Topic: Healthy Debate: National Childcare Program

[Rick_Donald]

Here's a novel idea that worked over 30 years ago. Why don't parents look after their own kids. Therefore we wouldn't need a daycare system except for single parents. The cost of living would even itself out eventually as the demand for the overpriced non necessities falls. The only reason that retailers charge 500% profit on goods is because a bunch of dumb overpaid schmucks will pay it.
My wife and I managed to raise our daughter on one salary. We lived without the perks but my kid pays me back everyday in her actions. Now that she's getting older the money is freeing up and my wife and I can enjoy some perks. And still on one income.
Also if this nation went back to single income families unemployment would be nil (=no welfare), kids would be more respectful and appreciative, more marriages would succeed and there would be less suburbanites and urbanites driving huge king cab pick ups.
Then maybe we could fund our military and help contribute in the international theatre.

[ballz]

Good day all,

I'm currently writing a paper on whether or not Canada should implement a national childcare program. I searched it up on here but the thread is 6 years old ( http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,26257.75.html ) and there weren't a whole lot of proponents of childcare to challenge the opponents anyway.

I'd like to kick this off again, 1. to help me bomb-proof or find fallacies in my point of view and 2. to hear some of the opposition's evidence, or rebuttals of my evidence.

So here are two out of the three main arguments of my thesis (again, the thesis is that Canada should adopt a national childcare program). The paper isn't written yet, I am just gathering data. These are just summaries of the arguments:

1. Natural selection. Couldn't find any data on Canada, but in the US the fertility rate of a woman receiving social assistance is 3x that of a woman not receiving social assistance.¹ Canada is at least similar. I don't think it's a secret that people receiving welfare have more kids than families that have two working parents anyway. The easiest indicator of intelligence is also wealth, with each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.²

What this means is that due to the costs of childcare for a wealthy person (who doesn't get it subsidized), intelligent people are having less kids, but generally unintelligent people are having more children because it doesn't restrict their lifestyle nearly as much (indeed, some would argue they benefit from having kids).

I don't think I need to elaborate any further into what natural selection will lead to...

2. It would actually end up being cheaper for taxpayers. I will use a single-parent in Newfoundland as an example.

Currently, the poverty line for a SP with one child is 20,209, and they would receive 14,670 in social assistance³, plus they can get childcare subsidized. Ignoring completely the "economies of scale" factor if there was a national childcare program, the median costs for centre-based childcare in Newfoundland is $4560/year(18mos - 36mos) and $4320(3yrs - 5 yrs).⁴ If childcare was provided, social assistance could be dramatically cut, and most likely a single parent is going to actively seek full-time employment. At $10/hr (min wage in Newfoundland), 40 hrs/week, that is an income of $20,800.

Now you have taken a single parent and their child above the poverty line at a cost of ~$4500 a year, as opposed to paying $14,670+ and they both remain below the poverty line.


1. http://itsteatime.net/blogs/blog4.php/2009/10/01/birth-rates-by-income
2. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/intlwlth.htm
3. http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_ncwpl01.htm
4. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/daycarecosts.html

Look forward to hearing your responses.

[foresterab]

One issue is the wage descrepienceis.  In Alberta my co-workers are paying anywhere from $350-900/month for just afterschool care if you can find a space...but wages for the workers there are $11/hour.  It's more cost effective to a parent stay at home with two kids than it is to have them working unless they are making significant wages..case in point the boss has a nanny fulltime with two kids for $100 more a month than childcare is for school days only.

In addition to the cost of enrollement programs are decreasing due to increased certification needs.  Several local daycares are facing closure because the province has now mandated a $6000 course needed in order to supervise other workers yet the employee only makes roughly ~24,000 a year.  If you can make more at Tim Hortons or MacDonalds by a couple of bucks an hour + don't have to have a certificate = no workers in the childcare sector.

Perhaps the solution is instead of direct subsidization is tax-splitting returns for all parents with kids under X years of age.  That changes a $80,000 wage earner into two $40,000 wages but may better balence out gender employment and wage descrepencies.

Some more fodder to think on.

[cupper]

Look at the stats that look at educational success of children who attended daycare vs those that didn't.
Then correlate this to differential in projected income over lifetime. This would set up the argument that it would be an investment in the future.

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Look at the stats that look at educational success of children who attended daycare vs those that didn't.
Then correlate this to differential in projected income over lifetime. This would set up the argument that it would be an investment in the future.

