Renegade

Its is always easier to call the argument lame rather than find an actual response. I guess you don't have one.

I could have sworn that when I stated parents were asking for the government to create subsidized spaces, you denied that's what you were asking for. Now, here you are asking for exactly that ("I would like the governement to subsidize the creation of new spaces...") Regardless if you say it or Churchill says it, it doesn't make it so. All I'm saying is you want an investment in childcare, prove that there is a tangible return on that investment. You have already admitted that the government will only recoup a fraction in taxes paid to fund the infrastructure. I don't dispute that it is better for the children and parents. Show me some quantifiable benefits to those you are asking to fund the investment.

None of the things you have specified above should be funded by non-beneficiaries. Explanations like yours fall into the idiotic category. Hmm.... Sounds like you are saying: I have children so I want my childcare funded. I am sickly, so fund my healthcare I watch TV, so fund the CBC I will grow old, so fund my pension I need transportation to get to work, so fund my public transit I need food, so fund that too please. and so on.

margrace, if your response is intended to answer the question I and others have posed above, you've lost me. We can all agree that the Bible has some great and unselfish teachings. How does this all relate to the assignment of guilt to those who didn't partake in the action? You refer to "anger is the reaction". Who's anger, the victims or the perpetrator? Maybe for my benefit if you can give a less cryptic response and relate it more specificly to the issue raised (ie residential schools) I could follow what you are saying.

You guys should be ashamed! You've taken a thread intended to remember the victims and heros of a tragedy, and have turned it into a name-calling pissing contest. Please stop!

The existance of waitlists in centers which charge at least $1200/month would suggest that the cost has not reached the maximium practical rate. The cost will have reached the maximium practical rate when the waitlist drops to zero. Not all centers are equal. Some will have better facilities, childcare providers, or premium location and there will be parents willing to pay the rate. This is the heart of the issue. People need to make sacrifices to raise children. I put it to you that it is parents who ought to be the ones who make those sacrifices and not society in general. Personally I don't see a huge benefit one way or another if a replenshment to the population is home-grown vs imported. In many ways an imported population offers the advantage of being able to choose from an already educated and trained workforce, so I'm not quite sure why you would consider it an unreasonable expectation.

No one can afford to work if their aftertax income is less than the cost of childcare + cost of commuting. Most people will not want to work if they do not get a reasonable return on investment (time and energy) after deducting expenses like childcare. These factors mean that childcare providers cannot raise fees significantly without causing a significant reduction in demand.This factor makes it difficult to justify capital investment unless it could be paid for with the existing fee structure since you know that the demand will drop if the fees were raised to pay for the capital improvements. Yes I agree. So as you have pointed out, raising fees will result in a drop in demand as at least some parents who are employed will opt to stay home instead. That in turn frees up spaces, which in turn reduces or eliminates wait lists. If government regulation has made it capital intensive to create childcare spaces, we can either relax the regulations to the point where it becomes economically feasable to open daycare centers, or conversely allocate the spots to those who can use them the most efficiently (ie those who are willing to pay the higher cost)

Why can't the charge enough, since clearly there is enough demand from parents? Economics 101 suggest they can charge a higher price than they are.

No, no. That's how it benefits you the parent and your kid. Since you've asked me and the rest of society to consider it an "investment" I expect a return. You may get value from the fact that the kid behaves better, or does better than their peers, but what is the net value to those of us being asked to fund the "investment" BTW, I can lay on the sarcasim as well as you, so if you want to avoid a pissing contest, tread a bit lighter here.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. So maybe you can impart some of your wisdom, if Mothercraft and Grace are full and have waitlist, why are they not expanding as would any other business. So what it is you are asking for? You've said that you don't want subisides to parents. You've said you don't want the government to create subsidized childcare spaces. If you are asking for the government to build childcare buildings and such infrastructure, are you expecting that they will recoup the cost from the operators. If not, isn't that exactly subsidized childcare spaces?

