare is also about gender equality. how can you ever expect a woman to maintain her position in the marketplace if you expect her to be out of work for 10 years every time she wishes to have a child? who is going to employ a woman if she's likely to be out of work for long periods of time to rear children? subsidising daycare is a necessary step if you wish to allow as many people as possible to participate in the workforce. i dont see a problem with it, as much as you try-hard laissez faire wannabes like to complain about big bad government

Who says it has to be a woman? If I were going to have kids I'd have exactly zero problem with being a stay-at-home dad if that's what it took.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Who says it has to be a woman?

oh please, lets be serious shall we?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh please, lets be serious shall we?

I'm pretty sure he was being serious.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what arbiter and others are forgetting, is that subsidised daycare is also about gender equality. how can you ever expect a woman to maintain her position in the marketplace if you expect her to be out of work for 10 years every time she wishes to have a child?

Maybe you hardcore second wave feminists and sympathizers should grow up and realize that men and women are not the same and don't have the same priorities? Take some of your own advice for a change, which would be

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh please, lets be serious shall we?

And don't twist anything I've said out of context or anything. I don't believe in male or female superiority, but I definetly don't think they're the same or have the exactly the same roles or expectations.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Maybe you hardcore second wave feminists and sympathizers should grow up and realize that men and women are not the same and don't have the same priorities?

well duh. characterising males & females as having inherently different priorities isnt helpful either. there is, of course, massive amounts of evidence that women wish to have a career AND a family, and without suitable childcare this isnt a very successful combination.

IF a woman wants to succeed in her career, and IF she also wishes to have children, i dont think her choices should be any less available due to her biology.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z And don't twist anything I've said out of context or anything. I don't believe in male or female superiority, but I definetly don't think they're the same or have the exactly the same roles or expectations.

i doubt you'll be able to find any evidence to suggest male & female priorities are SO fundamentally different that daycare essentially functions as a means for making women like men, so i dont see your point.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I can indeed compare it. If our society is unable to raise children properly because of our "standards" now, then the solution is to change our standards so that we can, not put a band-aid on a tumor by giving parents free daycare and pretending there's no problem with that. It's very true that in parents in the past could abandon their children if that was what they chose to do. But the fact of the matter is that most of them chose not to. They chose to deal with the burdens that come with parenthood even if it wasn't convenient to their lifestyle. And in a very real sense, they had a more active involvement in their childrens lives than parents today do. The problem is that today's parents aren't there. Daycare doesn't solve that problem, it covers it up. Not only is it not a solution to the problem, it's an insidious pretense of solution that allows us to put our heads in the sand and feel good about how we treat our children, even while we neglect them. Maybe you think that is an acceptable mode of operation, but I think it's unacceptable. That means I don't accept it. And I certainly don't support it. One parent works, the other doesn't. If it's a single parent situation it's going to be rough, but you do whatever it takes. If they can't find a way to work at or around their home, or somewhere that they can keep their child with them, then don't work. If they have to move in with friends or family, or live in a damn hole in a wall, so be it. If they're dependent on the goverment for their basic needs, so be it. I'd rather pay for them to do the right thing than pay for them to do the wrong thing. Early education begins at home. At least it should. Any benefits that a child might glean from education at daycare would still be considerably less than the benefits of being educated at home by a parent and all the individual attention that goes with that. I'm not brushing off the problem at all, and I find it ironic that someone who supports daycare as an alternative to parenting would even make such an absurd accusation. You do realize, I hope, that daycare is precisely "brushing off the problem." And I do emphasize the word, problem, because that's exactly how this program treats children. It treats them like a problem. From the perspective of this "program," children's needs are in the way of how our lifestyle and our society wants people to allocate their time. Therefore the proposed solution is to sequester that problem away in day"care" where we can pretend the children are benefiting from all the great opportunities of an early education which obviously their parents could never provide because they're too busy with their own lives. Maybe it's not how I word my posts that bothers you, maybe it's the truth that bothers you. The truth is, the point of daycare isn't to care for children, it is to appease the conscience of those people who don't want to face up to the real problem. But that's just an illusion. A self-deception conjured up so that people can feel good about themselves and feel like they're doing something positive when really all they're doing is sweeping the mess under the proverbial rug. I know that if I supported daycare that would really bother me. The only negative effect of the program that I need to know in order to know that I don't support it, is that with this program in place, more children will be in daycare, more people's conscience will be appeased, and we will be that much further away from a genuine solution to the problems preventing children from getting the proper parenting that they need and deserve.

