Hal 9000

What numbers would be satisfy you? I'm pretty sure you'd lock up men based on reasonable guilt....just to be sure. BTW - That's not an anecdote, that's a real case with a real person who spent 23 years in hell on a wrongful conviction. I guarantee you, his life was way more destroyed than most sexual assault victims. But, you wouldn't care about that - would you?

I don't know...who should we ask? Oh, lets ask David Milgaard!

Are we still talking about sexual harassment, or have you guys drifted into the rape topic again? I like to know because sometimes the answers are different.

I think you're missing the fact that Bonam said "barely human". Seriously though, I think the point is; you don't reach that high of level in politics without having a certain personality type accompanied by some very thick skin. These women in politics are not meek wallflowers afraid of they boss, they're not affected by personal comments toward them or their families - otherwise they would never have made it to where they are. Politicians are "A' types with huge ego's. I know it's popular to tow the "helpless woman" line, but don't be fooled these people are almost reptilian.

Well said!

Exactly, so you'd agree that the range is pretty wide. Yet, you talk as if all men are sex offenders that should be locked up.

What you are linking is not a study, it's in defence of a study that makes the program look bad. There is no data here except jobs created and an assumption of what GDP than brings...sure jobs will be created, how much will those jobs cost taxpayers is the big question. The money aspect shown here is really nothing except projections and hypotheticals. Any study that uses the word "assume" as much as this one does, is not real accurate. They show a return of just 35%, then miraculously after using the word assume about a dozen times, they come to 147% return - globally of course, meaning it can't and won't ever be traced or proven. And, there is little to no information on the social effects to children. Sorry, this reeks of a study commissioned in panic mode from some desperate politician.

They're not comparing rich kids with poor kids or university parents with drop-out parents, they're comparing all kids in equal situations...with the only difference being daycare/no daycare. I saw the article you posted, it's meaningless to this discussion, it states the obvious - that given a certain amount of negative factors, a child's learning or behaviour will suffer...and I agree. The problem is; this study and common sense will tell you that full time daycare is adding to those negative influences that are holding children back. As far as your statement; "At the end of the day ALL of the research shows that the program is profitable to the provincial AND federal governments.", that's just laughable. The studies...the actual studies, not the fairytale world of hypotheticals, projections and wishful thinking, all point to the fact that it's not only bad economically, it's bad for children's social and scholastic progression. In fact; their study takes into account everything from mothers age, income, age of child, siblings, hours in daycare, married parents, single mother etc.etc. - not just who is utilizing the system, but the effects of the system on those children.

But saying stupid woman would be, so would "get me some coffee sweetheart".

"Their findings for five-year-olds, though, are more pronounced. They discovered “sizable negative and significant effects.” For example, they found that Quebec’s child care policy reduced the PPVT score for five-year-olds in 2002-2003 by 4.9 points on average. “This is a very large effect,” they say. To give a sense of how large, they point out that, by comparison, a child whose mother has a university degree typically scores three points above a child whose mother has only a high school diploma." "For Quebec five-year-olds who took the test in 2006-2007, compared with their peers elsewhere in Canada, the study says “negative effects” show up for children of both highly educated and less-educated mothers, but tend to be slightly worse for kids whose mothers had a high school diploma or less. In other words, Quebec kids, after many of their parents began taking advantage of the province’s new low-cost daycare, did worse on a basic vocabulary test. “Therefore,” the researchers conclude with withering understatement, “the picture is not quite what it should be for a policy that seeks to increase early literacy skills and better prepare children for school.”" The point here is not to compare university mothers' children with high school mothers' children. The point of using the 3 point example is to illustrate just how bad the 4.9 PPVT number is. The 4.9 number is comparing all kids of equal backgrounds with the only exception being that of full time daycare. In other words; if the difference between university mothers' children and High school children is 3 PPVT points, then saying the difference between kids in daycare and kids without daycare is -4.9 PPVT points, then that's a pretty drastic difference. They compared high income kids with other high income kids and low income kids with other low income kids. The results were slightly worse for low income kids, but were bad for kids in every demographic.

A university taking a left wing agenda, what's next, cops voting to go to a doughnut shop? I won't care until I have to start paying taxes for nothing that end up in the pockets of who knows which NGO.

WoW! You linked to the actual study that contradicts every point in your post.

Why ask questions in which the answer is obvious?