So now you are hositing the burden of raising the child on the "village". The "village" wasn't really given a voice or a choice in signin up for this so I don't see why it should bear the cost. As far as it is a worthtwhile investment, how so? Will the child be more productive and pay more taxes to society because the state has paid for childcare? Show me the link. Otherwise it just seems like an execuse for parents to transfer their cost responsibilties to the state.

No, I mean a direct fee subsidy. link My point is if there is a subsidy available, more people would apply then if market prices dictated available spaces. So let's be clear in that what parents are asking the government to do, is not just create availiable childcare spaces, it is asking the government to do is create more subsidized childcare spaces. Which of course brings us to the question I originally asked of why it is the responsibilty of the rest of society to subsidize parental choices.

If not government, who did you mean saying "society" had a responsibilty to not make children not cost-probibitive. And how exactly could "society" do so, without some sort of cost subsidy? At least we agree on something. When you need "dollars coming from above" it becomes a subsidy. Sure, it may not be a direct subsidy to parents, but it is an indirect one neverthe less. Are parents willing to bear the full-freight of creating new spaces, so that it is not a cost burden on the government? http://www.comw.org/poc/9904.html Even using the stats you provided, look at the table which is titled "Ratios to Personal Outlays - percent". In 1960 the % outlayed on housing was 14.2% and for household operations 6.0%, for a total of 20.2% In 1997 the % outlayed on housing was 14.6% and for household operations 5.8%, for a total of 20.4% Hardly much of a difference, wouldn't you agree? Many things went down, food from 24.3% in 1960, to 13.8% in 1997, Non-durable goods from 45.0% in 1960 to 28.2% in 1997. The only thing that went up in a meaningfull way was medical care and services. Medical care is not an issue here in Canada as it is provided uniformly to all residents

The fact that Mothercraft has a waitlist, does not prove that spaces are not available if you are willing to pay. In fact, subsidies are available for Mothercraft, which would explain why there woudl be an abundance of demand. Some private schools have waitlists, some don't. Does the fact that some do, prove that we need more private schools? Call up this location (416-345-1543): Kids & Company. They have available spots, no waitlist. Sorry, subsidies are not available. http://www.pointinc.org/index.php?module=article&view=13 I never disputed that a free or subsidized center would not have spaces available. Everyone wants something for free or below market cost so it is no wonder such a location would have a waitlist. Are you surprised that the government subsidized childcare centers in Quebec have a long waitlist?

It isn't a question of whether or not parents will pay for child care. It is a question of whether or not it is available, and with what standard of care. The taxpayer isn't being asked to foot the bill for the daily care of children - although I recognize that the government of Quebec certainly subsidizes more than any other province. The central argument is really about whether the government should have a hand in establishing a licensed and regulated system, or if parents should be fending for themselves. Melanie, I'm ok with a position that the government should set standards, much in the same way as government sets standards for other areas. The point I was responding, to that Dancer was making, was that it goes beyond setting standards, but to somehow subsidize the cost. This I disagree with. As to whether childcare is available, I'm strugglign with this, because, while I hear people complain about "lack of childcare spaces" I have not found any evidience that this was true. The complaint is really a euphisim for "I can't find any top quality child care at a cost I'm willing to pay". Both personal experience and those of others have shown, if you are willing to pay the cost, you can get the quality spaces you need.

I didn't say parents were removed from society did I? Parents are a segment of society, and it is their choices which they should balance. The rest of society has nothing to do with it. If you want to be a smartass instead of responding to the argument, I'll go with the flow. Why look only at house prices? It is not the only factor which makes up affordability, afterall other factors such as mortgage rates play a huge part in determining whether a house was affordable. You point out that the demand is for larger and larger homes. Who if not parents are making those demands for larger homes? If the average home that a parent requred was 1100 sq feet, then no doubt the average cost would be much less. If you actually want to make this argument you should look at the overall cost of living and compare it to income. Pointing soley at house prices is not sufficient to make the argument. I can just as easily point to lots of things which have gone down in price since the 60s. Does the price of any one thing prove life is more or less affordable? I was referring to those who needed childcare. If they had a stay at home mom, they wouldn't need it would they? First, the reason you need to look at family income instead of individual income is that it is families which need childcare not individuals, so family income is the relevant number to look at. Second, do you have any evidence that disposable income has dropped. All the statistics I've seen show that disposable income has grown. link To back up your position that somehow taxpayers should subsidize parents by making childcare more affordable, you claim it is because life is less affordable for parents since the 1960s. You have not shown that to be the case at all. Even if we assume it were true, how does it make it society's responsibility to subsidize childcare? I could just as easily say it is irresponsible for society to make cars cost probhitive, so they shoudl subsidize the cost of my new car.