I love the impracticalities of your posts . In any case, im not interested in debating what needs to be changed in societies so that children may have proper support from their parents because no solution will come from that. I've shown that the implementation of day care centers, which benefit mainly the children can in the long run attain the same results you advocate. You say, parents should do their job better. I say, installing a national day care system will provide current children with better education and in the future they themselves will be better parents, and there will be no need for day cares. Your arguments are about the lack of short term benefits, I'm not just advocating short terms effects, that would be silly. All the real benefits from this program are long term. There is no real reason to not implement a program of this nature, only ideological standings and lack of social will. On the practical side of this issue, there is no debate, it works, there are benefits, the benefits exceed the costs. The problem is people like yourself that would rather obviate the benefits in order to fix society all at the same time. Well, good luck with that happening.

As 'impractical' as it sounds, the simple fact remains that western society is heading in the wrong direction for raising children, we work harder and for longer than our grandparents did, cost of raising children aside from inflation in terms of equivalent wages is miles apart from what it was even 40 years ago.
Something needs to change eventually because at the going rate it's a case of economic pressure to work vs social and biological pressure to have a child. Daycare is just a stop-gap measure to alleviate some of the responsibility from both but I'm not convinced it's in the best interests of kids being raised by strangers. Back in the not-so-old days it was older relatives that helped raise children when a parent had to go back to work but we're at a point where they're either still in the workforce until their well into their 60's or in a not so small minority, non-existent option for a lot of people. If there's no other options then daycare should be the last resort.

As for the economic pressure, it really shouldn't be as large as it is considering there is things like unemployment around with people that don't have jobs, so it's not like it's going to really have that much of an impact. But we live to work in the west, everything and everyone else just seems to be marginally less important which is just a crazy ethic really.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh please, lets be serious shall we?

[hypothetical]
lol, as if we'll survive on your peasants wages boy!
[/hypothetical]

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh please, lets be serious shall we?

So now when people want to be FREE to have a career and FREE to have children, but don't want the commensurate responsibilities that come along with those freedoms, it's an excuse for them to eschew those responsibilities because they might not be able to do everything they want?

Who's not being serious?

quote:

Originally posted by venomx In any case, im not interested in debating what needs to be changed in societies so that children may have proper support from their parents because no solution will come from that.

Well that's a great attitude. I'm sure if we apply that to all difficult obstacles in science, engineering, etc we'll make great progress as well.

The important changes aren't always easy and they aren't always convenient. Maybe the important problems don't interest you, but they sure interest anyone who has a genuine interest in improving the situation.

quote:

I've shown that the implementation of day care centers, which benefit mainly the children can in the long run attain the same results you advocate.

Excuse me? You've done nothing of the sort. Children raised in daycare situations are only going to be MORE likely to think it is an acceptable way to deal with the "problem" of their children's needs. The implementation of these day care centers compounds the problem, it certainly doesn't attain the results I advocate.

quote:

You say, parents should do their job better. I say, installing a national day care system will provide current children with better education and in the future they themselves will be better parents, and there will be no need for day cares.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that children not experiencing being raised properly is going to make them better parents, but it's half-baked at best.

quote:

Your arguments are about the lack of short term benefits, I'm not just advocating short terms effects, that would be silly. All the real benefits from this program are long term.

My arguments have nothing to do with the lack of short-term benefits, are you even reading my posts or are you just brain-dead? My argument is that it is a pretend-solution serves to impede genuine solution and genuine progress, and consequently is harmful especially in the long-term.

As you are a prime example of, we already have an uphill battle when it comes to getting real change done when people who pretend to be interested in positive change say things like:

"im not interested in debating what needs to be changed in societies so that children may have proper support from their parents"

The absolute LAST thing we need is programs which cover up or otherwise obscure the deficiencies of modern parenting to then make it even harder to get it through people's thick skulls that real, fundamental, substantial change is needed, not a superficial band-aid of a program.

quote:

There is no real reason to not implement a program of this nature, only ideological standings and lack of social will. On the practical side of this issue, there is no debate, it works, there are benefits, the benefits exceed the costs.

