|
Government Funded Daycare program (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Edit2:
Also what do you mean by the sending back babies thing? Is this in Quebec, because it is the only place in canada were there is a well established day care program. Also where did you get and what means that $1200/month number? In Quebec day care is $5/day which is way less than $1200/month. |
Sorry but Quebec is whole other ball of wax with their own way of doing things.
They aren't on the same page as the rest of Canada in a lot of areas, including daycare.
$1200/mnth would be the high end by the way:
| quote: |
In Toronto, the cost of licensed child care, without subsidies, can range from approximately $615 to $1,000 per month, depending on the type of care and the age of the child. The average cost is $750 per month. Care for infants is the most expensive. Less expensive care ($30-35 per day) is available from unlicensed caregivers who provide care in their own homes.
|
>>Source<<
However, not totally out of site, as with this >example< in Vancouver of $1500/mnth...
The past Liberal government's view, although rosy sounding, wasn't what it sounded like:
| quote: |
Liberal’s “Universal” Childcare Leaves Out 75% of Canadian Families
OTTAWA, Ontario, January 5, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Despite the Liberal Party’s claim that the goal of their childcare program is to “meet the needs of all families,” statistics show that only a small minority of parents would actually benefit.
By offering funds to institutional daycares only, the Liberal Childcare Plan effectively ignores three quarters of all Canadian families. Less than 25% of Canadian families use institutional daycare, according to Statistics Canada. For 75% of Canadian parents who do not use daycare services, the Liberal plan has nothing to offer. (Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050207/d050207b.htm)
The Liberal daycare plan also ignores the 90% of Canadian parents who would prefer to raise their children at home, if possible. Only 10% of all Canadian families list institutional daycare as their first choice in caring for young children. (Vanier Institute study: http://www.vifamily.ca/newsroom/pre...c.html#endno...)
A truly universal daycare program in the mould of Medicare would cost an estimated $10 billion per year – ten times the amount allocated by the Liberals. (Childcare Resource and Research Unit at the University of Toronto: http://www.childcareadvocacy.ca/res...amework_high...)
In contrast, the Conservative Party, under Stephen Harper, has pledged to commit $1,200 per child annually for care costs. Although the amount is far below actual costs most parents incur for having someone else care for their children even for a few days per week, the Conservative plan does leave the choice of care up to the parents.
“We will give all parents $100 per month per child under age 6 to spend on child care needs as they choose – whether that means formal day care, a babysitter, neighborhood child care, or helping one parent stay at home,” the Conservative website says.
Harper listed “helping parents with the cost of raising their children” as one of the five top priorities of a new Conservative government.
|
>>Source<< |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Your analogy is not a valid one. You cant compare how society worked before and the demands parents experienced from society in the past to our standards right now. In antiquity parents could discard their child, throw it away or forget about it all they wanted, and they would not face any consequences. |
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.
| quote: | | You can not try and hold parents accountable and at the same time say that it is their sole job to care for the child. It doesn't work. It's easy to dismiss the problem by saying that they gave birth to the child and they should solve it. You have also failed to answer my questions. What do you suggest people do? |
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.
| quote: | | You are also neglecting all the positive benefits of early education. |
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.
| quote: | | Basically you're brushing off the problem without providing any real arguments by using arrogant and 'im correct your not' wording in your posts. You can just say you don't like and have no real reason as to why, or you can provide me with concrete examples of why implementing this program would have more negative effects than not implementing it. |
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. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
I think Arbiter hit the nail on the head.
We already have enough problems with parents being absent in a child's life as it is; why perpetuate the problem with taxpayers funding it?
That's not to say it doesn't have its uses but children are a huge responsibility that doesn't belong in the hands of, least of all, government.
....they can barely manage ADULTS... :nervous: |
|
|
| venomX |
All the points you two raised are debating if parents should be accomodated or not. None of them address if the program is beneficial, if the costs are too high, etc.. You guys are arguing ideology, which is valid, but has very little relevance in if the program is important. Being idelogically correct won't help any children, and won't solve any problems. I guess im more inclined to a practical discussion of these issues.
In any case I'm interested in how you guys would implement policy to deal with the current parenting situation. Or if it would just be a status quo policy and let things run whatever course they may. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
All the points you two raised are debating if parents should be accomodated or not. None of them address if the program is beneficial, if the costs are too high, etc.. You guys are arguing ideology, which is valid, but has very little relevance in if the program is important. Being idelogically correct won't help any children, and won't solve any problems. I guess im more inclined to a practical discussion of these issues.
