|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: unto us, several children to be born: daycare at your workplace?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Do you have a daycare at your workplace? Should workplaces have daycare in them for children? Should they be subsidized or free? Why is school paid via taxes if not daycare?
I provoked a meeting at my office I own with others. We are talking on how to afford providing an in house daycare, including before and after school care for staff's children. I'd like it to be 100% covered, budget suggests 50% co-pay where we pay half. Daycare here is ad hoc, extremely stressful and very expensive. Care can easily be $1000-1500 per month (£600-900). I think it shows we only pretend to like kids as societies.
Do we actually value children? As much as roads, bridges, tax breaks to industry, public buildings?
Personally, I'd like to see safe cheap and universal tax-paid daycare. What do you think?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Are you prepared to pay more taxes for it?
I would be. And for schools being open 7 - 7 so working parents have a hope of getting a job they want. I'm more and more hearing the 9 - 3 disadvantages women. [I realise my plan does not cater for shift-workers...I am not sure what the answer is there - 24 hour daycare?]
I have no kids, and never will. But there are some things that are important to society. And kids are one of them.
But the whole daycare profit-making business, sorry, industry, needs a good look at before they start charging government, and the taxpayer - at least here. I'd vote for more community-run daycare facilties, but I honestly do not know what I'm talking about as I have no experience except my own many, many years ago.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Do we actually value children? As much as roads, bridges, tax breaks to industry, public buildings?
Personally, I'd like to see safe cheap and universal tax-paid daycare. What do you think?
I value children, certainly. But daycare isn't about children - it's about enabling parents of children to work. For almost all children, daycare offers no benefit - they are not better off in daycare than at home with a parent.
So here's my question: if you're prepared to pay A to look after B's children, so B can go out to work, are you also prepared to cut out the middle man and pay B to look after his own children?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think, rather than spending vast amounts employing people to take care of other people's children, we should look at making it possible for people to look after their own children, and this means addressing the decline in real wages, particularly vs housing costs. I work full time and do extra work marking exams because my wife has a long term illness that makes paid work difficult, so having a child didn't affect our finances very much (our stress levels, on the other hand...) I'm also fortunate that I earn a professional salary and live somewhere relatively affordable to while money can be tight we're generally comfortable. By contrast my sister and her fiancee both work part time to let them do the bulk of the care for their child, but as they both previously worked full time and are in admin roles their finances end up much more difficult to manage and are reliant on the dog's regurgitated breakfast that is universal credit.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Mrs Backslider nearly went mad staying at home. She'd rather pay someone to do childcare so she can go out to work and avoid ending up in a padded cell.
We're arguing between two One Size Fits All solutions. Thing is, address the wage issue and people can afford either option.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
My company works with the education sector, which makes a big difference. Some of our staff - especially those on support work - work shorter days, and don't work at all during the holidays.
I think work being flexible about poeples needs is far more important than requiring specific child care. And making sure that this pays sufficiently to allow women to work these flexible hours.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht: quote:
For almost all children, daycare offers no benefit - they are not better off in daycare than at home with a parent.
That's not actually true. Daycare in the UK (or nursery, as we call it) is subject to national standards such as the Early Years/Foundation Stage National Curriculum and offers children a wider range of experiences than they would get at home with any but the most dedicated parent. And it's not an either/or situation: children who go to daycare still spend a lot of time with their parents. But sure, if you want to limit children to what their parents think they should learn and/or are able to teach them, go right ahead.
Also, many mothers of small children are highly-trained professionals whose knowledge needs to be kept up-to-date if they are to continue in practice (doctors, for example). This is a non-trivial cost, both to the women whose careers are put on hold and to society.
And what Karl said.
[ 02. December 2017, 10:41: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
For clarity the National Curriculum applies to England, not the whole of the UK. Education is a devolved matter and Scotland has a different system (Early Learning and Childcare, utilising the Early Level of Curriculum for Excellence).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
England and Wales, actually. But that's why I said 'such as'. I think the main difference between the ones for England and Wales is the provision for Welsh language teaching.