Do they exist?
Because that sounds like bullshit to me, nothing beats a stay at home parent.

[Thucydides]

Proponents of these things will always dress up the statistics and use words like "investment", but consider who is really receiving the "investment".

Ontario's full time kindergarten program was foisted on the provinces taxpayers citing all the above evidence, while never pointing out the billion dollar bonanza awarded to the Ontario Teacher's union to pay for all the new unionized kindergarten teachers and support staff.

National daycare was always the pet project of the Liberals for roughly the same underlying reason; to entice these people to vote for them and to provide a "payoff" to government workers at the taxpayers expense. The fact that the LPC never carried through of the promise since 1993 indicates that:

a. They believe the voting public is really that gullible
b. There wasn't a big enough constituency for an effective political ROI
c. Economic reality had set in by 1995, and Paul Martin's Finance Department realized that there could be no spending on this file or any other while the cost cutting and offloading to the provinces took place.

[cupper]

nothing beats a stay at home parent.

That would be an ideal goal, but we're no longer living in the era of "Leave it to Beaver". With an economy that almost requires a two income household, today that opportunity is limited to a narrow group.

And just because they have a stay at home parent does it mean that the kids will receive the structure and guidance they need to grow up to be productive members of society. The same applies to day care as well.

Do they exist?
Because that sounds like bullshit to me

I was just making a suggestion for further review and possible argument. I don't necessarily believe that daycare attendance will make a difference one way or the other, but it may come up with something worth following up.

[dapaterson]

I'd argue that those in full-time child care now are there because they are part of a family with the resources to pay for full-time child care.  Therefore, their outcomes are superior not due to the full-time child care, but rather from being part of an intact family unit with average to above average income.

[ballz]

Do they exist?
Because that sounds like bullshit to me, nothing beats a stay at home parent.

There seems to be a lack of long-term studies in this area. While there is plenty of evidence to suggest that quality childcare helps children under 5 cognitively be more prepared for school, I personally can't find anything that tracks how they actually faired in middle school and high school, and more importantly when they actually graduated and got out into the real world. I found one 20 year study but it hasn't concluded that stuff yet.

I disagree about "nothing beats a stay at home parent though." That depends on the parent. Much like there is a correlation between quality of childcare centres and the child's development. One study I read noted that government-run daycares performed the best, not-for-profit daycares second, and private daycare's third. The advantage of a government system would be in the quality control obviously, but no one would be forced to drop their kid off at daycare either.

I'd argue that those in full-time child care now are there because they are part of a family with the resources to pay for full-time child care.  Therefore, their outcomes are superior not due to the full-time child care, but rather from being part of an intact family unit with average to above average income.

While I didn't find any statistics on how many children in full-time daycare come from low-income vs high-income families, this study http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/upload/seccyd_06.pdf#page=22 notes that the largest determinant in the child's development is their family unit. This supports my natural selection argument though.

Proponents of these things will always dress up the statistics and use words like "investment", but consider who is really receiving the "investment".

Using the Newfoundland example, for every 3 single parents that are able to get full-time jobs instead, the net savings to the taxpayers is developmentally $36,510. So the taxpayers are definitely going to save money. Those savings alone would be enough to cover 8.11 more children's full-time care, or in other words the full-time care of the children of the high-income earners.

Ontario's full time kindergarten program was foisted on the provinces taxpayers citing all the above evidence, while never pointing out the billion dollar bonanza awarded to the Ontario Teacher's union to pay for all the new unionized kindergarten teachers and support staff.

One thing I did consider and wonder about was the effect of the unions. While it wouldn't be teachers that would work at the daycare, I am sure they would form a union. Luckily it would be a smaller union, and less education is required, giving them less bargaining power. But you're right, that factor would inflate the costs, but since most daycares right now are "for-profit" daycares, so how much they would offset each other would be an interesting question.

[whiskey601]

And then there is the issue of "means testing" for costs:

IIRC, the US Navy at one time had one of the best day care programs in the world in terms of quality and satisfaction.
Interms of costs, the per child costs are based on the income of the service member, but also apparently adjusted to the conditions of the local labour market. 

 
Defense Department Adjusts Child Care Fees

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=55669

By Bruce Moody, Commander, Navy Installations Command Public Affairs

WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Navy is adjusting its child care fees beginning Oct. 1 and adding categories for its highest income earners to compensate for six years without increases.

The Department of Defense establishes fee ranges for all military child development programs and recently released a policy addressing the fee adjustment.

