Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program (2015) [pdf]

Post by didibus » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 6:31 PM UTC

zimablue wrote: post #47

didibus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not inexpensive, but a shared burden across all of society. Quebec assumes that society needs children to sustain itself. That a child today is revenue tomorrow that goes back to society and helps pay for other's retirements, etc. So it's only fair for those choosing not to actively have children, to still contribute slightly in helping those who choose to have them.

Which flies in the face of population growth and is also sociologically injust in the long term since it's rich people who are trending towards having more children (and also the privileged in more subtle ways: https://medium.com/makingofamillionaire/rich-families-are-ha... The source in that article doesn't show a complete reversal of the old trend yet but bear in mind that I think the level of privilege of parents…

Post by sonnyblarney » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 8:08 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #52

sonnyblarney wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"non-cognitive development is important and clearly lacking in government supported child-care." I really doubt this. FYI I live in Quebec, and on my Highstreet there are a handful of daycares where normal businesses/stores/restaurants would be. Because they are small and common, it seems everyone is only a few hundred meters from their childcare around here. There are so, so many correlating factors that I'm going t…

> I would say there is a defeatist, antagonist attitude (for the last 100 years), but in the most recent generation ... it's like they also have a kind of 'given up' attitude. If you and pretty much everyone around you believed X and the rest of the country just did Y anyway every time you can't blame them. If you're not in control of your own destiny why bother since what you do won't matter?

Post by drjasonharrison » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 9:52 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #15

flukus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take away the dollar figures and it makes sense, 1 person caring for 8 or so children (child care) should be much more efficient than 1 person looking after 1/2/3 children (normal for home care). That this efficiency ends up lining someone else's pockets would be a separate issue.

For most families, the efficiency gained is a few thousand dollars a year max. The real motivator is that leaving the workforce these days for any length of time is a death sentence for future employment.

Post by drjasonharrison » Fri, Jan 04, 2019, 9:57 PM UTC

didibus wrote: post #45

Had to search what are non-cognitive skills. They are: emotional maturity, empathy, interpersonal skills and verbal and non-verbal communication.

Post by dang » Sat, Jan 05, 2019, 1:59 AM UTC

killjoywashere wrote: post #6

xupybd wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I think they are saying the lack of non-cognitive skills appears to be what is lacking. But there does seem to be some evidence that those who are in parental care better develop these skills and have better outcomes. I think the tricky part will be demonstrating how to provide these non-cognitive skills outside of parental care. Economically we are far better off with children in care and parents in the work for…

I have some real cognitive dissonance with the mixed desires for women to have complete equality in the workplace, and children who are perfectly cared for as though they were in their mother's arms, yet the children can't come to work in many cases for very practical reasons (highly intellectually demanding work settings, high risk work settings, etc). And at the same time, it's all men's fault.