[ 02. December 2017, 10:51: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
For almost all children, daycare offers no benefit - they are not better off in daycare than at home with a parent.
Disagree, the Ricardling gets to socialise with other children, plus (as Jane R says) he gets a different range of experiences, plus nursery staff with childcare qualifications who can flag up any issues with his development rather more effectively than other people.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The levels of stress for working people with children is atrocious. I remember it well. I like the idea of a board meeting and there's an interruption because a child needs dad or mom to comfort. And we see the after school kids and learn about their math homework.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
I remember a sad morning. It was about 6 am, dark and cold, and a single mother with child got on the bus I was riding. She was taking her child to daycare and hoping to make the next bus so she wouldn't be late for her 7 am shift. Surely, a daycare at work would have been a benefit to both mother and child.
I'm not sure how she would manage things once her child started school. Most schools have before,- and after-care service, but typically they start at 7 am.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Leorning Cniht: quote:
For almost all children, daycare offers no benefit - they are not better off in daycare than at home with a parent.
That's not actually true.
Please post your data. Every study I am aware of only shows a measurable benefit for children from the most deprived backgrounds.
To your point about professional parents needing to keep up-to-date, or Karl's about Mrs. Backslider climbing walls, sure. I agree. There are good reasons to choose to put your children in daycare, and as long as you choose a reasonable one, they'll be generally happy and will do fine. But those reasons are about the parents, not the children.
And on that basis, you don't persuade me that I should pay for it. (It's clear to me that childcare for employed parents should be tax-deductible: it's a business expense.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The problem with making things tax deductible is that this largely favours the better off. Tax policy isn't a matter of proceeding logically from axioms (e.g. business expenses shouldn't be taxed) but saying "does taxing or not taxing this, on balance, best serve our financial and policy goals as a society?" Better, surely, to apply a tax rate reduction (which could end up negative for those on low incomes) for people with children, to enable them to decide whether paid-for childcare or making arrangements for there to always be at least one parent at home are the best option.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Leorning Cniht: quote:
For almost all children, daycare offers no benefit - they are not better off in daycare than at home with a parent.
That's not actually true.
Please post your data. Every study I am aware of only shows a measurable benefit for children from the most deprived backgrounds.
To your point about professional parents needing to keep up-to-date, or Karl's about Mrs. Backslider climbing walls, sure. I agree. There are good reasons to choose to put your children in daycare, and as long as you choose a reasonable one, they'll be generally happy and will do fine. But those reasons are about the parents, not the children.
And on that basis, you don't persuade me that I should pay for it. (It's clear to me that childcare for employed parents should be tax-deductible: it's a business expense.)
One way or another you will. Either you'll pay more for products and services so that businesses can pay their employees sufficiently that they can support a family on one income or afford childcare, or else you'll end up paying for the government either to subsidise childcare or subsidise the wages of those too poorly paid to afford either of the former options.
Alternatively, of course, neither could happen and you'll have millions of children brought up in poverty, left alone at home, or a situation where only the wealthiest can afford to have children, in which case you've got a demographic time-bomb coming.
You pays yer money...
[ 03. December 2017, 10:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So here's my question: if you're prepared to pay A to look after B's children, so B can go out to work, are you also prepared to cut out the middle man and pay B to look after his own children?
Yes. The work of childcare by family members, just like eldercare and care for the sick and disabled, is a huge part of our economy that the fact that it is not justly compensated is not only one of the major elements of the exploitation of women (who are often the caregivers in our culture), but also a large reason why (in the case of care for the elderly, sick, and disabled), the happenstance circumstances of one's family's health can force one to quit one's job or only work part time, ruin one's finances, and wreak havoc on one's (the caregiver's) physical and mental health.
The disparity between the affluent and barely-getting-by in terms of ability to afford to have one family member be a full-time parent or caregiver without putting the whole family's financial health at risk is a huge contributor to income inequality and different outcomes in education and healthcare across social classes.
Paying stay-at-home parents and caregivers for their labor (and yes, even if done out of love, it is labor) is only part of the solution to this problem, but it is a good start. Universal Basic Income is one way to make this happen, but there are others.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Please post your data. Every study I am aware of only shows a measurable benefit for children from the most deprived backgrounds.