You are being incredibly dense. I might as well say, "well there's no reason not to nuke Iran, only ideological standings." Ideology fucking matters. A lot.

quote:

The problem is people like yourself that would rather obviate the benefits in order to fix society all at the same time. Well, good luck with that happening.

Well we'll need all the luck we can get thanks mainly to people who resist substantial change in favor of illusory solutions, like you - so congratulations on being part of the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter So now when people want to be FREE to have a career and FREE to have children, but don't want the commensurate responsibilities that come along with those freedoms, it's an excuse for them to eschew those responsibilities because they might not be able to do everything they want?

the point being that women and men possess a different level of freedom in this regard, daycare centres help address this imbalance.

commensurate responsibilities? the entire western system of employment was designed around a male breadwinner & a female baby raiser. society no longer accepts this paradigm and as such changes are being made. you cant possibly argue for some kind of status quo, with women footing the bill. commensurate my arse. the man can have a family and a career, why you think its acceptable not to allow women the same opportunity is beyond me.

it has nothing to do with "eschewing responsibilities" -its about single-income families not possessing quite the same ability to survive as they did previously. a fact that isnt related to their ability to "choose" anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter So now when people want to be FREE to have a career and FREE to have children, but don't want the commensurate responsibilities that come along with those freedoms, it's an excuse for them to eschew those responsibilities because they might not be able to do everything they want? Who's not being serious? Well that's a great attitude. I'm sure if we apply that to all difficult obstacles in science, engineering, etc we'll make great progress as well. The important changes aren't always easy and they aren't always convenient. Maybe the important problems don't interest you, but they sure interest anyone who has a genuine interest in improving the situation. Excuse me? You've done nothing of the sort. Children raised in daycare situations are only going to be MORE likely to think it is an acceptable way to deal with the "problem" of their children's needs. The implementation of these day care centers compounds the problem, it certainly doesn't attain the results I advocate. I don't know where you're getting the idea that children not experiencing being raised properly is going to make them better parents, but it's half-baked at best. My arguments have nothing to do with the lack of short-term benefits, are you even reading my posts or are you just brain-dead? My argument is that it is a pretend-solution serves to impede genuine solution and genuine progress, and consequently is harmful especially in the long-term. As you are a prime example of, we already have an uphill battle when it comes to getting real change done when people who pretend to be interested in positive change say things like: "im not interested in debating what needs to be changed in societies so that children may have proper support from their parents" The absolute LAST thing we need is programs which cover up or otherwise obscure the deficiencies of modern parenting to then make it even harder to get it through people's thick skulls that real, fundamental, substantial change is needed, not a superficial band-aid of a program. You are being incredibly dense. I might as well say, "well there's no reason not to nuke Iran, only ideological standings." Ideology fucking matters. A lot. Well we'll need all the luck we can get thanks mainly to people who resist substantial change in favor of illusory solutions, like you - so congratulations on being part of the problem.

Right on. Excellent post Arbiter.

Being a parent is first and foremost a leadership thing.

If you cannot devote sufficient time to properly parent a child, you shouldn't have one because it's not the society's responsibility to rear your child; it is yours. (well, until they reach age of majority)

Having a kid is not a right, and bringing a kid to the world without being able to properly prepared to support and rear a child IMO is negligent. (extenuating circumstances not withstanding)

If I cannot devote time to a child so that the kid cannot distinguish who's the real parent, I'd rather not have a kid at all.

This day care scheme is a cop out for people who wants to live a luxurious living and want to keep making money for it, but failing to live up to family responsibilities. The govt should not be helping people to dodge out of their responsibilities either.

And yes, ideology matters.

^^ Well said!

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Being a parent is first and foremost a leadership thing. If you cannot devote sufficient time to properly parent a child, you shouldn't have one because it's not the society's responsibility to rear your child; it is yours. (well, until they reach age of majority) Having a kid is not a right, and bringing a kid to the world without being able to properly prepared to support and rear a child IMO is negligent. (extenuating circumstances not withstanding) If I cannot devote time to a child so that the kid cannot distinguish who's the real parent, I'd rather not have a kid at all. This day care scheme is a cop out for people who wants to live a luxurious living and want to keep making money for it, but failing to live up to family responsibilities. The govt should not be helping people to dodge out of their responsibilities either. And yes, ideology matters.