In any case I'm interested in how you guys would implement policy to deal with the current parenting situation. Or if it would just be a status quo policy and let things run whatever course they may. |
Private businesses should take a more active role in supplementing childcare for their employees.
The only thing government funding helps perpetuate are people who keep having babies, stay out of the workforce and suck the system dry but put nothing back into it.
If anything, it should help those that are at least gainfully employed. |
|
|
| Lilith |
Western child rearing is a mess, not only is it prohibitively expensive if you look at it from simply a financial point of view like I've been doing, but it's just 'expected' that the mother be back into the workforce within a couple of months. That's further compounded by the problems of society expecting you to be there and general living expenses which won't let you get by on just one wage.
It pisses me off a lot. :(
I'll be damned if I won't be spending at least 5 years out of the workforce to have a child because I'll certainly not be lumping the poor little mite into some nasty childcare centre before they go off to pre-school. I just don't think it's fair on the child, they'd feel unwanted and unloved like someone's little afterthought in between commuting and work.
| quote: | | The only thing government funding helps perpetuate are people who keep having babies, stay out of the workforce and suck the system dry but put nothing back into it. |
Probably shouldn't go there... people don't like it.
No, sod it.
I earn roughly 8-10 times more than a single mother on welfare who isn't doing any part time work after their kid(s) goes off to school and what irritates me is that they DO NOT get off welfare. A lot of them just end up having more kids and I'm damned if I know how well those kids are being raised and if their quality of life is at risk?
In between my mortgage, supporting my (part time employed) partner through uni, paying taxes I can't find the damn money for a child of my own. Don't know how the hell they do it  |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Private businesses should take a more active role in supplementing childcare for their employees.
The only thing government funding helps perpetuate are people who keep having babies, stay out of the workforce and suck the system dry but put nothing back into it.
If anything, it should help those that are at least gainfully employed. |
And what about the children? You keep shifting the focus to the parents. This system if not for the parents. Yes parents derive some benefit from it, but the main beneficiaries are the children. Early education is heavily correlated with better financial outcomes, higher education and less brushes with the law. Those are some benefits to society right there. By educating the current children you're increasing the probability that they themselves won't end up depending on welfare, won't end up in jail, and their own children will also be better off. So right there, you're reducing future need for welfare and reducing criminal activity. It is also known that more educated people, have less children on average. See how many indirect and direct benefits this program brings? Yet you, and arbiter, and lillith below this post are concerned with the short term benefits some douchebag that is too irresponsible to care about getting of welfare will get. There has been econometric studies done on the impact of some of the day care center systems already in place. There is an increase in single mothers being incorporated into the workforce. There you go, some people actually trying to get off welfare just by implementing this. There is also an argument to be made that most people that will use the day care centers will be using it so that they can study and/or work. No study has been able to show that people actually become lazier, work less, are become more dependant on welfare. You guys are just bringing your ideological baggage into this. That's why you keep focusing on the parents, not the children. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
Western child rearing is a mess, not only is it prohibitively expensive if you look at it from simply a financial point of view like I've been doing, but it's just 'expected' that the mother be back into the workforce within a couple of months. That's further compounded by the problems of society expecting you to be there and general living expenses which won't let you get by on just one wage.
It pisses me off a lot. :(
I'll be damned if I won't be spending at least 5 years out of the workforce to have a child because I'll certainly not be lumping the poor little mite into some nasty childcare centre before they go off to pre-school. I just don't think it's fair on the child, they'd feel unwanted and unloved like someone's little afterthought in between commuting and work.
Probably shouldn't go there... people don't like it.
No, sod it.
I earn roughly 8-10 times more than a single mother on welfare who isn't doing any part time work after their kid(s) goes off to school and what irritates me is that they DO NOT get off welfare. A lot of them just end up having more kids and I'm damned if I know how well those kids are being raised and if their quality of life is at risk?
In between my mortgage, supporting my (part time employed) partner through uni, paying taxes I can't find the damn money for a child of my own. Don't know how the hell they do it |
There are generations on welfare because of this trap.
Who doesn't like free money when all you have to do is pop one out?
My conclusion is that these people have no conscience...
To be honest Lilth, we waited until NOW to have it.
I have no idea how the hell we would have done it 10 years ago, at least properly like the way we planned it in our minds.
The only thing we can do is shrug and move on.