To your point about professional parents needing to keep up-to-date, or Karl's about Mrs. Backslider climbing walls, sure. I agree. There are good reasons to choose to put your children in daycare, and as long as you choose a reasonable one, they'll be generally happy and will do fine. But those reasons are about the parents, not the children.
And on that basis, you don't persuade me that I should pay for it. (It's clear to me that childcare for employed parents should be tax-deductible: it's a business expense.)
Agree 100%. The OP implies that if we care about children we will be all for free day care. I care enough about children to want them to have that one on one with a parent for, at least, the first three years that child psychologists agree is ideal for them. Taking a six month old baby from it's mother and putting it inside a daycare where twenty other children are vying for attention isn't something I'm excited to pay for.
Instead of clamoring for society to throw more money at childcare, I think society should be encouraging people to plan a little better before bringing children into the world. Getting married first so that one person can work while the other stays home with the infant is still a good plan for the children and it's much more doable, even in today's economy, than many people think it is.
The "I'll run mad," excuse doesn't sit well with me either. With the internet, TV, books, evening education classes, and play groups, no one should be feeling the isolation or mental lack of stimulation that should bring on insanity. I think it's usually the lack of job related ego strokes that such parents are really missing.
It's like the "But, I have to work!" that really means, "We both had to work to afford two cars and a big house."
Yes, I know there really are people who would become depressed if they had to stay home and couples that wouldn't be able to eat and pay rent if they didn't both work, but I think they are a small minority and probably not the people working in the big corporations.
Three years out of one's entire life is not a big deal and if a tiny bump in the "career path," is the most important thing in your life, maybe you don't really want children.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It does come down to what societies agree to pay for and what is "user pay". If schools are publicly funded from taxes why not daycare? (I realise UK may be different than this way where social inequality is more ingrained, accepted as normal and where private pay schools are more common, private schools here are rare, there is one tier of public school education, though it varies province to province).
It does impact women's careers to have children. People discriminate against women in hiring if they believe they might have children. Illegal but definitely happens. It does impact health of people to have the stress of poor and unreliable daycare. It does increase gender inequality. Daycare does not harm development of children when it meets standards.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The discrimination in hiring would be significantly reduced if discrimination in parental leave were eliminated. I got one week on full pay and one week on the legal minimum, while my wife is self-employed so got nothing. Had our roles been reversed she'd have had six months on full pay then another six on the legal minimum. That, to my mind, is crazy.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Twilight, your opinion contradicts my reality. I'll go with reality. I'll tell Mrs Backslider she was just being silly and selfish ot exaggerating if you like, but you'd best be glad the Atlantic separates you if I do.
[ 03. December 2017, 15:24: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
It isn't true that children do better being looked after by a parent at home. I'll have to find the citations, but children in preschool/childcare situations develop social skills and independence more quickly than other children.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
And for the record, one car and a house we're now extendeding because it's too small. The assumptions the judgemental make are nauseating.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
KLB, please remember not to be easily offended, not to offend easily, and to take any remaining differences to Hell.
Thank you.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The "I'll run mad," excuse doesn't sit well with me either. With the internet, TV, books, evening education classes, and play groups, no one should be feeling the isolation or mental lack of stimulation that should bring on insanity.
It is I suppose arguable that a child might be better off getting one on one attention from a parent than getting stimulation from other children and carers in a nursery. I think it's beyond doubt that a child is better off in a nursery than sat in front of the internet or a TV.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
One way or another you will. Either you'll pay more for products and services so that businesses can pay their employees sufficiently that they can support a family on one income or afford childcare, or else you'll end up paying for the government either to subsidise childcare or subsidise the wages of those too poorly paid to afford either of the former options.
I see I didn't express myself very clearly. My position is that the government shouldn't prefer either a parent staying home with the children or the parent going out to work and putting the children in daycare, and to this end, whatever financial support is offered to parents should be offered equally to working and stay-at-home parents.
