I guess how you interpret this depends on where you sit on the political divide. (h/t NealeNews)
The report released on Wednesday says 54 per cent of children aged six months to five years were in some form of day care in 2002-03, up from 42 per cent in 1994-95. Ninety per cent of those children fell into three broad categories, each of roughly equal size: - Clients of day-care centres. - Cared for by a relative. - Cared for outside their home by a non-relative. The remaining 10 per cent were either looked after in their own homes with a non-relative, such as a nanny, or in other forms of care, such as nursery school or preschool.
So roughly 33% of children in day care are in bricks and mortar centres. This is roughly 18% of children from 6 months to five years of age. Except that Quebec, where bricks and morter centres are subsidized, skews the numbers upwards.
...In Quebec, for example, where a large system of government-subsidized day-care centres exists, more than half the children in care were enrolled in a day-care centre.
Socialists will say that this study proves that we need a National Day Care Program. I think it proves that the market is working and such a program mearly shifts people from choosing one from of day care to another. People are find what they need. Subsidizing just shufts the cost from the family to the general taxpayer. Why wouldn't you choose $7/day, if offered, over than the alternatives? I would drive a more expensive car if the government were to offer me it at cheaper than the one I currently have. But, just in case that was in doubt, I would be opposed to that as well.
Update: And check out the interview with Tracey Bushnik from Statistics Canada on CTV. Watch as Kate Wheeler tries to come out one way or another on the "choice-in-childcare" (I have my suspicions on what wya she wants, but I will be fair and leave the statement vague).
"What does it tell you?"
"And that means?"
"Did any one type of day care stand out across the country?"
"The report comes out as the Conservative government plans to scrap the Liberals multi-billion child care deal with the Provinces in favour of a $1200 a year per child allowance. How is that going to affect your numbers?"
"What do you think it tells the government?"
All those questions and Ms. Bushnik does not bite. I think this shows that Ms. Bushnik is a good statistician. The numbers are what they are and her job is to report them. It is not her job to judge what it implies in the way of government policies. But I should point out one thing, the answer to "what type stands out" can be debated. She stated that it was roughly equal between centres, relatives and non-relatives - which implies roughly 33% each. So the plurality has children cared for mostly in the home by a parent at ~46%.
Comments (18)
I think it proves that the only reason socialism isn’t working is that we don’t have enough of it. (sarcasm off)
Posted by nomdenet | April 5, 2006 3:39 PM
Posted on April 5, 2006 15:39
I am not sure how you conclude the market is working here, Greg? These stats don’t talk about the waiting lists for day care at all. I would think the existence of waiting lists was an indication that the market is not working.
Posted by Greg | April 5, 2006 3:52 PM
Posted on April 5, 2006 15:52
33% of parents are using bricks and mortar centres. That is a heckavu lot of market supply.
Posted by Greg Staples | April 5, 2006 3:54 PM
Posted on April 5, 2006 15:54
“I would think the existence of waiting lists was an indication that the market is not working.”
I would think that the existence of waiting lists indicates two things - prudent parents acting ahead of time to assure quality care, and an even bigger market for businesses to tap into. But then, dependency and infantilization aren’t really my scene.
Posted by Occam's Carbuncle | April 5, 2006 3:58 PM
Posted on April 5, 2006 15:58
It says: 46% are stay at home parents, 54% use daycare(up 12% from 10 years ago) that is distributed as follows 16.2% of children (30 % of the 54% of kids) Daycare 16.2% outside-non relative (30% of 54%) 16.2% in-out relative (30% of 54%) 5.4% in non-relative (10% of 54%) (nanny)
correct me if I read the stats wrong:
46% stay at home 16.2% daycare 16.2% out-non relative 16.2% out/in relative 5.4% in non-relative (nanny)
Posted by wilson | April 5, 2006 6:56 PM
Posted on April 5, 2006 18:56
“an even bigger market for businesses to tap into”
Except that businesses would have to compete with an entity, the government, that essentially has no bottom line. Hardly a level playing field.
Posted by potato | April 5, 2006 7:55 PM
Posted on April 5, 2006 19:55
If you go to the Stats Can site, studies show: in 2000/01 total # children in daycare was 53.2% in the just released report shows 53.6%; not a hugh increase 0.4%
Where is the 2004/05 report??, it is April 06.
Posted by wilson | April 5, 2006 8:37 PM
Posted on April 5, 2006 20:37
“What does it tell you?”