For crying out loud, this is not government funded day cares for rich people. This is for people that are poor and cant afford staying at home and raising their child. None of you have read my posts about the actual program. All the arguments here are on the digressions you have forced me into. YES i agree that people should not bring kids into the world if they can not rear them. But it happens, and it has to be dealt with, and none of you have a better way to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Excuse me? You've done nothing of the sort. Children raised in daycare situations are only going to be MORE likely to think it is an acceptable way to deal with the "problem" of their children's needs. The implementation of these day care centers compounds the problem, it certainly doesn't attain the results I advocate.

This is pure conjecture on your part based on your view of human nature. Day care attendance for lower income children is related to higher education. Higher education is related to better child care and a better ability to discriminate what the best way to rear your child is. Just because you have no trust in people and you believe they will make the same mistakes over and over again does not make it true. The relationship I just pointed out to you is based on current research on human interactions and early development.

quote:

I don't know where you're getting the idea that children not experiencing being raised properly is going to make them better parents, but it's half-baked at best.

It is not half baked. Proper raising leads to proper development. Proper development and higher education increase the possibility that parents will raise their child properly. Its a continous cycle. Obviously not everyone acts in the same manner, this is on average. This is supported by current research on developmental psychology. Your lack of knowledge on this subject does not lead to my ideas being half-baked.

quote:

My arguments have nothing to do with the lack of short-term benefits, are you even reading my posts or are you just brain-dead? My argument is that it is a pretend-solution serves to impede genuine solution and genuine progress, and consequently is harmful especially in the long-term. As you are a prime example of, we already have an uphill battle when it comes to getting real change done when people who pretend to be interested in positive change say things like: "im not interested in debating what needs to be changed in societies so that children may have proper support from their parents" The absolute LAST thing we need is programs which cover up or otherwise obscure the deficiencies of modern parenting to then make it even harder to get it through people's thick skulls that real, fundamental, substantial change is needed, not a superficial band-aid of a program.

In order for society to change the current trend in the work/child-rearing relationship everyone would have to be middle class. All the ideas you espouse are contingent on people being able to afford staying home and raising their kid. It is true modern western society puts much pressure on adults to succeed economically and this interferes with the child rearing process. It is true that this is not the optimal setting. It is true that in the global scheme of things a child care program is a patch-up program. But it is one of the most (proven) reliable ways of helping people get out of poverty. You seem to keep forgetting that i am not advocating this program for everyone, im doing so for lower income people who are the ones that benefit for it the most. Even if i advocated it for everyone, I already mentioned that there is an inverse relationship between attending a government funded day care and SES, so in any case the children that would be negatively affected by attending a day care with less then excellent quality wouldnt be attending them anyways.

quote:

You are being incredibly dense. I might as well say, "well there's no reason not to nuke Iran, only ideological standings." Ideology fucking matters. A lot.

Im my book ideology only matters as long as it is purposeful. In this debate it is blocking your understanding of how a program such as this one would be of incredible benefit to children that need it right now. You are also neglecting all the social and economical benefits that are derived from this program. All due to ideology. Your reasons for not accepting a program like this are all on principal, but none of them have any practical groundings.

quote:

Well we'll need all the luck we can get thanks mainly to people who resist substantial change in favor of illusory solutions, like you - so congratulations on being part of the problem.

Right, because you have plausible solutions. It's nice to argument that some is of no use and not propose any other possible solutions. I think i've already asked a couple of times for another way around this problem, you have yet to provide any. Your basic premise is that we need to solve the real problem, which is a conflict in current society between economic pressures and child rearing effectiveness, but in order to correct that problem in one fell swoop you would need to correct many others such as poverty and lack of education, lack of access to jobs, racism, all at the same time. What do you think are the chances of that happening? Maybe we should try a revolution, i'm sure you wouldn't mind a couple of years of bloody war to solve are all newfound problems.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX The relationship I just pointed out to you is based on current research on human interactions and early development.

That's funny because the research I've read says that more mothers today WANT to stay at home and raise their own children...