My preference would be to achieve this with a citizen's basic income payable for children (not at the same rate as an adult rate; quite possibly higher for infants and at a more modest level for school-age children) and then let parents make their own choices.
Arethosemyfeet:
No. Making tax-deductible a legitimate expense that you require in order to earn money is entirely reasonable, sensible, and consistent. Giving people money if they choose a particular choice is something else entirely. What you propose is a fiscal transfer from someone who chooses to stay at home to an equivalent person who chooses to work. I object to that.
(In general, you will find me supporting universal benefits and higher taxes, and opposing governments picking and choosing favoured subgroups.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
NZ has 30 hours free pre-school education for all children aged between 3 and 5, and subsidised before, after and holiday programmes for school aged children.
The family over the road consists of Mum, Dad and two pre-schoolers. Dad works full-time and Mum looks after the children. Two mornings a week the children go to pre-school which gives their mother a break to do other things. When she told me about their arrangements she sounded a bit defensive, but my reaction was very positive.
As a taxpayer I have no problem in supporting people to make their own decisions as to what suits their family's needs. If the main care-giver is climbing walls then the rest of the family aren't going to be happy either.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Twilight, your opinion contradicts my reality. I'll go with reality. I'll tell Mrs Backslider she was just being silly and selfish ot exaggerating if you like, but you'd best be glad the Atlantic separates you if I do.
I am glad to have the buffer! It's impossible to have this sort of discussion without offending some parents, but I'll continue to take the side of the children who are too young to read the posts that seem to think their well-being is a reasonable sacrifice to their parents earning power and glittering career path.
Daffyd: It was not the child but the mother I was suggesting go on the internet or read a book. It was to keep her from "running mad."
Working parents have been clutching to the guilt relieving crumbs of studies that show small benefits in daycare raised children, for years. Yes, of course, the daycare kids are going to be more comfortable in strange social situations -- they've had to be, haven't they? The facts still remain that, over all, it's best for children to stay home during the early years.
study
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Studies vs studies. What make yours better than theirs, Twilight?
The fact is, what's better for parents and children will vary from family to family and situation to situation.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Studies vs studies. What make yours better than theirs, Twilight?
The fact is, what's better for parents and children will vary from family to family and situation to situation.
Because long term studies show an over all serious problem with children who go to daycare full time, while the pro-daycare studies tend to be all about minor advantages, mainly for the financial success of the mother.
It is a wonder to me that studies like the one I'll link next have been out since 2003 and no one really cares. They say things like, "children vary," just as you have and that seems to settled it all in their minds and the next thing you know we have a thread where someone implies that if we really cared about children we would want free daycare for all of them.
Of course, you'll be able to find exceptions. Cases where the family has no choice, but I think those situations are few and far between and not a reason to ignore the best interests of the majority of children.
another study
From the link: quote:
The study, which began in 1991, found that the more hours the children spent in child care, the higher the incidence of problem behavior and the greater its severity.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The fact is, what's better for parents and children will vary from family to family and situation to situation.
And therefore government should express no preference.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
The fact is, what's better for parents and children will vary from family to family and situation to situation.
And therefore government should express no preference.
Preference, maybe not. But financial and vocal support for programmes, yes.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Preference, maybe not. But financial and vocal support for programmes, yes.
If you support X but not Y financially, that is a preference for X.
If the government handed out steaks to everyone on the grounds that people should be able to have a decent meal, vegetarian taxpayers would have the right to feel rather aggrieved if they were told "you can choose whether or not you eat the steak").
[ 04. December 2017, 00:06: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Preference, maybe not. But financial and vocal support for programmes, yes.
If you support X but not Y financially, that is a preference for X.
If the government handed out steaks to everyone on the grounds that people should be able to have a decent meal, vegetarian taxpayers would have the right to feel rather aggrieved if they were told "you can choose whether or not you eat the steak").
Rubbish. As bullshit as healthcare being paid only by sick people.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Rubbish. As bullshit as healthcare being paid only by sick people.
Not at all rubbish, and not at all the same as "healthcare only being paid by sick people".