It is not society which makes the cost of children prohibitive, it is the choices parent make. Yes, the cost of owning a home has gone up relative to income, but is that not to be expected as our cities get denser in population and land becomes more valuable? Parents today have higher demands on their standards of living and on the demands for childcare then in 1966. It would be common then to leave kids with relatives or in-home childcare providers in the 60s. Today parents "need" 2 cars, big house, yearly vacation, all the toys, in addition to regulated childcare. Family income has more than doubled (measured in constant dollars) since the 1960s. The average family size is decreased from 4 to 3.1 since the 60s, lowering the per family need for childcare. Yes it is true there has been an increase in the number of dual income households, but given the huge increase in family income, the argument that "society" has make childcare unaffordable does not have much justification Bottom line is good childcare cost money. Parents should be factor that cost in in deciding to have kids. If they aren't willing to make tradeoffs and sacrifices to pay for the childcare, they shouldn't expect that the taxpayer will.

You keep repeating this, yet refuse to explain why you think anyone but the perpetrators are responsible. I'm getting the impression that you have no explaination.

I agree with you. Multiculturalism and selective immigration are two separate issues. I agree that we out to be selective with those we invite to immigrate to Canada. The immigrants need to be selected on the basis of furthering the interests of Canada and their ability to adapt to the society as we have it today. However, once here, they have the freedom to choose the way they live their lives in the same manner that native-born Canadians are free to choose.

So you agree that Canada's culture is one of tolerance for different opinions and beliefs? Does that tolerance include tolerance of individuals who choose to maintain their ethnic and religious heritiage, even if it is not "white"? Isn't that the essence of multiculturalism?

Yes, I agree with you, daycare is not a luxary, however it is an essential cost of being a working parent. Given that you accept that daycare spaces is not an issue if a parent is willing to pay the going rate, the question then becomes, why should it be anyone but the parent's responsibilty to fund that daycare? Is it not irresponsible for parents to have kids which they cannot afford and have to rely on the public purse to support?

It seems the biggest complaint on the plan is the naming. People are happy with the plan, they just don't want it called "childcare", so that they can continue to complain that the government is doing nothing about childcare. You claim daycare spaces are sorely needed, yet it doesn't seem to be an issue for you. You have found a space for your child. In fact I'm having trouble finding anyone who could not find a daycare space provided they were willing to pay the freight.

Actually the concept of marriage has not been static and has evolved. There was a time where marriage between races was not allowed. There was a time where some religions did not recognize inter-faith marriages. In any case the legal definition of marriage is separate from the religious definition even though both use the same term. For example, the legal definition of marriage has been extended to common-law marriages despite the fact that most religions do not recognize common-law marriages (because they did not undertake the religous ceremony. Even if the law recognizes gay marriage, religions are free to not recognize them if they so choose. You complain that gays co-opted the use of the term marriage. You should be complaining that the government co-opted the term and used it as a basis of distinguising persons who had undertaken mutual obligations. How exactly do you know the intent of the inventor of artificial insemination?

Why stop at four? I'm assuming that the reason you would restrict it to persons over 14, is that children under 14 are likely not to understand the ramifications or the commitments which they are signing up for. How would you assure that the "goat, sheep, etc" actually understands and consents to the obligations of marriage? Are you assuming that consent of all parties are not required?

I understand that. The reasons for overpopulation are many, and aren't necessarily race-related. Why would you think I have an issue with white people? My point was that it is a ridiculous statement to assign credit for the "creation of society" to hetrosexuals simply because they can procreate.