I'll see your research and raise you another...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r That's funny because the research I've read says that more mothers today WANT to stay at home and raise their own children... I'll see your research and raise you another...

How does that contradict my point? I don't see it. I've already said that this program is of more benefit to people that can't afford to stay at home and raise their child. I didn't say more people want to not stay at home hence a program should be implemented. And I wouldn't mind hearing what the SES of those mothers was. Wherever services like this have been implemented working mothers from lower SES have rushed to use it.

And just in case you guys think this type of program is new, it has been present for years in many other countries. This is not something new, or inherently north american.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX This is pure conjecture on your part based on your view of human nature. Day care attendance for lower income children is related to higher education. Higher education is related to better child care and a better ability to discriminate what the best way to rear your child is. Just because you have no trust in people and you believe they will make the same mistakes over and over again does not make it true. The relationship I just pointed out to you is based on current research on human interactions and early development. It is not half baked. Proper raising leads to proper development. Proper development and higher education increase the possibility that parents will raise their child properly. Its a continous cycle. Obviously not everyone acts in the same manner, this is on average. This is supported by current research on developmental psychology. Your lack of knowledge on this subject does not lead to my ideas being half-baked.

Since "lower" income is a relative measure, and the cost of goods and services is relative to the purchasing power of the average consumer, you can't shrink the lower class in the way you seem to be suggesting. Even if some children acquire higher education and therefore economic advancement for themselves, the proportion of the population which is the "lower" class and bears the economic pressures associated with that will not change, nor will the demand for these daycare services decrease. The idea that it will is very much half-baked and a hundredfold less practical than anything I've suggested.

Being raised properly, e.g. not by daycare, is a huge advantage for a child which will give them larger gains than daycare ever will - and not only that, but will provide them with first-hand experience in proper parent-child interaction that they can use

quote:

In order for society to change the current trend in the work/child-rearing relationship everyone would have to be middle class.

It's impossible for everyone to be middle class without making everyone economically equal which is going to be impossible in any successful economic system. In any case, the supposed necessity of everyone being middle-class fails to meet the standard of what we can already observe: there are countries on this planet right now which don't have our current trend in work/child-rearing and where economic disparity is extremely significant.

quote:

All the ideas you espouse are contingent on people being able to afford staying home and raising their kid. It is true modern western society puts much pressure on adults to succeed economically and this interferes with the child rearing process. It is true that this is not the optimal setting. It is true that in the global scheme of things a child care program is a patch-up program. But it is one of the most (proven) reliable ways of helping people get out of poverty. You seem to keep forgetting that i am not advocating this program for everyone, im doing so for lower income people who are the ones that benefit for it the most. Even if i advocated it for everyone, I already mentioned that there is an inverse relationship between attending a government funded day care and SES, so in any case the children that would be negatively affected by attending a day care with less then excellent quality wouldnt be attending them anyways.

For every person you get "out of poverty" another person will drop down into it when the poverty line is re-drawn as it is over and over again. And I'm not really sure why you think a lower-income parent can't competently raise their child to the point where the child benefits more than they would in daycare. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist.

quote:

Right, because you have plausible solutions. It's nice to argument that some is of no use and not propose any other possible solutions. I think i've already asked a couple of times for another way around this problem, you have yet to provide any. Your basic premise is that we need to solve the real problem, which is a conflict in current society between economic pressures and child rearing effectiveness, but in order to correct that problem in one fell swoop you would need to correct many others such as poverty and lack of education, lack of access to jobs, racism, all at the same time. What do you think are the chances of that happening? Maybe we should try a revolution, i'm sure you wouldn't mind a couple of years of bloody war to solve are all newfound problems.

Whether I have solutions to the actual problem or not is really not relevant or even related to whether or not the pretend-solution of daycare is worth implementing. I'm certainly not proposing that we can correct the problem "in one fell swoop" - it will take considerable time, but programs which serve to conceal or obscure the need for long-term fundamental change work against this process.

The topic of the thread is not how to fix the work/family dynamic, but whether or not this particular program is a good one. I've stated repeatedly now why I do not think it is a good one - of course you are free to disagree, but your responses seem to me to indicate that you do not see the bigger picture.