Let's take this in very slow steps.
People who get sick do not have a sensible choice about whether to want treatment or not. If you are sick, you need treatment.
Childcare is a choice. Obviously people without children don't need it, but people with children can reasonably want to have it, or can reasonably not want to have it.
(This statement is true for the middle classes. The poor are in a rather different situation, but their problem is not so much a lack of childcare as it is a general lack of money. The discussion of how much support we should offer the poor, and what form it should take, is a different subject.)
If you provide "free" childcare, you provide a massive financial incentive for parents to use the childcare and get a job.
Consider two couples - ordinary middle class Americans. Teachers, nurses, whatever. All with about the same earning capacity. Each couple has two children.
One couple prefers to have a parent stay home with the children, and manages to live on a single income. Money is very tight.
The other couple prefer to both work, and purchase (at the full economic cost) daycare for their children to allow that. The daycare consumes a significant fraction of one partner's take home pay. Money is pretty tight, but they're a little better off than their neighbours above.
Now introduce "free" childcare. The second couple are now financially comfortable. They have two incomes to live on.
The first couple saw their taxes go up to pay for the "free" childcare. Money is now exceptionally tight, and you may well have forced the stay-at-home partner to put the children in daycare at least part time and get a job in order to make ends meet.
That's your scheme, and it is evil.
My preference is to give both couples money. Attach a basic income to each child. Each couple finds themselves enriched by the same amount. The working couple are still a bit better off than the couple with the stay-at-home parent, and the incentives for the couple to choose work over stay-at-home and unchanged.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Care to elaborate on why?
LC's logic seems sound to me. AIUI, he's not saying that childcare shouldn't be funded, he's saying that all childcare options should be funded equally, and the most efficient way of doing this is by paying the parents directly.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
[Sorry, that post was to lilBuddha.]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Studies vs studies. What make yours better than theirs, Twilight?
The fact is, what's better for parents and children will vary from family to family and situation to situation.
Because long term studies show an over all serious problem with children who go to daycare full time, while the pro-daycare studies tend to be all about minor advantages, mainly for the financial success of the mother.
It is a wonder to me that studies like the one I'll link next have been out since 2003 and no one really cares. They say things like, "children vary," just as you have and that seems to settled it all in their minds and the next thing you know we have a thread where someone implies that if we really cared about children we would want free daycare for all of them.
Of course, you'll be able to find exceptions. Cases where the family has no choice, but I think those situations are few and far between and not a reason to ignore the best interests of the majority of children.
another study
From the link: quote:
The study, which began in 1991, found that the more hours the children spent in child care, the higher the incidence of problem behavior and the greater its severity.
Ah, but you missed the money quote:
from your own linked article:
quote:
"But while none of those variables entirely offset the negative effects that the study found, the mother's sensitivity and the family's socioeconomic status had a greater influence on children's behavior than did the amount of time spent in child care. Greater maternal sensitivity and higher level of family income and education correlated with better behavior in the children, the study found."
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Lots of studies.
The overall conclusion of which is that the evidence is contradictory, but neither the positive nor the negative effects are particularly large outside of the more extreme cases (e.g. full time daycare below the age of one does seem to be a Bad Thing).
Which admittedly is backtracking from my first post, but doesn't really support the apocalypticism of Twilight's links either.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Care to elaborate on why?
LC's logic seems sound to me. AIUI, he's not saying that childcare shouldn't be funded, he's saying that all childcare options should be funded equally, and the most efficient way of doing this is by paying the parents directly.
All options funded equally typically ends up being a subsidy to the rich, which they do not need, and not enough for the poor.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Care to elaborate on why?
LC's logic seems sound to me. AIUI, he's not saying that childcare shouldn't be funded, he's saying that all childcare options should be funded equally, and the most efficient way of doing this is by paying the parents directly.
All options funded equally typically ends up being a subsidy to the rich, which they do not need, and not enough for the poor.
It only subsidises the rich if the tax system is insufficiently progressive.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Twilight: quote:
It's impossible to have this sort of discussion without offending some parents, but I'll continue to take the side of the children who are too young to read the posts that seem to think their well-being is a reasonable sacrifice to their parents earning power and glittering career path.
