Knows Too Much
Posts: 2,004 
Location: Proud to be in Alberta
Location: Proud to be in Alberta
June 20th, 2006, 05:56 PM
In all seriousness, this is something I have said for a long time, that the liberal plan does nothing for the working poor, or the shift worker, or the rural community, said community which exists outside the big urban cities. Small town Canada would not benefit from this.
What really gets me is the claims that with the Harper plan there will no longer be the Child Tax Credit (a lie), that it will affect subsidies (another lie) and that this will be taken into consideration when doing means tests for other programs, such as the CTC (yet another lie). Sooner or later the left has got to quit fearmongering. They are the little boy who keeps crying wolf. They should shut up with their lies and quit spreading fear and distrust. But then, if you are on the left, I guess you have to go with your strengths, such as they are!!
Quoting
You are sooooo blinded by ideology, I've argued repeatly that the Liberal daycare scheme was a welfare program for the well-to-do. My only information on the subject was personal experience, and the observation of my friends and family.
Let me say it again.....daycares are exclusively set up for the 9 to 5 crowd. The working poor don't work 9 to 5, they work at stores in the evenings, in restaurants and bars all hours, or shift work in call centres and industry.
Who works 9 to 5?
Upper income professionals.
As i know from experience, uneducated lower wage women are more apt to make the necessary sacrifices to stay home and raise their own children (Quelle Horror!), they have less to lose. With the NDP or Liberals THEY GET NOTHING, while upper middle class professionals get daycare subsidized by the rest of us. INSANITY!
Even transportation to and from convenient day care is extremely problamatic for the working poor, IF they decided to both work and IF they had 9 to 5 jobs.
The article above is DEAD ON!
I only wish the subsidy offered by Harper et al was doubled, and tied to the Child Tax Credit, so only the poorer families got it.
BUT, the left gives no thought to the actually reality of the working poor........they are simply caught up in some brain-dead ideological obsession with day care spaces........
Excellent post, Colpy. I cannot help but think of the Pink Floyd movie 'The Wall' whenever I hear about the LIberal daycare plan. Kids R' Us concrete buildings on every street corner, painted red and white, open 9 - 5 with daycare workers in uniforms. """Shudder""""" Quoting
What are lies?
A conservative blog non the less. Therefore bunch of lies. It doesn't help everyone, not by a long shot.
You are sooooo blinded by ideology, I've argued repeatly that the Liberal daycare scheme was a welfare program for the well-to-do. My only information on the subject was personal experience, and the observation of my friends and family.
Let me say it again.....daycares are exclusively set up for the 9 to 5 crowd. The working poor don't work 9 to 5, they work at stores in the evenings, in restaurants and bars all hours, or shift work in call centres and industry.
Who works 9 to 5?
Upper income professionals.
As i know from experience, uneducated lower wage women are more apt to make the necessary sacrifices to stay home and raise their own children (Quelle Horror!), they have less to lose. With the NDP or Liberals THEY GET NOTHING, while upper middle class professionals get daycare subsidized by the rest of us. INSANITY!
Even transportation to and from convenient day care is extremely problamatic for the working poor, IF they decided to both work and IF they had 9 to 5 jobs.
The article above is DEAD ON!
I only wish the subsidy offered by Harper et al was doubled, and tied to the Child Tax Credit, so only the poorer families got it.
BUT, the left gives no thought to the actually reality of the working poor........they are simply caught up in some brain-dead ideological obsession with day care spaces........
In all seriousness, this is something I have said for a long time, that the liberal plan does nothing for the working poor, or the shift worker, or the rural community, said community which exists outside the big urban cities. Small town Canada would not benefit from this.
What really gets me is the claims that with the Harper plan there will no longer be the Child Tax Credit (a lie), that it will affect subsidies (another lie) and that this will be taken into consideration when doing means tests for other programs, such as the CTC (yet another lie). Sooner or later the left has got to quit fearmongering. They are the little boy who keeps crying wolf. They should shut up with their lies and quit spreading fear and distrust. But then, if you are on the left, I guess you have to go with your strengths, such as they are!!
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,995 
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
June 23rd, 2006, 08:30 PM
More on the Quebec model
More on the Quebec model
Quote:
http://www.nber.org/digest/jun06/w11832.html
Canada's Universal Childcare Hurt Children and Families
"Children's outcomes have worsened since the program was introduced along a variety of behavioral and health dimensions. "
The percent of mothers who work in the paid labor force in North America has been rising, and the increased demand for childcare accompanying the rise of two-earner couples has captured the attention of public policymakers. In both Canada and the United States, there are large subsidies for early child care for low-income families, with modest tax subsidies for middle- and upper-income families for either childcare or pre-school. But interest has been growing in moving towards more universal subsidies towards early childcare along the lines of many nations in Europe. In Canada, the province of Quebec introduced universal subsidies to childcare over the period 1997-2000, and a major point of contention in the recent Parliamentary election was the extension of similar programs nationwide. In the United States, universal pre-school programs have been passed by states such as Georgia, New York, and Oklahoma, and there is a major battle shaping up over a ballot initiative for universal pre-school in California. Unfortunately, these debates are raging largely in an evidence vacuum.