Having the program in place may relieve some of the pressure that the current work/family dynamic is creating. This pressure, while it has some harmful effects, is also something that will help drive more fundamental changes. The cost of the proposed program is not only in dollars and cents, it is in the motivation of the average person to support more important reforms over a long period of time.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX How does that contradict my point? I don't see it. I've already said that this program is of more benefit to people that can't afford to stay at home and raise their child. I didn't say more people want to not stay at home hence a program should be implemented. And I wouldn't mind hearing what the SES of those mothers was. Wherever services like this have been implemented working mothers from lower SES have rushed to use it.

It sounded like you were stating that the research proved that children were more well adjusted becuase of better daycare.
I guess I read that wrong then?

I was pointing out that, given the choice, most mothers would choose to raise their kids at home.

To raise another point, the rich really don't care about Universal Daycare.
Most of the afluent people I know (financially indepenant) have nannies and home school their children.
Each and every one of them that I've met are light-years ahead of their counterparts and are the most well behaved children I know.
That's not to put down lower waged Mom's, sure they absolutely need the help.
It's those that weren't gainfully employed that are the real issue.
There has to be some way to rewarding those that are making an effort and making a contribution to society.
A direct coorelation of hours worked per week and/or salary if you will.
That's all I'm really getting at.
Fair is fair.

quote:

And just in case you guys think this type of program is new, it has been present for years in many other countries. This is not something new, or inherently north american.

I don't think anybody's arguing with you about that

quote:

Originally posted by venomX This is pure conjecture on your part based on your view of human nature. Day care attendance for lower income children is related to higher education. Higher education is related to better child care and a better ability to discriminate what the best way to rear your child is. Just because you have no trust in people and you believe they will make the same mistakes over and over again does not make it true. The relationship I just pointed out to you is based on current research on human interactions and early development. It is not half baked. Proper raising leads to proper development. Proper development and higher education increase the possibility that parents will raise their child properly. Its a continous cycle. Obviously not everyone acts in the same manner, this is on average. This is supported by current research on developmental psychology. Your lack of knowledge on this subject does not lead to my ideas being half-baked.

I may be being a bit of dunce here but how is giving up a child to day care equate to better education?
IIRC there is no standard for day care professionals like teachers that they have to meet some sort of testing, no? (I may be wrong about this)
So give a child to day care and you don't know what sort of care or education they'd be getting. (at least since day care is a private business atm, no?)

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Since "lower" income is a relative measure, and the cost of goods and services is relative to the purchasing power of the average consumer, you can't shrink the lower class in the way you seem to be suggesting. Even if some children acquire higher education and therefore economic advancement for themselves, the proportion of the population which is the "lower" class and bears the economic pressures associated with that will not change, nor will the demand for these daycare services decrease. The idea that it will is very much half-baked and a hundredfold less practical than anything I've suggested.

Yes it is relative. Even if the lower class doesn't "shrink" people will be better adapted. The educational level would be raise. The crime level would be lowered. The definition of poor would now be defined by higher standards of living. How is this impractical or half-baked? I have pointed to the relationship between good early education and all these benefits. I have pointed to why lower income children are better off at day cares than in their homes. What else is there to argue?

quote:

Being raised properly, e.g. not by daycare, is a huge advantage for a child which will give them larger gains than daycare ever will - and not only that, but will provide them with first-hand experience in proper parent-child interaction that they can use

The child will only have higher gains if the home environment is more stimulating than the day care environment. It's as simple as that. I dont disagree that for parents with higher education or with the ability to sacrifice income to raise their child this is not a good option. What I am arguing is that children in lower SES' (since you want a definition a recent study classified these as having an total house income less than 15,000) will be better off atteding day care, even if one of the parents stayed in the house. I've already layed out why. Even if one parent stayed home with the child, they're lack of knowledge of how a child develops would hinder them in providing the proper conditions for the child to develop.

quote:

It's impossible for everyone to be middle class without making everyone economically equal which is going to be impossible in any successful economic system. In any case, the supposed necessity of everyone being middle-class fails to meet the standard of what we can already observe: there are countries on this planet right now which don't have our current trend in work/child-rearing and where economic disparity is extremely significant.