Under the new fee schedule, families with a total income of $85,000 or less will see their child care cost rise by $1 a week. Child care costs for families earning more than $85,000 will rise between $10 and $16 a week. For a 50-hour week, child care costs will range from $1.12 to $2.74 per hour.

Here is the new fee schedule:
Category I – incomes of $29,400 or below – will pay $56 per week (no change)
Category II – incomes from $29,401 to $35,700 – will pay $70 per week (+$1.00 per week)
Category III – incomes from $35,701 to $46,200 – will pay $83 per week (+$1.00 per week)
Category IV – incomes from $46,201 to $57,750 – will pay $99 per week (+$1.00 per week)
Category V – incomes from $57,751 to $73,500 – will pay $109 per week (+$1.00 per week)
Category VI – incomes from $73,501 to $85,000 – will pay $122 per week (+$1.00 per week)
Category VII – incomes from $85,001 to $100,000 – will pay $131 per week (+$10.00 per week)
Category VIII – incomes from $100,001 to $125,000 – will pay $134 per week (+$13.00 per week)
Category IX – incomes of $125,001 or above – will pay $137 per week (+$16.00 per week)

An optional high-cost fee may be used in areas where it is necessary to pay higher wages to compete with local labor or at those installations where wages are affected by non-foreign area cost of living allowances, post differential or locality pay. Three Navy installations utilize this high cost option: National Naval Medical Center Bethesda, Md.; Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam; and PMRF Barking Sands, Hawaii.

"The Navy is committed to providing affordable child care to our military families," said Chuck Clymer, Child and Youth Program manager at Commander, Navy Installations Command.

For the first time in six years, fee ranges have been revised to account primarily for inflation, increased incomes and increased caregiver salaries. Competitive salaries help to recruit and retain quality staff. Retaining high quality staff contributes to continuity of caregivers – stability that is very important to the young child's emotional development."

The fee policy revision represents a balanced solution to the issue of adjusting fees to pay caregiver salaries while limiting the financial impact to the family, said Clymer.

"The Navy has a lifelong commitment to protecting the well-being of our Sailors and their families," said Clymer. "Ensuring the health, safety and well-being of the military children entrusted to the Navy's care is a number one priority."

The Navy supports our service members and families by caring for nearly 52,000 children, ages 6 weeks to 12 years, in 132 child development centers, 86 school-aged care programs and 3,115 on- and off-base licensed child development homes.

The Navy recently expanded its Child and Youth Program to include 7,000 child care spaces fleetwide for children ages 12 and under and 31 new Child Development Centers. The expansion will reduce a child's time spent on waiting lists to three months or less to meet 80 percent of the potential need across the Navy by the end of 2011.

Navy Child and Youth Programs are among the highest quality in the nation. Navy Child Development Centers are accredited with the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Our Child Development Home Providers are certified by the Department of Defense, applicable state licensing agencies and are currently accrediting with the National Association for Family Child Care. Navy before and after-school programs are currently accrediting with the National AfterSchool Alliance. The Navy's youth programs are affiliated with the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

For more news from Commander, Navy Installations Command, visit www.navy.mil/local/cni/.
 
 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

That would be an ideal goal, but we're no longer living in the era of "Leave it to Beaver". With an economy that almost requires a two income household, today that opportunity is limited to a narrow group.

No, we seem to think it requires that......................but I guess you just have to wonder if one thinks that kids are worth it.

We did..............and now that I'm in my 50's I'm looking at things like a hot tub or maybe , for the first time ever, an all inclusive holiday somewhere warm, things that a lot of folks in thier 20 and 30's think are requirements for "busy working couples".

[Thucydides]

One thing I did consider and wonder about was the effect of the unions. While it wouldn't be teachers that would work at the daycare, I am sure they would form a union. Luckily it would be a smaller union, and less education is required, giving them less bargaining power. But you're right, that factor would inflate the costs, but since most daycares right now are "for-profit" daycares, so how much they would offset each other would be an interesting question.

You can just bet that CUPE or OPSU would snap up any "child care worker" union effort in order to bolster their pool of dues paying members and political power. People seem to ignore the effects of incentives outside the immediate question (child care) at hand.

[recceguy]

I'm not going to get way wrapped up in this, but I see it as just more socialist engineering. Kids get enough, "everyone's a winner, baby" stuff in the regular school system without starting them on it while they still can't read. Let alone by some Unionist hired by the province.