In Universal Childcare, Maternal Labor Supply, and Family Well-Being (NBER Working Paper No. 11832), authors Michael Baker, Jonathan Gruber, and Kevin Milligan measure the implications of universal childcare by studying the effects of the Quebec Family Policy. Beginning in 1997, the Canadian province of Quebec extended full-time kindergarten to all 5-year olds and included the provision of childcare at an out-of-pocket price of $5 per day to all 4-year olds. This $5 per day policy was extended to all 3-year olds in 1998, all 2-year olds in 1999, and finally to all children younger than 2 years old in 2000. Since welfare reform and other changes were occurring for single mothers over this time period, the authors focus on the effects of this policy on the married and cohabiting women and their children who received most of the new subsidies under this policy. They use data from the National Longitudinal Study of Canadian Youth (NLSCY), a large longitudinal survey of children inside and outside of Quebec, to develop the first comprehensive analysis of a universal subsidized childcare program, following its impact from childcare use through employment and finally to children's and parent's outcomes.
The authors first find that there was an enormous rise in childcare use in response to these subsidies: childcare use rose by one-third over just a few years. About a third of this shift appears to arise from women who previously had informal arrangements moving into the formal (subsidized) sector, and there were also equally large shifts from family and friend-based child care to paid care. Correspondingly, there was a large rise in the labor supply of married women when this program was introduced.
Disturbingly, the authors report that children's outcomes have worsened since the program was introduced along a variety of behavioral and health dimensions. The NLSCY contains a host of measures of child well being developed by social scientists, ranging from aggression and hyperactivity, to motor-social skills, to illness. Along virtually every one of these dimensions, children in Quebec see their outcomes deteriorate relative to children in the rest of the nation over this time period. Their results imply that this policy resulted in a rise of anxiety of children exposed to this new program of between 60 percent and 150 percent, and a decline in motor/social skills of between 8 percent and 20 percent. These findings represent a sharp break from previous trends in Quebec and the rest of the nation, and there are no such effects found for older children who were not subject to this policy change.
The authors also find that families became more strained with the introduction of the program, as manifested in more hostile, less consistent parenting, worse adult mental health, and lower relationship satisfaction for mothers.
The authors caution that their results are subject to a number of interpretations that highlight the importance of future work in this area. Most importantly, it is not clear whether the negative child outcomes are short-run transitions or long-term effects. Nevertheless, they caution that this subject requires more study before recommendations can be made about the long-run benefits of universal childcare
"Children's outcomes have worsened since the program was introduced along a variety of behavioral and health dimensions. "
The percent of mothers who work in the paid labor force in North America has been rising, and the increased demand for childcare accompanying the rise of two-earner couples has captured the attention of public policymakers. In both Canada and the United States, there are large subsidies for early child care for low-income families, with modest tax subsidies for middle- and upper-income families for either childcare or pre-school. But interest has been growing in moving towards more universal subsidies towards early childcare along the lines of many nations in Europe. In Canada, the province of Quebec introduced universal subsidies to childcare over the period 1997-2000, and a major point of contention in the recent Parliamentary election was the extension of similar programs nationwide. In the United States, universal pre-school programs have been passed by states such as Georgia, New York, and Oklahoma, and there is a major battle shaping up over a ballot initiative for universal pre-school in California. Unfortunately, these debates are raging largely in an evidence vacuum.
In Universal Childcare, Maternal Labor Supply, and Family Well-Being (NBER Working Paper No. 11832), authors Michael Baker, Jonathan Gruber, and Kevin Milligan measure the implications of universal childcare by studying the effects of the Quebec Family Policy. Beginning in 1997, the Canadian province of Quebec extended full-time kindergarten to all 5-year olds and included the provision of childcare at an out-of-pocket price of $5 per day to all 4-year olds. This $5 per day policy was extended to all 3-year olds in 1998, all 2-year olds in 1999, and finally to all children younger than 2 years old in 2000. Since welfare reform and other changes were occurring for single mothers over this time period, the authors focus on the effects of this policy on the married and cohabiting women and their children who received most of the new subsidies under this policy. They use data from the National Longitudinal Study of Canadian Youth (NLSCY), a large longitudinal survey of children inside and outside of Quebec, to develop the first comprehensive analysis of a universal subsidized childcare program, following its impact from childcare use through employment and finally to children's and parent's outcomes.
The authors first find that there was an enormous rise in childcare use in response to these subsidies: childcare use rose by one-third over just a few years. About a third of this shift appears to arise from women who previously had informal arrangements moving into the formal (subsidized) sector, and there were also equally large shifts from family and friend-based child care to paid care. Correspondingly, there was a large rise in the labor supply of married women when this program was introduced.
Disturbingly, the authors report that children's outcomes have worsened since the program was introduced along a variety of behavioral and health dimensions. The NLSCY contains a host of measures of child well being developed by social scientists, ranging from aggression and hyperactivity, to motor-social skills, to illness. Along virtually every one of these dimensions, children in Quebec see their outcomes deteriorate relative to children in the rest of the nation over this time period. Their results imply that this policy resulted in a rise of anxiety of children exposed to this new program of between 60 percent and 150 percent, and a decline in motor/social skills of between 8 percent and 20 percent. These findings represent a sharp break from previous trends in Quebec and the rest of the nation, and there are no such effects found for older children who were not subject to this policy change.
The authors also find that families became more strained with the introduction of the program, as manifested in more hostile, less consistent parenting, worse adult mental health, and lower relationship satisfaction for mothers.
The authors caution that their results are subject to a number of interpretations that highlight the importance of future work in this area. Most importantly, it is not clear whether the negative child outcomes are short-run transitions or long-term effects. Nevertheless, they caution that this subject requires more study before recommendations can be made about the long-run benefits of universal childcare