Which one's are those? I would really like to know. If you refering to any european country, a high proportion of them have government funded day care system. Some share the cost with parents, some with the employers, and some are completely funded by the government. Which countries do you mean and how are they better off?

quote:

For every person you get "out of poverty" another person will drop down into it when the poverty line is re-drawn as it is over and over again. And I'm not really sure why you think a lower-income parent can't competently raise their child to the point where the child benefits more than they would in daycare. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist.

So if you're making 8 bucks an hour, and say you rearrange your work schedule for nighttime working so you can spend time with your child. Now let's say you're a single mother or dad. Who will care for the child at night? When will you sleep? I guess you could work less. How would you feed your child? Have you taken into account the negative effects of parental stress on a parent child relationship? Parental stress is considered a risk factor and is associated with negative outcomes for children. Not only that say you manage to bypass all these things. You didn't get an education, all you know about child rearing your grandmother told you. How effective is this? You can't read up on it because you don't have time between work and trying to manage your home life. See the unnecessary complexity of life for people that can benefit from this program. I do believe your downplaying this a bit in your argument.

quote:

Whether I have solutions to the actual problem or not is really not relevant or even related to whether or not the pretend-solution of daycare is worth implementing. I'm certainly not proposing that we can correct the problem "in one fell swoop" - it will take considerable time, but programs which serve to conceal or obscure the need for long-term fundamental change work against this process. The topic of the thread is not how to fix the work/family dynamic, but whether or not this particular program is a good one. I've stated repeatedly now why I do not think it is a good one - of course you are free to disagree, but your responses seem to me to indicate that you do not see the bigger picture. Having the program in place may relieve some of the pressure that the current work/family dynamic is creating. This pressure, while it has some harmful effects, is also something that will help drive more fundamental changes. The cost of the proposed program is not only in dollars and cents, it is in the motivation of the average person to support more important reforms over a long period of time.

Fair enough. I don't disagree with your point on bigger reform. It is needed, and i would expect a plan like this to be accompanied by other type of support for parents in the long run. I guess the way i have been argumentint makes my argument come across as if this is an end all solution to the problem of childrearing, and it is not. I do consider it to be an important step in helping impovrished children.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree IIRC

If I Recall/Remember Correctly

damn u for making me look that up

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r It sounded like you were stating that the research proved that children were more well adjusted becuase of better daycare. I guess I read that wrong then? I was pointing out that, given the choice, most mothers would choose to raise their kids at home.

Only better adjusted if their home environment is better than the day care setting. It's a matter of where are they going to get access to high quality care.

quote:

To raise another point, the rich really don't care about Universal Daycare. Most of the afluent people I know (financially indepenant) have nannies and home school their children. Each and every one of them that I've met are light-years ahead of their counterparts and are the most well behaved children I know. That's not to put down lower waged Mom's, sure they absolutely need the help.

I can see that happening. Like I said I'm not advocating day care for everyone, or that it is the best option to raise your child. Just that it is the best option for lower SES people.

quote:

It's those that weren't gainfully employed that are the real issue. There has to be some way to rewarding those that are making an effort and making a contribution to society. A direct coorelation of hours worked per week and/or salary if you will. That's all I'm really getting at. Fair is fair.

A system like this could be incorporated into a national day care program. I don't disagree with having something like this, it could be used as a motivational tool. I would suggest that if implemented, a system like this should be benchmarked and see if it's just serving to keep kids out, or if it's actually helping to get mothers to work and off welfare.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree I may be being a bit of dunce here but how is giving up a child to day care equate to better education? IIRC there is no standard for day care professionals like teachers that they have to meet some sort of testing, no? (I may be wrong about this) So give a child to day care and you don't know what sort of care or education they'd be getting. (at least since day care is a private business atm, no?)