Here's more from the NLSCY: "Social equity and efficiency Two further considerations can be raised concerning social equity and efficiency. Transfers in kind to families using subsidized childcare, which is the way the Québec’s policy function, raise the question of their horizontal and vertical equity. Using data from the SLID and the NLSCY for year 2002, Grenier (2005) has imputed the value of the in-kind subsidy (after considering incomes taxes to finance the program) by income quartiles of families and their use of childcare by type for families with a child aged 0 to 4 years. Some of his results are summarized in Table A6. The subsidy is higher for higher-income families, although they pay much more income taxes, and their use of the costlier subsidized childcare services increases with income quartile. In his Innis Lecture on equity and equality given to the Canadian Economic Association, Duclos (2006) uses Grenier’s results as one of his examples and concludes: “The child-care subsidy system thus fails both in terms of vertical and horizontal equity in the income support dimension. Furthermore, and as discussed above, such a preference-based subsidy system also fails in the dimension of freedom to choose. It first horizontally penalizes the freedom of choice of those families that would otherwise prefer those childcare arrangements that are not subsidized by the state. Since those families have on average a lower level of disposable income, that freedom-to-choose penalty is also on average larger for those with less well-being in the income dimension. Hence, extending the consideration of well-being to other dimensions reinforces the conclusion that Quebec’s current child-care subsidy is both vertically and horizontally inequitable in the income dimension (p. 1001).”" http://www.cirano.qc.ca/icirano/public/pdf/20101202_P-Lefebvre_2.pdf

"The study, entitled “Quebec’s Childcare Universal Low Fees Policy 10 Years After: Effects, Costs and Benefits,” is co-authored by Université du Québec à Montréal economists Pierre Lefebvre, Philip Merrigan and Francis Roy-Desrosiers. They look at the main goals of Quebec’s daycare policy—allowing more mothers of young children to work outside the home, and enhancing prospects of success in school for kids, especially those from lower-income families. On letting more moms enter the labour force, the program has been a smashing success, dramatically boosting their participation rates. The paper is far more contentious, however, when it turns to how children are affected by Quebec’s incentive for parents to put their kids in care at a younger age and for more hours each week. The data comes mainly from a massive, ongoing Statistics Canada project called the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. The NLSCY tracks the progress of thousands of young people: its latest stage, for example, looks at 35,795 children from less than one to seven years old, and youths from 14 to 25. Such a deep data pool allows researchers to make broad comparisons among groups. For kids at the ages that the Montreal economists studied, the NLSCY has scores nationwide for more than 10,000 four-year-olds and more than 18,000 five-year-olds. All those children were given what’s called the Peabody Picture and Vocabulary Test, an oral test that’s widely used to gauge verbal ability. The results are adjusted by age group to a mean score of 100; variations above and below that level are what matter. Sampling seven years of NLSCY data, the Montreal researchers found no conclusive evidence that Quebec’s daycare policy had changed PPVT scores markedly for four-year-olds. Still, they cautiously flag some negative indications for the children of mothers with low education, calling these variations in PPVT results “large enough for policy-makers to worry about.” Their findings for five-year-olds, though, are more pronounced. They discovered “sizable negative and significant effects.” For example, they found that Quebec’s child care policy reduced the PPVT score for five-year-olds in 2002-2003 by 4.9 points on average. “This is a very large effect,” they say. To give a sense of how large, they point out that, by comparison, a child whose mother has a university degree typically scores three points above a child whose mother has only a high school diploma. For Quebec five-year-olds who took the test in 2006-2007, compared with their peers elsewhere in Canada, the study says “negative effects” show up for children of both highly educated and less-educated mothers, but tend to be slightly worse for kids whose mothers had a high school diploma or less. In other words, Quebec kids, after many of their parents began taking advantage of the province’s new low-cost daycare, did worse on a basic vocabulary test. “Therefore,” the researchers conclude with withering understatement, “the picture is not quite what it should be for a policy that seeks to increase early literacy skills and better prepare children for school.”"

Who are these critics? The federal NDP, CCCABC, thetyee? The university of Quebec did the research and they plenty of data to use, I'm sure they considered socioeconomics. You could t be more wrong on this one. The program is crumbling in Quebec and it's too late for them, but not for us.