My daughter may have been too young to read when she started at nursery, but she was quite capable of making her views known. She used to cry when she was being carried OUT of nursery at the end of the day, because my arrival always interrupted her in the middle of playing with her friends.
Sending her to nursery was a guarantee of 'power and a glittering career path', was it? I must have done something wrong.
And some parents are not fit to look after their children. I hope your concern extends to them, too.
Getting back to the subject of the OP, here is a meta-analysis of studies on the effect of childcare on children's development. The basic conclusion is that the quality of early childcare is important: high-quality childcare usually has a positive effect, low-quality care has either no effect or a negative effect. For children over the age of 3, the effects are obvious and easily measurable; under the age of three the benefits are less clear, except for disadvantaged children receiving good-quality care who do far better than they would otherwise have done.
FWIW, Leorning Cniht, I agree that paying a basic income for children and allowing parents to choose whether to spend the money on childcare or having the child looked after at home is better than simply subsidising childcare or providing it free of charge. I have no objection to you choosing to care for your child at home, provided you (generic you) do not use it as an excuse to look down your nose at me for making a different choice.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
Meh. I would quite like to stay at home with a baby. I Cannot. Afford. It.
I am married and live in an apartment that is nothing special. I don’t have a car. Rents here are simply too high to pay on a single salary. Even with two incomes, there’s nothing uncommon here about spending 50% of your take-home salary on keeping a roof over your head. The only way we could make it work is by moving to the provinces, and then I would go insane. (It’s not the baby that would do for my sanity, but small town living.)
My choices are – move to the sticks – be homeless – go to work. It would be nice to have others, but I don’t. One more way my generation got screwed by the skyrocketing price of housing.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Twilight, your opinion contradicts my reality. I'll go with reality. I'll tell Mrs Backslider she was just being silly and selfish ot exaggerating if you like, but you'd best be glad the Atlantic separates you if I do.
I am glad to have the buffer! It's impossible to have this sort of discussion without offending some parents, but I'll continue to take the side of the children who are too young to read the posts that seem to think their well-being is a reasonable sacrifice to their parents earning power and glittering career path.
Daffyd: It was not the child but the mother I was suggesting go on the internet or read a book. It was to keep her from "running mad."
Working parents have been clutching to the guilt relieving crumbs of studies that show small benefits in daycare raised children, for years. Yes, of course, the daycare kids are going to be more comfortable in strange social situations -- they've had to be, haven't they? The facts still remain that, over all, it's best for children to stay home during the early years
Nope.
I had plenty of choice. My husband was a headteacher. I went back to work when each of my children were six months old. Their childminders were far, far better, more patient and experienced child readers than I was.
My children had lovely evenings, weekends and holidays with us. I enjoyed work - as did my husband. A couple of years later he decided he was tired of his job and became a house husband for four years. I was acting headteacher by then, so financially we were sound. After that he got a new job as international director of a charity.
We went on amazing holidays due to our good salaries. We were able to fund our boys’ courses to become a nurse in Germany and the other an airline pilot.
Nobody has any right to criticise the choices of sensible, caring parents.
I am not a home bird, I can’t do house work or cooking or any of that nonsense. We are retired now and my husband is shopper and chef. I do the cleaning etc - but badly!
My sons? Lovely boys, happy and settled and both still have the travel bug. One is on holiday in New York just now with his wife and one in Thailand with his GF.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
My daughter may have been too young to read when she started at nursery, but she was quite capable of making her views known. She used to cry when she was being carried OUT of nursery at the end of the day, because my arrival always interrupted her in the middle of playing with her friends.
That's great for her. According to the studies the majority of children had this reaction: quote:
The other study found that in children younger than 3, levels of cortisol, a hormone associated with stress, rose in the afternoon during full days they spent in day care, but fell as the hours passed on days they spent at home. This study's researchers, from the Institute of Child Development of the University of Minnesota, had earlier found the same pattern in 3- and 4-year-olds.