It tells me that more and more kids are getting dumped into daycare, because their parents are having a harder and harder time making ends meet, because their income is not keeping up with taxes and inflation. Both of which are 100% made-in-government problems.
The more impoverished they make ordinary people, the more that socialists can pretend to “care”, by taking even more money away from people
Posted by Anonymous | April 5, 2006 10:00 PM
Posted on April 5, 2006 22:00
Be fair now. A lot of parents are using day care so they can have a three-car garage and a beamer in the drive-way. Hey, that’s their choice but you can’t blame socialism for that.
Posted by Greg Staples | April 5, 2006 10:14 PM
Posted on April 5, 2006 22:14
“What does it tell you?”
It tells me that more and more kids are getting dumped into daycare, because their parents are having a harder and harder time making ends meet, because their incomes are not keeping up with taxes and inflation.
Er, I mean that incomes are not keeping up with taxes and inflation for SOME people. I see that the weekly earnings of “public administration” employees are doing a lot better than ordinary people’s paycheques. Check out the federal job salaries - they’re rising at well over twice the average rate of the Little People (up 19% in just four years). Sweet. And that doesn’t even include all those benefits and gold-plated pension plans.
So don’t let anyone tell you that socialists don’t take care of people. They take damn good care of themselves.
Posted by Justzumgai | April 5, 2006 10:28 PM
Posted on April 5, 2006 22:28
Be fair now. A lot of parents are using day care so they can have a three-car garage and a beamer in the drive-way. Hey, that’s their choice but you can’t blame socialism for that.
Greg, I know you probably don’t realize this (at least I hope not), but that kind of comment is just as insulting as “beer and popcorn”.
Posted by Greg | April 6, 2006 6:59 AM
Posted on April 6, 2006 06:59
33% of parents are using bricks and mortar centres. That is a heckavu lot of market supply.
If the market was working there would be no waiting list, no? It also tells me that some of the other alternatives being used are stop gaps until a space comes open.
Posted by Greg | April 6, 2006 7:01 AM
Posted on April 6, 2006 07:01
“If the market was working there would be no waiting list, no? “
How can we tell if the market place is actually working? Is the government competing fairly with private or nonprofit daycare? Do private and nonprofit daycares have access to an endless supply of revenue? Does subsidizing spaces have any affect on the market or does the effect of subsidies only apply to softwood lumber and agriculture?
Posted by Anonymous | April 6, 2006 8:55 AM
Posted on April 6, 2006 08:55
The difference being is that I support their choice. It is not what I would choose to do but it is their lives and their money. I have no business telling them what to do with them. And neither does the government.
Posted by Greg Staples | April 6, 2006 8:59 AM
Posted on April 6, 2006 08:59
The difference being is that I support their choice. It is not what I would choose to do but it is their lives and their money.
But you do realize the number of people who do that is a tiny, tiny, tiny group (comparable, I would suggest to the number of parents who would use the child care allowance for “beer and popcorn)? Using such an extreme example is every bit as insulting to working parents who use day care because it is the option that works best for them as the “beer and popcorn” smear.
Posted by Greg | April 6, 2006 9:32 AM
Posted on April 6, 2006 09:32
I would also suggest that the three car garage and beamer family is more likely to be contained in the “nanny” subgroup than the day care group.
Posted by Greg | April 6, 2006 9:35 AM
Posted on April 6, 2006 09:35
Man, I try to defend socialists by saying it is not all their fault and I still get ripped. ;)
I retract. It all the fault of those damned socialists. ;)
My point is that many families choose to have two incomes for the creature comforts. They could live on one income if they chose to live with less. Yes it is made harder by the tax burden but in the end it comes down to choices.
Some prefer the family vacation rather than having a single-income. Some choose a nicer house (which I was exagerating above) or a nicer car (again above) or they prefer the rewards to being in the work-force as opposed to the rewards of being in the home. Some need two-incomes to get by. Whatever. There are 100’s of different reasons. I, and my wife, have chosen what is best for our family, but I won’t blame socialism (solely) for the two-income familiy. And I don’t want to eliminate the two-income family either.
I just don’t think that day care needs to be nationalized.
Posted by Greg Staples | April 6, 2006 10:32 AM
Posted on April 6, 2006 10:32
Wonder what percentage of parents would choose to have one stay home and raise the kids - if they could afford it. I didn’t use day care to afford a 3 car garage and a beamer and I don’t know anyone who did.
Posted by Lyle Bert | April 6, 2006 12:38 PM
Posted on April 6, 2006 12:38