When my daughter was growing up, both my wife and I worked low paying jobs. My daughter was in private day care for a year before school and an after school program after she started.

We paid for that, when we could hardly afford it. We struggled, but we didn't ask for any handouts.

People want their kids in daycare? They can pay for it themselves, just like I, and thousands others did, before it became de rigueur to suck the taxpayer dry.

I'm tired of splitting my paycheck with self entitled people that think I owe them something that they are just too damn lazy to go get themselves.

If they can't take care of their kids, or afford to, they shouldn't have any.

[CDN Aviator]

I'm not going to get way wrapped up in this, but I see it as just more socialist engineering. Kids get enough, "everyone's a winner, baby" stuff in the regular school system without starting them on it while they still can't read. Let alone by some Unionist hired by the province.

When my daughter was growing up, both my wife and I worked low paying jobs. My daughter was in private day care for a year before school and an after school program after she started.

We paid for that, when we could hardly afford it. We struggled, but we didn't ask for any handouts.

People want their kids in daycare? They can pay for it themselves, just like I, and thousands others did, before it became de rigueur to suck the taxpayer dry.

I'm tired of splitting my paycheck with self entitled people that think I owe them something that they are just too damn lazy to go get themselves.

If they can't take care of their kids, or afford to, they shouldn't have any.

 

[PMedMoe]

I agree.  I was going to post that I don't care if they tax people, but only tax people who have kids in daycare.

[Kirsten Luomala]

I agree.  I was going to post that I don't care if they tax people, but only tax people who have kids in daycare.

Althought I do agree with  Recceguy (excellent post by the way) and PmedMoe, I just have to play devils advocate here and mention if your a homeowner (even if you don't have kids) your already paying for a form of childcare (thru property taxes) called "School".  So why not a national childcare program if it will help the kids. 

[Brad Sallows]

Although people treat elementary school like a daycare facility, that is not actually its purpose.  It is funded for its purpose.

[ballz]

Kids get enough, "everyone's a winner, baby" stuff in the regular school system without starting them on it while they still can't read. Let alone by some Unionist hired by the province.

I agree. I am iffy on the "unionist hired by the province" comment because not-for-profits and gov't run childcare centres tend to be of higher quality according to everything I've read so far.

I'm tired of splitting my paycheck with self entitled people that think I owe them something that they are just too damn lazy to go get themselves.

If they can't take care of their kids, or afford to, they shouldn't have any.

I agree. We shouldn't have to pay for someone else's kids, but sadly, I think we're better off if we do anyway. And when I say that, I mean the wealthy capitalist who's kids are grown up and out of the house, is better off paying for universal child care than for more social assistance.

Here's a small piece from my paper (which ended up being titled "How Much a Capitalist Would Gain from a National Childcare Program"), expanding on the earlier Newfoundland example:

At the current cost of $14,670 for social assistance, 3.26 impoverished children could have childcare provided for them, and their single parents can then earn over $60,000 of income and contribute approximately $6,000 to tax revenues. This means that the net costs to taxpayers for every three single parents that are enabled to get above the poverty line would be $7500 (3 * $4500 costs - $6,000 tax revenue) as opposed to $44,010 (3 *$14,670) in social assistance, for a net savings of $36,510. In other words, more than enough to provide childcare for the children of the high-income earners as well, without raising their taxes. With this financial analysis it is clear that taxpayers should support a national childcare program if only because it's less wasteful than paying the extra social assistance money associated with not having one.

And when I say taxpayers, more than anybody I am talking about wealthy capitalists who by far pay the most taxes. My old man is a wealthy capitalist, and some day I will be be too hopefully. I personally don't advocate for a national childcare program for the socialist reasons derived from a bleeding heart for the children... I could not care less about someone else's kids (this comment made it into my paper too, no joke). I am advocating it because it will be benefit myself, my old man, and other taxpayers/wealthy capitalists.

[Infanteer]

People want their kids in daycare? They can pay for it themselves, just like I, and thousands others did, before it became de rigueur to suck the taxpayer dry.

I'm tired of splitting my paycheck with self entitled people that think I owe them something that they are just too damn lazy to go get themselves.

If they can't take care of their kids, or afford to, they shouldn't have any.

 

As a guy with a wife who made the decision to take a cut in family income to have a parent at home, I agree with this post.  Being a parent is a decision people have to make, and if you don't want to sacrifice the 2nd SUV, don't expect me to pay for your daycare.