Cortisol levels in the saliva of day care children were highest and rose most steeply in those judged by day care center personnel to be the shyest. ''These children struggle in group situations and find them stressful,'' said the study's lead author, Dr. Megan R. Gunnar.
I find the picture of these children, exhausted and stressed from the sensory overload by the afternoon, very sad.
From Cliffdweller's quote: quote:
quote:
"But while none of those variables entirely offset the negative effects that the study found, the mother's sensitivity and the family's socioeconomic status had a greater influence on children's behavior than did the amount of time spent in child care. Greater maternal sensitivity and higher level of family income and education correlated with better behavior in the children, the study found."
The government has no way to guarantee that all children have "sensitive," rich, well-educated mothers. I'm sure children with such fabulous mothers do weather daycare better.
As we've all been saying mothers and children do vary. Maybe Karl's wife really would have "run mad," and Jane R's child needs more stimulation than most. But we, at least some of us, are trying to talk generalities rather than exceptions here because when it comes to government funding, we should be looking at what will help the most children.
In this community it's the poorest children who seem to be getting the best care. I know a young single mother who is raising her three children on various forms of welfare. They are with her all day every day and she proudly says they've never been in daycare. Some day they will all be in school and then she can go to work fulltime.
I would much rather the government spend my tax money on helping mothers of small children stay home than helping them go to work, because I sincerely believe it's best for the majority of children. As a tax payer I have a right to form an opinion on the subject even if it doesn't agree with every parent's choice.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Absolutely everybody is better off as a result of my decision to return to work 12 months after my son was born and 8 months after my daughter. I employed a nanny - but don't think of Mary Poppins - this was a local woman with her own daughter, 4 years older than my son. She then went on to have her second child a couple of years before I had my second child. So finally, we had four children between us. She stayed with us for more than 10 years, became my daughter's godmother and my good friend.
I basically split my salary after tax between the two of us - so between our two families, we had one job in a city firm and one stay at home mum and divided the spoils. Think of it like a job-share but where one of us did all the outside-the-home bit and one did the inside-the-home bit. This meant I was paying lots of income tax on my salary, and also deducting income tax and NI from the half I then paid to my nanny - which was good for the economy and for public services.
The fact that I stayed in work meant that I was able to progress into a position where I can now work part time and fully flexibly, so I do 21 hours a week now and am at home most afternoons to help my son - now secondary school age - with homework, and listen to his news now that he's at an age when I'm much more concerned about what kind of people he is mixing with, what he's doing in his spare time etc.
My former nanny is now a classroom assistant, providing one-to-one support for a special needs child. She tops up her salary from this by doing some holiday care for me. She has a stakeholder pension that I started for her as her employer. And one day a week, I pick her younger daughter up from school and bring her home to play with my daughter before they then go swimming together - they are very close.
Good things about our arrangement that it would be great for more people to be able to access:
(1) Decent wages and tax treatment that enables people to pay fairly for child care
(2) More opportunities in the work-place for job-sharing, part-time and flexible work (I see so many jobs advertised that could be done by two part time workers, but are advertised as one full-time - perhaps we need more tax incentives for business to employ job-sharers?)
I've been very, very lucky and I would like more people to have the choices I have had.
[ 04. December 2017, 11:08: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Twilight - you do, but at least take into account what actual real parents with actual real children are telling you when you do so.
[ 04. December 2017, 11:08: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Why generalise?
In an ideal world all parents would have the choice of work or stay at home while the children are babies/toddlers.
I am more than happy for my tax to go to give parents the choice - mothers or fathers. Why assume Dads shouldn’t be just as entitled to be paid to do the childcare.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why generalise?
Because that is how you make decisions for a society. It is the only practical way for a government to govern responsibly. It is rare, if not completely impossible, to account for every particular situation, so the the best general solution is the one to choose.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
My daughter may have been too young to read when she started at nursery, but she was quite capable of making her views known. She used to cry when she was being carried OUT of nursery at the end of the day, because my arrival always interrupted her in the middle of playing with her friends.