We've paid our debts, saved some cash, bought a house, and now we're somewhat prepared. At least until it comes time for daycare when the wifey goes back to work.
Although, with the cost of daycare, there was an interesting stat we tripped across that said, in a family of two working parents, they would only need to come up with an extra $1000 / month for one of the parents to stay home and raise the child.
If we can generate that and that proves to be somewhat true for our situation, then there's no question in my mind thats exactly what we'll be doing... |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
Western child rearing is a mess, not only is it prohibitively expensive if you look at it from simply a financial point of view like I've been doing, but it's just 'expected' that the mother be back into the workforce within a couple of months. That's further compounded by the problems of society expecting you to be there and general living expenses which won't let you get by on just one wage.
It pisses me off a lot. :(
I'll be damned if I won't be spending at least 5 years out of the workforce to have a child because I'll certainly not be lumping the poor little mite into some nasty childcare centre before they go off to pre-school. I just don't think it's fair on the child, they'd feel unwanted and unloved like someone's little afterthought in between commuting and work.
|
This is only the case if the day care is of lower quality than the household. Ovbiously most rich children are better off staying home. But poorer children are better off attending day care due to the lack of stimulus available for them in their home. There is a trend, as people's income increases they rely less on government sponsored programs. So it mostly won't be the case that children from higher SES' that dont benefit from the program will end up in lower quality day cares. Benefits have been shown for lower SES children even when attending low quality day cares.
Also the feeling unloved is just conjecture and is contingent on popular belief. Most studies show that unless what I described above is happening children are better off socially and emotionally by attending day care centers.
Most arguments that people put up against a national day care center system are driven by lack of correct knowledge and reliance on popular beliefs. All the negative beliefs associated with day care centers were merited back in the 60's, but have no grounding for our current situation. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
And what about the children? You keep shifting the focus to the parents. This system if not for the parents. Yes parents derive some benefit from it, but the main beneficiaries are the children. Early education is heavily correlated with better financial outcomes, higher education and less brushes with the law. Those are some benefits to society right there. By educating the current children you're increasing the probability that they themselves won't end up depending on welfare, won't end up in jail, and their own children will also be better off. So right there, you're reducing future need for welfare and reducing criminal activity. It is also known that more educated people, have less children on average. See how many indirect and direct benefits this program brings? Yet you, and arbiter, and lillith below this post are concerned with the short term benefits some douchebag that is too irresponsible to care about getting of welfare will get. There has been econometric studies done on the impact of some of the day care center systems already in place. There is an increase in single mothers being incorporated into the workforce. There you go, some people actually trying to get off welfare just by implementing this. There is also an argument to be made that most people that will use the day care centers will be using it so that they can study and/or work. No study has been able to show that people actually become lazier, work less, are become more dependant on welfare. You guys are just bringing your ideological baggage into this. That's why you keep focusing on the parents, not the children. |
...and you're forgetting that one parent can stay home, home school their own kids and take responsibility for what they brought into this world.
Personally, I'd rather my kids pick up my habits than someone's we don't know.
It's personal preference and I simply DO NOT TRUST government to know what's good for my child. :) |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
...and you're forgetting that one parent can stay home, home school their own kids and take responsibility for what they brought into this world.
Personally, I'd rather my kids pick up my habits than someone's we don't know.
It's personal preference and I simply DO NOT TRUST government to know what's good for my child. :) |
I sincerely understand your concern. But you have to keep in mind that this service will be aimed at lower SES children. Their parents cant afford to have one of them stay home. That's the problem. If you can afford to stay home and raise your child, surely your child will be better off, but poorer people cant. :p |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
I sincerely understand your concern. But you have to keep in mind that this service will be aimed at lower SES children. Their parents cant afford to have one of them stay home. That's the problem. If you can afford to stay home and raise your child, surely your child will be better off, but poorer people cant. :p |
That's the Catch-22 isn't it?
Don't get me wrong, if the system was tweaked a little so as not to perpetuate generations of welfare cases, I might be more lenient but I'm a libertarian at heart (as if THAT wasn't apparent lol) so my views obviously aren't going to be shared by everybody.
I'm not totally adverse to some socialist aspects as long as whatever policy comes down the pipe doesn't discriminate against anyone along the economic spectrum (like our Canadian Healthcare System for example).
Universal Daycare, while sounding Utopian, doesn't address those that have no plans for having kids, yet are forced to pay into it.
[edit] Just an afterthought; maybe special tax credits for those that don't have kids? meh. :p |
|
|
|
|