You should keep in mind I'm talking about day care for lower income people. If a program like this is implemented standards would need to be set. For current private day cares there is no standard in the US, and that is one of the dangers of selecting a day at the moment. Most parents don't even know what a high quality day care is. The point that if you can afford it or if you're capable enough you should raise your own children has been risen in this topic already, you can read through the thread a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Being raised properly, e.g. not by daycare, is a huge advantage for a child which will give them larger gains than daycare ever will - and not only that, but will provide them with first-hand experience in proper parent-child interaction that they can use.

haha, raised "properly". children of course dont learn any valuable tools from social interaction whilst in childcare do they? you know there are other important things related to raising a child other than 1 on 1 personal interaction. you know, things like providing enough and decent nutrition for a growing body, enough clothes, healthcare, the right school etc etc etc. why youre prioritising that contact above and beyond everything else related to raising children is a bit perplexing. i for one enjoyed living in a nice house with plenty of "things" coz my parents both worked.

this notion that a parent should choose between a career and raising a family is just some arbitrary notion you've dreamed up, enforcing a notion of opportunity cost where its not necessary, based upon where you seem to think the so-called "perfect" means of raising a child lie.

the simple fact is there are no "perfect" ways of doing so, and having a child in daycare for a few hours a week (much less by the time they reach school age) is hardly the huge evil or detriment youre trying to make it out to be. in fact, im not sure ive ever heard you waffle on with such nonsense.

all i can say is thank fuck i live in australia we have a subsidised national childcare system which may have its problems, but at least its giving mothers the opportunity to work at the same time.

i find the men in here dictating how they think women should raise their young to be pretty arrogant. if this is all about the parent knowing best, who are any of you to tell that parent daycare isnt for them or their children??

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Yes it is relative. Even if the lower class doesn't "shrink" people will be better adapted. The educational level would be raise. The crime level would be lowered. The definition of poor would now be defined by higher standards of living. How is this impractical or half-baked? I have pointed to the relationship between good early education and all these benefits. I have pointed to why lower income children are better off at day cares than in their homes. What else is there to argue? The child will only have higher gains if the home environment is more stimulating than the day care environment. It's as simple as that. I dont disagree that for parents with higher education or with the ability to sacrifice income to raise their child this is not a good option. What I am arguing is that children in lower SES' (since you want a definition a recent study classified these as having an total house income less than 15,000) will be better off atteding day care, even if one of the parents stayed in the house. I've already layed out why. Even if one parent stayed home with the child, they're lack of knowledge of how a child develops would hinder them in providing the proper conditions for the child to develop. Which one's are those? I would really like to know. If you refering to any european country, a high proportion of them have government funded day care system. Some share the cost with parents, some with the employers, and some are completely funded by the government. Which countries do you mean and how are they better off? So if you're making 8 bucks an hour, and say you rearrange your work schedule for nighttime working so you can spend time with your child. Now let's say you're a single mother or dad. Who will care for the child at night? When will you sleep? I guess you could work less. How would you feed your child? Have you taken into account the negative effects of parental stress on a parent child relationship? Parental stress is considered a risk factor and is associated with negative outcomes for children. Not only that say you manage to bypass all these things. You didn't get an education, all you know about child rearing your grandmother told you. How effective is this? You can't read up on it because you don't have time between work and trying to manage your home life. See the unnecessary complexity of life for people that can benefit from this program. I do believe your downplaying this a bit in your argument. Fair enough. I don't disagree with your point on bigger reform. It is needed, and i would expect a plan like this to be accompanied by other type of support for parents in the long run. I guess the way i have been argumentint makes my argument come across as if this is an end all solution to the problem of childrearing, and it is not. I do consider it to be an important step in helping impovrished children.

ah ok, now this all starting to make some sense to me...

You have valid arguments yes but I guess the question I'd have to all of this is, what are the statistics of the number of woman in that position (low wage income) as to the rest of the group as a whole?
I'm sure there's lots (and that's not to take away from what they're going through) but would we not be encouraging woman to in fact take lower income jobs as a sub-conscious option, knowing that the government was going to foot the bill for everything?
And who wouldn't?
Who's going to foot that bill? The career women who choose not to?

This is an extremely expensive proposition now that C-sections are almost becoming the norm as > this article < attests to.
This is one area you haven't explained yet; who's paying for all this?

People don't have a problem with Universal Healthcare because it doesn't discriminate and unless there's some way to do that here, I don't see it happening unless everyone, including those that choose not to have kids, are appeased.

Here's a short paper on how Quebec pulled it off. You can go directly to the end where they talk a bit on how Quebec rallied public support for the implementation of this system. Link

As to how many women are in this type of position, I don't have the numbers. There are some econometric studies done on mother labour supply and creation of a day care program. The numbers should probably be there.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.