That's great for her. According to the studies the majority of children had this reaction: quote:
The other study found that in children younger than 3, levels of cortisol, a hormone associated with stress, rose in the afternoon during full days they spent in day care, but fell as the hours passed on days they spent at home. This study's researchers, from the Institute of Child Development of the University of Minnesota, had earlier found the same pattern in 3- and 4-year-olds.
Cortisol levels in the saliva of day care children were highest and rose most steeply in those judged by day care center personnel to be the shyest. ''These children struggle in group situations and find them stressful,'' said the study's lead author, Dr. Megan R. Gunnar.
I find the picture of these children, exhausted and stressed from the sensory overload by the afternoon, very sad.
From Cliffdweller's quote: quote:
quote:
"But while none of those variables entirely offset the negative effects that the study found, the mother's sensitivity and the family's socioeconomic status had a greater influence on children's behavior than did the amount of time spent in child care. Greater maternal sensitivity and higher level of family income and education correlated with better behavior in the children, the study found."
The government has no way to guarantee that all children have "sensitive," rich, well-educated mothers. I'm sure children with such fabulous mothers do weather daycare better.
My point was that you are being very selective in the way you are reading even this one particular study. You highlight one finding that was-- according to the authors-- only loosely correlated, while completely ignoring/discounting what the authors of the study themselves say was the one strong correlation.
And there ARE things that the government can do to help encourage "sensitive, rich (or at least not poor), well-educated mothers"-- they just don't happen to be the ones you want to encourage. Providing subsidies for child care so women can go back to school, complete their education, get a better-paying job, learn about child development-- those would be excellent ways to achieve those things-- not guarantees, of course, but then neither is what you're suggesting. And again, they are encouraging the things the study showed were most strongly correlated with the positive outcomes you say you want to see.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I would much rather the government spend my tax money on helping mothers of small children stay home than helping them go to work, because I sincerely believe it's best for the majority of children. As a tax payer I have a right to form an opinion on the subject even if it doesn't agree with every parent's choice.
You have a right to form an opinion-- as does everyone else-- and no one is suggesting otherwise. We have the right to point out that your opinion is not based on good science (as you suggest) but rather on wanting to impose your own agenda on everyone else.
I would agree with other posters that each family, each child, and each parent is so highly individualistic that it is impossible to impose the sorts of one-size-fits all dictates you're suggesting. Within my own family, each of my 3 children was so different, and the economic/life conditions so unique, that each had a very different response from us in terms of work/life/child care balance. The best thing we can do as a society is give parents the flexibility and resources they need to make these individual decisions in the best interests of their child. I like the proposal upthread about providing income subsidies rather than tying them to child care so that parents can freely decide whether to have a stay-at-home parent or child care. But also having better standards for child care-- staff/child ratios, turnover, training, and content of care-- is essential.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Cliffdweller; quote:
We have the right to point out that your opinion is not based on good science (as you suggest) but rather on wanting to impose your own agenda on everyone else.
The title of the article is, "Two Studies Link Childcare to Behavior Problems in Daycare" and yet you say I'm reading it wrong to come to the conclusion that it's not generally a good thing.
I think you are the one reading it wrong if the only sentence you're paying attention to is the one that makes a slight exception (while saying it doesn't totally offset the negative) for certain well off, well educated "sensitive" parents. That's Boogie and her scenario. So fine for her and her perfect boys, but the majority of children in daycare do not have all that going for them at home. Many of them are being picked up around six from daycare, taken along to the supermarket, waiting for dinner to be prepared, eating, and going to bed. They are too little for long lovely evenings at home. They still need about 12 hours sleep so if they were awakened at six in the morning they don't have the energy for all this quality time the parents might have in mind. They are essentially being raised by the daycare worker along with her ten to fifteen other toddlers.
Remember we're talking about preschoolers in daycare. Not school age children and not nanny or shared babysitting situations.
I am absolutely not imposing my agenda on anyone. Any parent who wants to put their child in daycare is perfectly free to do so and free to pay for it. You are the one imposing agendas if you require me to fund your agenda through taxes.
[ 04. December 2017, 17:59: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