"Quebec’s universal daycare program has been praised by parents, child care advocates and ambitious politicians across the country as a thoroughly modern family policy. Yet providing those 223,000 spaces for children aged 0-4 at a bargain rate is also a massive drain on the public purse. Parents directly contribute a mere 13 per cent of the total $2.7-billion annual cost..... Despite its political and parental popularity, however, there’s ample evidence showing the massive public subsidies required to fund cheap or free daycare flow mainly to those at the top of the income spectrum. Families in the top 25 per cent of annual earnings are nearly twice as likely to have a child in Quebec’s $7-a-day program, compared to families in the bottom quarter. In other words, the province is spending billions per year to make life easier for its wealthiest citizens. This makes no sense, particularly in an era of fiscal restraint.... A study by economists at Université du Québec à Montréal concludes the daycare program “has not enhanced school readiness or early literacy skills in general, with negative significant effects” for certain cognitive tests. These negative results, the authors observe, are likely due to Quebec children spending too much time in daycare. Other studies have shown Quebec’s program to be a source of greater stress and behavioural problems in children."

If this is the case, they what's the hold-up? If it's such a huge money maker, then we'll surely not only see our taxes stay the same, but a certain tax reduction.

You have to be joking if you think that his 10 women with ten children analogy is even close to reality.

Argus, you're dreaming if you think daycare is 20$ and daycare workers make 12/hr. She realized when her babies were about nine months old that finding two daycare spaces at a price the family could afford would be next to impossible. “The going rates are ... $1,200 to $1,400 per child for early child care,” she says. “With two, that becomes fairly enormous.” Rebecca Van Der Hijde pays $620 monthly for her two-and-a-half year old son to attend daycare three times a week. Read more: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/childcare-should-cost-10-day-boards-urge-1.1144370#ixzz3JNjwaQWoHours of Operation: Working hours: Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30 PM Parent’s vacation: Paying regular monthly fee NOTICE from parents or caregiver: 2 month in advance - last day of the month Closed from December 25 - January 1 and all statutory holidays Infants/toddlers 0-2 Full-time monthly rate* $800.00 2 yrs & above Full-time monthly rate* $750.00 After school care: $300.00 Casual rate $15 per hour Gradual Entry- $10 per hour $ 45.00 PER DAY Calculations of parttime days: 45 x 3 days X 4 weeks/ = 3 days = $540.00 2 days = $360.00 British Columbia Child Care Cost TYPE AGE CAT. SPOT AVG. COST ($) ENTRIES Licensed Infant Full-Time 897.27 1199 Licensed Infant Part-Time 48.05 376 Unlicensed Infant Full-Time 824.79 167 Unlicensed Infant Part-Time 40.58 58 Licensed Toddler Full-Time 837.67 1029 Licensed Toddler Part-Time 45.58 340 Unlicensed Toddler Full-Time 795.39 218 Unlicensed Toddler Part-Time 48.11 86 Licensed Preschool Full-Time 744.36 731 Licensed Preschool Part-Time 45.83 170 Unlicensed Preschool Full-Time 696.48 81 Unlicensed Preschool Part-Time 35.48 21 Licensed Kindergarten Full-Time 651.06 97 Licensed Kindergarten Part-Time 26.74 19 Unlicensed Kindergarten Full-Time 678.75 16 Unlicensed Kindergarten Part-Time 38.00 10 Licensed Schoolage Full-Time 504.51 169 Licensed Schoolage Part-Time 29.92 63 Unlicensed Schoolage Full-Time 578.76 37 Unlicensed Schoolage Part-Time 36.89 27

What a ridiculous comment! You and OGfT are adding nothing to this topic and so choose to drag another thread into the gutter with senseless insults. I've asked you people questions about the issue, how it might work and if you've worked the numbers - nothing but insults.

Here's some fact's; You're not gonna bring the lower class up to to the middle class by taxing the middle class, you can only bring the middle class down. Secondly, you're not gonna get people off welfare if minimum wage isn't much better. Third, the economy will better off investing with all the lower income working people than simply hoping a few will get off welfare.

The same way it's always been done. If a person won't go to work for 13/14$ per hour and possible tips and zero taxes, what makes you think they'll go to work for 10$p/h -15$ daycare (and taxes) when they're getting money for being stay at home moms?

I know the economics of it. And, it's a dog. If you people just want to throw money at free day care - fair enough, but stop pretending...or believing others that it is a money maker (or saver), it's just not! As I said earlier, you'd get better results raising minimum wage 1 dollar and supplementing a per child rate and giving the low income people no income tax. They earn money, they spend money, they pay no income tax, we have a reduction in welfare claims and we don't get stung with the tax burden. That's a win/win.

So, the short answer is no, you haven't done the math!