National Child Care Going Ahead

[August1991]

Cartman, MapleSyrup, I hate to rain on your parade. The evidence is rather dramatic that when the State takes over child-rearing, the birth rate drops.

You should really ask yourself why that is. At the same time, you might ask yourself why people have children.

Perhaps this is a good thing. It has been argued that the world has too many people, not too few.

There is a reality that cost of living is far higher today -cost not in the sense of inflation but in more expensive housing through conveniences and size, and in many areas such as computers and whatever - while incomes are little more than when demands were much more modest.

That is utter nonsense, Eureka. People have never been as well off as they are now. Think of the conditions in which your two grandmothers raised their children.

The Toronto Star this morning has a piece that notes that if the public funds are given to privately operated concerns, there will be a development of large corporate providers as has happened in the USA and Australia.

I find mildly amusing that while you object to employees of a corporation taking care of kids, you seem to have no objection to unionized civil servants doing it. At least McDonald's employees make an effort to be nice and they offer salads. Postal workers have a tendency to go, well, postal.

[maplesyrup]

What is the purpose of these child care centres? It is to have children of working parents to be in the best possible environment while their parents are at work. So do you want some minimum wage slacker loooking after your kids, or do you want someone who is making a career in child care?

Why in the world would you want to privatize this system? Why would you want profits going out to some corporation whose executives don't even know the children involved. What is the matter with the elites in society that don't want employees to earn a decent living?

[caesar]

I was actually referring to the national day care idea; but since we do heavily subsidized Quebec; yes we are. BC has been a "have not" province for a very short time which is now coming to an end. We have been subsidizing other provinces for years. Lots of our federal money over and above regular transfer payment ends up in Quebec.

My daughter has stayed at home to raise her two children; they are both turning out very nicely. There was a national literacy test given to all grade 7 school children; she placed in the top 5% in Canada (at at least a grade 12 level)

[caesar]

The Conservative child care program is good.

What is that supposed to mean Blue; they were against any day care program. Only thing that I agreed on with them. I think it is a parent's responsibility and right to raise their own children. I do realize some parents must work but I don't think it is the best way to raise our nation's children. Let's enable those who would prefer to raise their children until at least grade one. Gives the children a better start in life than being raised by strangers. More consistency and better bonding with their parents.

[maplesyrup]

This program is for people who can't afford to stay home with their kids. Get it.

[Guest eureka]

Actually, August, it is far from being nonsense. I think I have written previously on these forums that incomes peaked in 1977 and declined steadily for some years. Not until 1998 did they again reach 1977 levels and are now a little higher.

Those are just facts and do not take the reality that incomes at the lower end are now lower than in 1977. Tax reductions will not answer that problem.

Nor does it take into account that incomes in the middle are only higher because of the increased participation of women in the work force or that people today work longer hours for the slightly increased income.

"Wants" today, and expectations, are higher than they were in the late 70's. Together, those factors mitigate againsr any successful child care program that is not dramatically different than any proposed so far.

Othere than that, I agree with you about the reduction in the birth rate that will accompany child care. I also have not said anything about who I would prefer to look after children. There, I tend to agree with Caesar while recognising the impracticality of the wish that women could or would stay at home in this economic world.

[August1991]

Actually, August, it is far from being nonsense. I think I have written previously on these forums that incomes peaked in 1977 and declined steadily for some years. Not until 1998 did they again reach 1977 levels and are now a little higher.

I have no desire to go through that data again. We are better off now than 20 years ago and certainly 80 years ago (when your grandmother or greatgrandmother raised her children).

IOW, people work less time now to obtain any particular item or service they may desire. In many cases in the past, the item or service was not even available. (Penicillin, DVD, Internet.)

I would agree that the growth data is more pronounced for the US than Canada in the past 20 years.

Nor does it take into account that incomes in the middle are only higher because of the increased participation of women in the work force or that people today work longer hours for the slightly increased income.

The data is on a per capita basis. Productivity data in the US shows growth over the past 20 years.

I agree that women working at home are neglected from all national accounts data.

----

"Wants" today, and expectations, are higher than they were in the late 70's.

I doubt that very much.

However, people have alternative ways now to enjoy their leisure time that were not available in the past.

May I make only one suggestion?

People used to have children to take care of them in their old age. With State pensions and State medical insurance, kids are less necessary now. Or so many people have indirectly concluded.

The next generation to retire may well be the one to discover that family is a more trustworthy institution than the State.